Many people would assume that it was during the Poker Boom that poker and gambling had its highest level of respectability, but there was another period of time where being a professional gambler was looked upon in a fairly favorable light, during the mid to late 1800’s anywhere west of the Mississippi.
What’s remarkable about this is that these were far from honorable practitioners, yet the public was enamored with their stories nonetheless.
During this time there were two types of gamblers that were canonized, the “square” players (who weren’t so square if we’re being entirely honest with ourselves) and the con men who had no scruples whatsoever, and had more of a “buyer beware” outlook on life.
The former group certainly had their scraps, and racked up an impressive list of self-defense murder acquittals during their travels, but the latter group made no qualms about their use of a pistol, and somehow the general public seemed to enjoy reading about both equally. Men from both groups were equally famous, regardless of their reputations.
What has this got to do with anything?
I’m getting to that.
Modern poker could use a villain or two
There is a current debate about the portrayal of poker, and what is good or bad for the game –I’ve written plenty on this topic myself mind you.
The argument is over how we promote the positives of the game and its players and legitimize it in the eyes of the public. But the problem is too many people are seeing this as a black and white issue, that there is only one way to promote the game.
The general thinking seems to be if all the headlines are of scoundrels than the general public will associate poker with scoundrels. But they then go too far in the other direction, and try to put a rosy spin on the game that would make President Business blush.
This is not the way I think poker needs to be promoted. The way I see it, there is space for everyone. The square players, the rogues, and even a scoundrel or two. It’s this cornucopia of players that makes the game so interesting. Look at the picture accompanying this article: Rounders got it. One of the appeals of the film was the diversity in its players.
Where else are you going to see a 75 year-old grandma, a twenty-something college dropout who is high as a kite and rambling on about bitcoins, a professional poker player, two drunks who just hit big on a roulette table, and a middle-aged business owner sitting at the same table? A poker game is a real-life version of all of those fantastical Hollywood Thanksgiving family dinners where a motley collection of people are somehow thrust together and hijinks ensues.
The idea that only a gregarious player like Daniel Negreanu is promotable, or focusing solely on the charity initiatives, or that airbrushing the amount of prize-money being won is the magic pill that will make poker appealing is not much different than the condescending people who scoff at adults reading Twilight.
The problem is, some people like Twilight (a lot of people judging by its sales), so even if it’s not your cup of tea this doesn’t mean you’re cup of tea is the right way to take it. You know, different strokes for different folks, and all that.
I certainly don’t think our focus should be on the scoundrels, but at the same time trying to sweep them under the rug does everyone a disservice, not simply because we are trying to sugarcoat the game to the masses (either misleading them or flat out lying to them), but because sometimes it’s the scoundrels that make the game interesting.
Liars, Cheats, and Murderers can be interesting
Doc Holliday was an vile disgusting man. Johnny Moss was an admitted cheat. Titanic Thompson is one of the most interesting people I have ever read about and he was about as rotten and near sociopathic as a person could be.
Even these men’s exploits have been romanticized over the years (Val Kilmer made Doc Holliday everyone’s favorite gunfighter/poker player in the movie Tombstone) and this isn’t a bad thing. Yes, they were all bastards to some extent, and far from anyone you would want your children to look up to, but it doesn’t make them uninteresting.
So is it really all that bad for Daniel Colman to say poker hurts lives? Is this any different from the oft-quoted line that “you can sheer a sheep many times but skin him only once,” or “it’s immoral to let a sucker keep his money” which are attributed to two men who are very well known to not play by the rules and live up to the quoted statements referenced, Amarillo Slim Preston and Canada Bill Jones.
Give me a table full of proper gamblers and poker players with big personalities (the Daniel Negreanu’s, the Antonio Esfandiari’s, the Phil Laak’s, the Sam Grafton’s, and so on) and we certainly will have a decent product to sell.
But give me that same table and throw in a despised Annie Duke or Howard Lederer, or a firebrand like Tony G, Mike Matusow, or David “Devilfish” Ulliott, or even a complete scoundrel like Russ Hamilton (could you imagine the ratings?) and I not only have a decent product, I have something for everyone.
I hate Russ Hamilton for what he did, and I would enjoy nothing more than seeing him felted and have to walk away from a poker table with his tail between his legs –hopefully to some cat calls from the crowd and other players.
People will tune in to cheer on their favorite players, and others to root against the players they despise, and still others to root on the villains.
This is how poker needs to market itself in my opinion, promote the square players but don’t try to hide the scoundrels.
100% up to $3,000 Bonus
Bovada is our most recommended ONLINE CASINO and POKER ROOM for US players with excellent deposit options. Get your 100% signup bonus today.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.