The Epistemology of Poker Pedagogy

[shipitfish]

My post beginning my series for introductory players got two (1, 2) surprising responses. The basic argument is that educating people about poker draws them into a dangerous world of addictive gambling, populated by seedy people, and that such an introduction can ruin people's lives. My commentators indicate that I should consider the unintended consequences. Indeed, they argue that one might have a duty to divert people away from the poker world.

I think the argument is a seductive one, but is flawed. In fact, there are a dozen other things I could make this same argument about, using the same evidence. So many things in life which are acceptable in moderation have the same sorts of addictive qualities as poker.

I have spent a lot of time (my whole career in fact) around computer programmers and computer networking experts. I've known a few who are addicted — truly addicted in the sense my commentators talk about — to programming, or to cracking network security, or to some other sub-genre of the computer 3l33te world. They have let all relationships in collapse. They have left spouses, or spouses have left them, because they couldn't not help but stay in front of the computer for 20 hours straight out of every 30.

Sex can be the same way. Indeed, there is even Sex Addicts Anonymous, just like there is Gamblers Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. Of course, many people do engage in sex, gambling, drugs, and alcohol and don't become addicted in the DSM-IV sense. As one commenter points out, most people who do these things, in fact, aren't addicted. But, we still have to draw some distinctions between these activities. Introducing a person to any of them is not necessarily the same type of act. Let's consider in this post some very rough distinctions.

The first distinction sets aside substances that have a proven element of direct physical addiction. That's one class in itself. I would say that likely cocaine, heroin, and nicotine are three common substances to go in this class. The body becomes truly dependent, sometimes after the first introduction of the chemical. Another distinction is the group of substances that are a less physically addictive, but do cause serious changes to body chemistry. Some examples here might be alcohol, marijuana, and maybe sex. This class is different still from activities that, while they may generate some physiological responses, do not interact directly with the body chemistry. Of course, these lines aren't fine, nor are there only three classes, but let's just take a rough cut here for the moment.

Now, I agree in regard to the first class of substances, for sure. I think it's wrong to offer people cocaine and heroin. However, even in this class, is it wrong to tell people about its existence, and that it feels amazing? Probably not. It's just information — data about an activity. That in itself can't be wrong. Indeed, if it were wrong, the course I took toward at my Psychology department in college, The Biology and Psychology of Substance Abuse was chock full of information that was “wrong” in this sense.

Now, consider that middle layer in my classification. Well, I have to say, somewhere in there I stop believing that it is wrong to encourage people to engage in the activity. If a waiter offers me a glass of wine, or a website tells me how to brew my own beer, are they harming me? Would they do better to keep me from harm by not giving such information? That seems ludicrous. Indeed, I had a drinking problem in college and have shied away from alcohol ever since then, but imbibe maybe once a year. My co-workers invite me out for drinks much more often than that. Should they stop offering, just in case I fall into a drinking problem again and ruin my life? Would it be there fault if I did?

And, consider sex as another example. It's the example that analogizes nicely with comments about how seedy the poker world is and the caliber of people who sometimes occupy it. Wandering over to the “Casual Encounters” section of Craig's List, you'll find some really seedy people in the sex world, but does that mean “Craig” is culpable for introducing harm and should stop? And should he discontinue the “Women Seeking Men” section too, just in case? What about the people who wrote Joy of Sex? Are they to be shamed because they boosted their egos by writing the book and thereby introduced some people to seedy underworld of sex addiction?

Maybe some poker-playing friend of mine will have a collapse like is suggested in this comment. Maybe no one will. Maybe I'll go out drinking with my co-workers one night and become a serious alcoholic and ruin my life. Maybe someone who didn't know about Craig's List's “Casual Encounters” section will read this post, find it for the first time, and descend into sex addiction. Maybe his wife will call me up to tell me how he caught HIV, ruined their marriage and is almost dead now. Sure, I would feel awful about it if it happened! I'm a human being who doesn't want to see people suffer. But, it's not fair nor necessary to blame myself for those consequences, and the fellow's wife would be wrong to do so. She'd just be looking for somewhere to hang her pain and picking the wrong place.

Yes, the friends I help learn play poker will probably be losing players. But, that doesn't mean it was wrong to give them information. The epistemology of whether or not generally useful technical information should be made available is a field of study where I have some experience. In fact, I studied with a MacArthur award winner who (more or less) invented the idea that information with a didactic component should always by freely available for all who wish to learn. It was even my job once to educate people about that very issue. So, I would say I'm surely prepped to enter this debate about the ethical correctness of the idea that “information wants to be free”. But, the arguments on the other side seem so ludicrous, I don't know if it is worth it.

Finally, there is some truth that sharing information in a pedagogical way is sometimes about the ego of the teacher. Having studied a large sociological culture built around making information available, I can speak with some experience — there is no denying that hubris and ego drives some of it. But, humans are complex beings. There's a bit of ego in being the teacher, but there's also the joy in sharing something you love — something that, might I remind you, a noted psychologist told me would be helpful to make me feel better about my own obsession with my job and the world that surrounded it.

And it did help me. I met one of my best friends (nick_marden) hanging around that seedy poker world. I do believe the poker world can be good for others, too, even if, like so many things in life, it might be bad for others.

Comments

[swolfe.livejournal.com]

poker is not a team sport. i will never feel guilt over someone else's failure or poor choices.

blaming the one who introduces the addict/loser/whatever is just an excuse to avoid personal responsibility.

[roryk.livejournal.com]

I hope that you will not have to come back one day and reread this post and see how ignorant it is because that will mean that you will not have had the experience of introducing a friend into gambling and having had them ruin their life.

All of this intellectualization of addiction will mean nothing to you when someone you care deeply for is in a hell that you to which you led them. You will wish that you could help them, but you will not be able to help them. You will wish one thing, "I wish that I had never introduced them to poker." And then you will see that your wish could have come true. If you had listened.

You can do what I did. You already have met a bunch of people playing poker. You already have a little network built up of poker people. There are web sites of people who play poker that you know about. Meet people there, who already play. Don't get your family members and loved ones involved proactively by going on about how great poker is. That is all I am saying to you. Do whatever you want other than that. Then you are not responsible for them and you are protecting them and caring for them.

[tmckearney.livejournal.com]

Well, this is one of those situations that I have found myself in in the past. It seems that Rory has made a point and possibly overstated it a bit.

We all understand the caution. Stu Unger is a good example of gambling gone bad. Rory's actions seem like a behavio[u]r I have seen in myself in the past. People disagree, but you believe so strongly that you continue beating the horse until it is just a reddish-brown sack of protoplasm. I have learned over time to realize this situation in myself and to stop the conversation.

Bottom line: We get it. You think poker is evil, yet you do it every day. You remind me of the movie "Ray", where Ray Charles is taking Heroin all the time, yet he tells all the chicks he's banging that they should stay away from it.

Frankly, I'm sick of reading about the same topic over and over again. It is the responsibility of the individual to deal with their own issues. If you have an addictive personality/brain/whatever, it's your problem. If you have one leg shorter than the other, it's your problem. If you stutter, it's your problem. I am not going to pity someone who takes his welfare check to the liquor store and buys booze and lottery tickets with it.

If I lose my house gambling, I'm not going to sue Bravo for running Celebrity Poker Showdown all the time. I take responsibility for myself and I assume that others will do the same. If they don't, then they are just leeches on society and don't deserve my attention at all.

[brettbrettbrett.livejournal.com]

The first things I'd teach someone about poker are bankroll management and discipline. I primarily play limit hold em, and if you don't have either of these and you don't have a huge edge in whatever game you're playing, you're going to go broke.

[salvelinus.livejournal.com]

I play no-limit, primarily $2/5, and to the general public, it's a fairly decent chunk of money that can be won or lost in any given session or even individual hands which can climb to $2-3k. There are several people who I play with at a local club who constantly lose $500-1000+ per session, and keep coming back week after week after week. These are not wealthy people, they are working stiffs, and they certainly don't seem to get much enjoyment out of it when they lose. I can't fathom how they can afford to blow that kind of money (think of something like $20-50k per year), yet they do. Many of these people are sports bettors too, and they aren't winning in that either. In my eyes, they have a problem.

Now, when I go to Foxwoods (or any other casino for that matter), that does not change. When I'm playing $2/5 at the casino, my typical table is are composed of the same type of people I see at the clubs. Constant losers. Very few of them are obviously weathly. I can honestly say that on some Saturday mornings at Foxwoods, I've taken entire paychecks from problem gamblers.

Personally, I don't see most poker games as wholesome, good environments. Sure, a group of buddies getting together once a month to drink beer, smoke cigars and play poker is fun, but that is not what we're talking about. We're out to take money from lessor players over many session. Most of us are polite, and socially friendly with many of those we play with, but that doesn't change the fact that we're playing largely for the purpose of winning hands and taking money from weaker people. If you play the game on a regular basis that's what it is all about - eating the weak, and those that have gambling problems are weak.

Several months ago, NPR had an interesting show on the poker phenomenon. I was quite surprised when Phil Lak (the guy with the stupid "Unibomber" moniker) called in. He painted a bleak picture of the tournament circuit realities that never get shown on television - hundreds of people, constantly broke throwing their money into these monstrous tournaments in hopes of winning the big score. Week after week, tourney after tourney. All that money has to come from somewhere, and much of it comes from people with gambling addictions (poker in this case).

Would I encourage someone that I care about or a family member to play substantial stakes poker? No. Hell, I wonder sometimes myself whether playing is worth the emotional swings, and the feelings of uneasiness I get when I watch someone throw away money they clearly need.

Anyways, that's my rambling 2 cents.

Post was anger but not saying what you are doing is wrong

[(Anonymous)]

I posted before about the propaganda that "newbie" players encounter watching the televised like WPT. I must add that if anyone were to instruct people on how to play, and especially responsibility in play you are well suited for the job. The concepts of bankroll requirements, the 300 big bet rule, when to leave a table, and most importantly keeping track of bankroll fluctuations and the misplay or bad luck that brought you there.

I am so amazed when newbie players who claim they are "going pro" do not even keep track of their bankroll.

With any investment poker requires great responsibility. If I were to get into poker, I would rather it be a responsible player like you then some college-drop out who thinks he is the best player in the world.

I am reminded of Jello Biafra's idea of Drug education programs in school where the kids actually use drugs. I mean if someone is going to do it a controlled setting with a responsible person is the best course.