Poker News / Short-Stacked Shamus / 16 September 2011 / Leave a Comment

It has been a rocky few weeks for poker, overall, with all sorts of off-the-felt battles and stories not exactly helping to present the game in the most favorable way. As Dusty Schmidt, author of Don't Listen to Phil Hellmuth (reviewed here), asked somewhat exasperatingly on his blog yesterday, "What is going on these days in the poker community?"

In his post, Schmidt alludes to several examples of questionable behavior in poker that have been recently brought to light, such as the whole Jose "Girah" Macedo scandal, "the Full Tilt and UB mess," and other incidents, all of which he's found "very disheartening." "I badly want to be proud of the industry I am involved in," adds the online pro. "But it is becoming increasingly difficult with all of the scams that are going on."

Schmidt favors the policing of this "Wild, Wild West right now in poker," specifically calling for online poker in the U.S. to become licensed and regulated, thereby ensuring scammers and other ne'er-do-wells receive the punishments they deserve.

Ethics and Epic

Schmidt also addresses another controversy involving the Epic Poker League's recently completed second tournament series, in which a player who had won a seat in the $20,000 Main Event via the $1,500 "Pro/Am" satellite subsequently did not play in the ME.

While much is in dispute regarding that situation, the revelation prior to the Main Event that the player, Michael DiVita, had a criminal history that included a conviction for a sex offense involving a minor clearly had some bearing on his not participating in the ME.

One question concerns whether DiVita voluntarily withdrew from the ME or not. Another revolves around the fact that DiVita only was only refunded his $1,500 buy-in for the Pro/Am and not the $20,000 value of the ME seat he had won. (For more on the dispute, see Matthew Pitt's report here.)

Another meaningful element of this latter situation is the Epic Poker League's stated commitment "to promoting excellence and professionalism in live tournament poker through integrity in play and good personal character" and thus improve poker's standing in the culture at large.

To that end, the EPL has both a "Code of Conduct" with which its players are to abide and a "Standards & Conduct Committee" whose charges include overseeing players' compliance with the Code of Conduct, imposing discipline (if needed) according to the EPL's policies for doing so, and helping maintain the league's "credibility and integrity" as part of that overall effort to "further enhance professionalism in the game of poker everywhere."

To date the Committee has acted once, issuing a "Notice of Disciplinary Action" to David "Chino" Rheem, winner of the EPL's first Main Event, in which Rheem was placed on probation due to "personal financial obligations incurred prior to the League's formation but impacting the League during the Inaugural Epic Poker Main Event."

The Committee did not act with regard to the Michael DiVita situation, although Stephen Martin, an ethics professor who serves as the Committee's chairman, has been interviewed by BLUFF Magazine and on QuadJacks Radio regarding it.

Ethics in Poker?

Interestingly, there are those who have criticized the very idea of a poker league attempting to have a "Code of Conduct" and/or a "Standards & Conduct Committee."

On this week's Two Plus Two Pokercast, one of the guests was Mike McDonald, winner of the second EPL Main Event. When noting that McDonald was going to be appearing on the show, co-host Mike Johnson pointed out how the young player "has found himself on this controversial ethics review committee" along with a number of other EPL players, the league's Tournament Director Matt Savage (interviewed here), and league commissioner Annie Duke who participates as a non-voting member.

"So he's part of this ethics committee," continued Johnson. "And, of course, one of the questions that we've posed is 'How can you have an ethics committee, first of all, in poker, which is already gambling... [which] some people would consider... to be ethically questionable in the first place?'"

Johnson's question is provocative, insofar as it seems to suggest that poker cannot be policed or regulated or restrained by a set of rules regarding conduct. The implication here seems to be that if poker is, as some believe, already "ethically questionable," it thus really is a "Wild, Wild West" that people like Schmidt need to realize cannot be tamed by standards, rules, laws, or codes of conduct.

Johnson continued, his next question further suggesting there exists a kind of insurmountable difficulty when it comes to managing poker and/or poker players: "Secondly, how do you decide within the poker world what is ethical and what isn't?"

He and his co-host Adam Schwartz then spoke further about the DiVita situation, regarding which both agreed that while DiVita's criminal past wins him no sympathy on a personal level, he was nonetheless deserving of at least the cash equivalent of the $20,000 seat he'd won in the Pro/Am.

In support of that argument, Johnson interestingly characterized the issue as "a question of poker ethics and poker integrity." Having paid his entry fee and won his way into the ME "fair and square," Johnson argues that "the right thing to do gambling-wise and poker-wise is to give this guy the $20,000 and send him on his way."

I think instinctively most of us understand what Johnson is talking about when he refers to "poker ethics" and "the right thing to do gambling-wise and poker-wise." Within poker there does exist what amounts to a kind of code of "fair play" to which all who play must adhere in order for the games to proceed. Having agreed to terms beforehand, winners must be paid and losers must be willing to pay. Otherwise, how can we even play the game. Right?

That said, bringing up the idea of "poker ethics" does seem to counter that earlier point that poker is a realm in which ethics or "standards" do not apply. The fact is, poker has always been played according to various "standards" or "codes of conduct."

The Riverboat Ethos, the Gambler's Code, and Other "Standards"

For much of poker's early history, cheating was largely understood as "part of the game." In Cowboys Full, James McManus (interviewed here) describes the "cheating game" of the 19th century in which a cardsharp playing a game aboard a ship holds an ace out in full view of the spectators watching. "Indeed, everyone seems to accept a riverboat ethos in which professionals openly cheat but will injure you if you accuse them" explains McManus.

In his autobiography, The Godfather of Poker (reviewed here), Doyle Brunson also often refers to a kind of "gambler's code" observed by himself and others as they faded the white line a half-century ago. "A man's word in the gambling world is his bond," writes Brunson, noting how there did exist a level of mutual trust between players, though adds the disclaimer that "honor among gamblers got slightly warped at times."

In other words, there's nothing particularly unusual, I think, about the EPL instituting a "Code of Conduct" and "Standards & Conduct Committee." Analogous standards or committees exist in other sports leagues and businesses, and in fact such "codes" have always been part of poker, too, even if they haven't always been made explicit. And should the EPL's efforts to raise the standard of "poker ethics" favorably influence the broader culture's opinion of the game, perhaps making poker seem less "ethically questionable" to the broader culture, so much the better.

Even so, the EPL faces significant challenges -- not only when it comes to its ambitious goal to "enhance professionalism in the game of poker everywhere," but also to remain consistent and fair in its attempts to ensure all are adhering to the standards they've chosen to adopt.

The "Right Thing to Do"

Schmidt's post -- and the ongoing debates about the EPL, ethics, and the integrity of poker, generally speaking -- all demonstrate the increased prominence of questions about so-called "poker ethics" of late. And I think it is safe to say that Black Friday and its aftermath certainly have a lot to do with this renewed focus on what we can and cannot accept when it comes to our favorite game.

"What is going on these days in the poker community?" asks Schmidt. Another way to answer his question would be to say that what is going is a lot of questioning and conversation about the game itself -- much of it having to do with what exactly constitutes "the right thing to do... poker-wise."

Join Betfair Poker Now.

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comment: