Mike Caro

Lis, I think you're stating something important.

There may come a time when we can afford to showcase renegade "bad boy" poker celebrities, but that time definitely isn't now — when we're under so much scrutiny and hoping that we can influence votes in our favor.

Great post.

Straight Flushes,

Mike Caro

good thought lis, and in a perfect world the poker celebs would behave as role models and stir our feeble brains to emulate….instead, reality is, poker has just recently crawled out of the gutters, and some of the players still respond to gutter talk and actions at the tables….poker is still 'growing up' as a sport, and our celebs have to embrace this newfound popularity with a change in behavior….its getting better but still in its infancy….

that is all well and good but unless the sponsers of these players have written specific rules for decorum into the players contracts their is absolutle nothing anyone can do to stop any antics which dont violate the rules of the tourney.

These are free men and women and this being the United States they have the right to speak pretty much as they wish. ANd If the TV Poker Movie People feel it enhances their product ecomomically and advances its ability to attract greater advertisement dollars they will do whatever it is then can do to encourage such behavior. Furthermore if particular players wish to act boorish or childish in a effort to gain plublicity Im sure they will do whatever they feel will get them the most attention.

JMH said:

That is a very good point.  The one person I can't stand to watch and I will not say HIS name, but everytime I watch a show and he is on, I change it. It's like you are suppose to win everyhand or something like that. I really enjoy wathcing guys or gals that can take a good beating and get right back into it. People like Caro, Brunson, and guys that aren't well known like Dunst. Anyways good point Lis.

JMH

timmer:

I sure wouldn't suggest trying to keep people from free speech.  My question was really, do we think the players, of their own accord, should take on some responsibility for their public behavior?  The poker-playing average guy/gal is the one making it possible for Tony G to make huge amounts of money playing. I want more people to like poker and I don't want him to turn them off.  That is, to be blunt: they owe us.  I want to see them put a professional face on my game.

Lis~

I'm not sure "we" hold that premise, as evidenced by the salaries of TO, Randy Moss, and (way more so) Mike Vick.

That being said, Listening and I probably agree that we'd like them to act like role models, because they are. There are inarguably children modeling themselves after star atheletes.

Was Matusow more rude to Raymer with the cajones rant than Randy Moss was to Wisconsin with the simulated butt rub thing? Who was really hurt by either?

The main thing I notice looking at those incidents is, who stands to lose a pile of chips? If the NFL, and which ever team is paying any particular big-mouthed wide-receiver, can't get those dudes in line … I wonder how one would put pressure on a poker player who is supposed to be workking for his own self.

Ironically Matusow and Raymer are apperantly now friends. At least based on whan GR had to say about it on the National HU Championship thing on TV last week. I assume MM really didn't like the reaction he got from his antics being on TV.

Mike Vick, OTOH, recently said in an interview that, if he had his life to live over, the one thing he would change is to have shortened his sentence by around 6 months.

 I don't have any kids, and don't much worry who the hypothetical little bastards have to look up to in this day and age. But I sure would prefer it if they modelled themselves after Lady Gaga or maybe TV's Buster Bluth, rather than any athelete mentioned above. (No, I don't think poker's a sport.)

I think that analogy breaks down a little bit when you consider how you or I make money on poker. Does spectacle draw eyes to a TV, or put butts in a seat? Sure. But does it draw participation?

If Jim Duggan is standing outside an arena, telling the world that he's going to beat Phil Hellmuth with a chair, people may buy some tickets to sit in the room. If Jim Duggan is standing outside a casino, and telling passers by that if they sit down at a poker table he's going to beat them with a 2x4, maybe not so many people are going to play poker there that night.

Well, your original statement was about bringing more money to poker. Which is kind of vague, I suppose. Being a self-centered little fellow, the only money "coming into poker" that I care about is money being gambled at the tables. Money going to TV hosts and producers doesn't interest me in the slightest.

There's an argument to be made that TV will be the introduction to a lot of (most?) people that come to the felts. Therefore, more eyes on TV sets = more money in poker. But if those viewers are not willing to play because they think Phil Hellmuth is going to come publicly unglued on them, that's bad for me. Worse is people who assume that what they're seeing is normal, and OK for them to duplicate at my table. (I'm sort of begging the question, here, but there's some awfully good opinion pieces supporting that idea elsewhere on this site.)

I saw an interview with a fellow who'd busted out of a charity tournament the other day. He was pissed, but not rude. "Well it's one of those things. If you're a poker guy, you know how upsetting that is – I was all in with AJ, and I got beaten by AT."

Now, to my mind, if you're a poker guy, you're not bragging about getting it all in with AJo. And if you're a poker guy, losing with something less than 3:1 odds is not that spectacular. 2, 3, 4 hands in a row start to eat at me, but I'm still not crying, "rigged!" I don't bring this up to say the guy was an idiot. I promise you I looked at that the exact same way when I was still proud of understanding expected value.

I bring it up because, although he was upset, he was still acting like a human being. Was there passion and disappointment painted across his face like an example from a Paul Ekman book? Believe it. There was enough drama to engage a stranger to the game of poker, for sure. He wasn't a superstar, a multi-bracelet pro, or sponsored by a website, but who cares? Certainly not anyone who's a stranger to the game.

If anything a guy like that is more likely to bring repeat players to the game. Why? He was a) not berating anybody, and b) talking about concepts that have some value to the entry level player. The stakes I play at, there's a _lot_ more value in understanding a concept like domination than a concept like range balance. And I believe there's a lot more value in admitting that sometimes bad things happen to good people than there is in castigating a stranger for being an Eastern European idiot.

Do Poker Celebrities Have a Responsibility to Behave Professionally?

Yes. This should be a given.

But then poker non-celebrities do as well…

The trick lies in defining "professional behavior".

My pesonal definition of Professional Behavior is pretty open and solely concerns what I must (and can) control to act "professionally" at the poker table:

1) do not sweat over the truth.

If someone calls me a donk (or berates me in any way), either it is true and I should do my best to minimize my donk-itude, or it isn't and is beneath my notice (except as relates to opponent "ignorance adjustments" I might make).

2) do not tell the truth to people who do not know it, or who do not care about my version of it.

I am not benefitting myself to "teach" someone the error of their ways at the table, nor do I benefit myself by showing them their behavior is causing me to change my mind-set toward them.

3) use what I call the "mother/grandmother rule" to moderate all my other behaviors at the table.

This one is simple: do not say or do anything at the table that I would be ashamed to have my mother or grandmother see or hear.

Right through her passing 3 weeks before her 97th birthday (when I was 41, I'm 44 now), my grandmother would swing her cane at me if I said anything that was "wrong"…and she rarely missed! Mom started using a cane and a walker last year, and at 67 she is a LOT FASTER than grandma was toward the end! Neither ever really tries/tried to connect, but if they did…watch out! The lesson stuck anyway…

So this isn't a hard rule for me to remember! ;-)

Beyond that, moderating the behavior of anyone else is the responsibility for the T.D.'s of the world. I will leave it to them to handle if I have any issues with an opponent's behavior; all I can do is control myself.

Nick said:

 

---

Why?  You stated how you act and why – fear of a beating – but why should everyone at the table act "professionally," whatever that means?  Simply for social pleasantry?  Because acting "unprofessionally" upsets you?  What is your reasoning behind why people should act professionally?  Other people have suggested that acting foolishly, or badly or unprofessionally, may prevent new money from entering the poker arena.  What is your reasoning behind why you feel a "professional" attitude should be utilized at the table?

If someone does not choose to feel the same as I about that; fine. That is their choice. Until a behavior crosses the line into illegality, then I feel I've really no "right" to impose my values on others.

Had the question to start this thread been phrased differently; say like this:

 "Does un-professional behavior at the table by poker celebrities have a negative effect on new players coming into the game?"

my answer would have been entirely different too.

The impication of your questions back at my post here Nick, is that my views (and by extension your views as well) should have some bearing on what is deemed "professional" and what is done to ensure that "professional" demeanor. So insofar as saying poker celebrities have a "duty" of some sort to be "ambassadors" of poker, I simply do not think this is so, but they DO have a duty to act in what THEY feel is an acceptable manner…

Poker is an individual game, and at any time a player can rack up his chips and leave. If I win the WSOP ME, I have no "responsiblity" to cycle any of that money back into the "poker economy", just as poker celebrities have no inherent "responsibility" to act in a manner which may (or may not) benefit the GROWTH of poker. If my actions "hurt" the game of poker, so be it. As long as my actions do not violate the RULES of the game, I have complete freedom to judge for myself what I deem acceptable and un-acceptable in my behaviors. Same goes for poker celebrities.

As soon as you label any poker celebrity as "out of line" in his/her behaviors (TonyG and Phil Hellmuth jump immediately to mind as examples who MIGHT have people labelling them thusly), and begin to enact rulings design to curb the perceived excesses in these behaviors, you start to run the risk of alienating a large portion of potential new players due to the extreme strictures now placed upon the game. That, sort of, runs the same risks as trying to cure a brain tumor with a sledge hammer.

I chose to respond to this thread in a very literal manner. As such, my answer probably came off as "missing the mark" by a wide margin. Personally, I see that as a fault in the QUESTION, not one in my answer.

Perhaps it is the true Civil Libretarian in my nature which leads me to believe that once rules are set, and acceptable to all, then within the framework of those rules the widest possible latitude should be allowed for individual peccadillos. If we immediately start "tinkering" with those rules simply because we may not LIKE something (ooooooo! he called me the worst player EVER! slap him!!!), we run the risk of making it completely un-desirable to take part in the group activity at all.

So in my post, I merely defined the rules I work under, just as anyone who is not a "cheat" but who may skate the thin edges of "polite" behavior, must do for him/herself. I am only responsalbe for MY behavior, and how I let the behaviors of others effect me. I firmly believe that each person at the table has the responsibility to form their own version of what is "acceptable" for THEM, and as long as that remains within the boundaries of the rules of play as determined by recognized "authorities" in the poker room, then it is all good.

Its a fair comment what Lisa said. However, if the game is to maintain credibility, behaviour needs to be governed. People are always going to push limits, and we have to accept that it a game that is three fold. It has mathematical, psychological, and philosophical warfare. A blend of either is how we get our chips in the middle at the right time, and our opponents in at the wrong.

Personally. I feel that we should allow freedom of expression, but have tighter governance of etiquette. There should be a zero tolerance of bad language, and I feel that a line should be drawn regarding some of the bullying tactics that I have seen. I am all for one person giving a dressing down of another player, but two players verbally attacking another is, in my eyes, collusion.