Miscellaneous, but Important

I often read things about poker and think I could spend all of my time playing the devil's advocate and taking the other side of every issue, or explaining why every recommended play isn't really as clear as the author asserts. Anyway, here are a few things I believe should be addressed.

Whom do we thank for poker's current success? I have seen several lists of people to thank for poker being what it is today, and they all have omitted the man I think is most responsible for setting poker on its current path – Eric Drache. Eric ran the World Series of Poker in its early and middle years, including the innovation of satellites. He captained the poker room that went from the Golden Nugget to the Mirage. He is extremely likeable and always well-dressed, and has a great sense of humor. He is responsible for making Las Vegas poker respectable. He was the first to have a poker cruise. He was the first to recruit European players. (Poker in London, Ireland, and Paris owes him a huge debt of gratitude.) He is also one of the top stud players, but he never seemed to mind a small-stakes player interrupting him in a big game to request a comp to the coffee shop. I could go on, but I don't have enough space. He is currently involved with bringing poker back to the Golden Nugget, and I'm sure he will make it another success.

Summary: Thanks, Eric.

Is there more skill in limit, pot-limit, or no-limit hold'em? I have been hearing this argument for years. It also comes in another flavor: Is there more skill in hold'em or stud? I don't think there is an easy way to quantify skill. The real question that needs to be addressed is, what skills are important in each game? Big-bet games (no-limit and pot-limit) place a huge premium on psychology and reading your opponents. When someone makes a pot-sized or bigger bet on the end of a hand, you can't make a lot of mistakes and survive. Limit is more mathematical and less psychological. When someone bets one unit into a 15-unit pot, you can almost close your eyes and call with anything.

Pot-limit is much more popular in Europe than it is in America. This means that European players and dealers are experienced in knowing the legal maximum bet. American players and dealers are not. American pot-limit games often crawl along as people try to figure out the correct amounts for bets and raises. Should knowing the legal maximum bet really be counted as a skill?

Stud games are generally limit, and are therefore more mathematical than psychological, but the math is constantly changed by the exposed cards. So, they also require more memory and flexibility skills than other games.

Summary: It's not a matter of more skill, but different skills.

Language, enthusiasm, and abuse: Many people get very emotional when they play poker. They are excited and happy when they win a big pot, and they are depressed and aggravated when they lose one. It is natural to express these emotions when playing in live games and in tournaments. I agree that some people can occasionally express these emotions excessively, and that may be annoying. It can also be amusing. The idea of penalizing excessive emotional displays in tournaments is ludicrous and very subjective. If someone is so far over the top that he is consistently disturbing other players, he should receive a light warning, a severe warning, and then perhaps a minimal penalty.

I very seldom use "foul" language. But, I am from New York City and I watch cable TV, so I'm used to hearing it. Many players routinely use words that might be bleeped out on a family show. So what? These words are a normal part of their vocabulary. You have to be 21 to go into a casino or play in a tournament. I am strongly in favor of free speech.

I do object, however, to abuse (of dealers and players) and/or threats. If someone says, "Isn't it a b – – – h that I always lose with f – – -ing aces," fine. But, if he loses with aces and then gives the dealer a cold stare and says, "You f – – -ing b – – – h," he should be penalized immediately. If such behavior continues, penalties should escalate quickly. There is no place in poker (or in life) for abusive behavior, or racial, religious, or sexist slurs.

Summary: language – anything goes; enthusiasm – acceptable within fairly wide boundaries; and abuse – forbid and penalize.

Headphones: I am like many players; I enjoy listening to something while I play poker. This is especially true during long tournaments, which often take place in noisy environments. I know that people seem to be divided about the use of headphones, but unlike smoking, most of those who object don't feel very strongly about it. Smoking interferes with my right to breathe a better quality of air. Someone with headphones doesn't interfere with me much. Sure, an opponent with headphones may be a little slower, but he also may make mistakes caused by the distraction. Rational players are happy when their opponents make mistakes. Cardrooms and tournaments have to remember that more and more players are also playing on the Internet, and someone sitting at home can listen to anything he wants.

Summary: Headphones should be permitted.