Would You Bust Your Own Grandmother? - Part I

Jack Straus once said, "I'd bust my own grandmother if she played poker with me." Vince Lombardi, the great football coach, expressed a similar attitude: "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing." Their intense, ruthless competitiveness helped them to enter their respective halls of fame, but it created many other problems.

Neither of them was normal, pleasant, or balanced, at least not at a poker or football game. Normal people are not willing to bust their own grandmothers, nor do they regard winning as the only thing. Unfortunately, very few pleasant, balanced people get into halls of fame, not for poker, football, or anything else.

From a lifestyle or mental health perspective, being balanced is highly desirable, but the intense competitors usually win. Many poker winners and most champions have read and agree with Straus' position. In fact, he is respected, not just for his success, but also for his ruthlessness.

Tournament rules support his position, and the opposite tendency, soft-playing, is clearly forbidden. "The general consensus is, and most rule books dictate, that soft-playing in tournaments is not allowed, and any occurrences of it are subject to penalties and punishment up to disqualification." (Mike O'Malley, "Soft-Playing," Card Player, July 16, 2004)

Despite the rules, many people would not bust their grandmother. I'm using "bust" in the same sense that I believe Jack Straus meant: It does not mean taking her last chips in a $5 buy-in tournament; it means taking every penny you can get.

WORDS VS. ACTIONS

Because poker players value machismo, some people will claim that they would bust their grandmothers or anyone else, but they don't really mean it. We all have seen countless people – including some outwardly macho players – take more tenderhearted actions than just refusing to bust their own grandmothers.

For example, they may check down the nuts or suggest that a drunk or beginner go home. A friend said that a blackjack player sat down in his $15-$30 game and played very stupidly. A solid player advised him to quit because she didn't feel good taking his money. A couple of other players echoed her sentiment. My friend said, "I really didn't care one way or the other. My attitude was, he's going to lose it at blackjack; he might as well lose it to us." But she insisted it wasn't right, and they gave up a chance for some easy money.

Most professionals would bust that blackjack player, but they occasionally show their "softer side." For example, at the final table of the 1999 Tournament of Champions, Louis Asmo had pocket aces and made a huge preflop raise. David Chiu thought for a long time before showing his kings and folding. He was certainly wondering whether he had made the right play, and that distraction could have damaged his game.

Louis then showed his hand, relieving David's tensions and doubts. Instead of wondering whether he had made a big mistake, he learned that he had made a great play. It built his confidence and removed the distraction, which helped him to win the tournament. Louis' gesture was a long way from the "win at all costs" mentality that many professionals endorse, and it may have cost him thousands of dollars. In other words, many people – even some professionals – talk a more ruthless game than they play.

WHOM WOULD YOU BUST?

Many players won't bust a wide variety of people. For example, a long thread on our Psychology Forum was titled: "Just Witnessed the Worst Part of Poker." "Stork" reported watching a heads-up match in which one player beat another for about $90,000. He was appalled because the winner beat the loser "out of everything … you took everything, he has nothing left to live for."

He believed (but others disagreed) that the loser "is a gambling addict who really didn't know what he was doing." This thread debated whether it is morally acceptable to take advantage of other players' psychological weaknesses, such as a gambling addiction. Other threads have discussed the morality of busting drunks, mentally retarded people, close friends, beginners, and so on. Many people do not regard winning as supremely important.

THE HARD-LINERS' POSITION

Some people regard Straus' position as an "ethical imperative" and condemn the opposite tendency, soft-playing relatives or friends, whether it occurs in a tournament or cash game. They insist that "there are no friends at the poker table," that you should play as hard as possible, not just to increase your profits, but to support poker's "all against all" competitive ethos. For example, Doyle Brunson wrote: "The correct attitude is that folks play poker because the game appeals to them. They like the blend of luck and strategy and are willing to compete for money. To do this, you need opponents, real opponents who are as intent on beating you as you are on destroying them.

"By providing good competition, players are celebrating the spirit of poker. Soft play runs contrary to the nature of the game. Those who don't understand the simplicity of that statement should quit playing until they do." (According to Doyle, 1984 edition, pp. 21-22)

Note his use of "correct attitude" and "destroying," and his insistence that people who don't have the correct attitude should quit playing. He clearly assumes that the only correct motivation is ruthless competitiveness. Many people share his narrow view of motivation, but many others disagree. In fact, people play poker for a wide variety of reasons, and these other motives may be more important than winning.

To committed competitors, it is the act of winning, not its extrinsic rewards, that matters. "The monetary rewards are like rivers – they flow through life – whereas winning has a sustaining effect on your being." (Dana Smith, "Mickey Appleman: The Epitome of Intelligent Judgment Combined With Gambling Flair," Card Player, Dec. 22, 2000). Nolan Dalla used somewhat different words: "Every enduring poker champion … has an insatiable desire to win." ("Once Upon a Time in America: The John Bonetti Story," Card Player, May 1, 1998)

All of these quotations show that certain people – especially champions – are not at all normal or balanced while playing. Normal people do not have insatiable needs, nor do they want to destroy people.

BALANCED PEOPLE HAVE A COMPETITIVE LIABILITY

Unless there are large differences in talent, the more ruthless competitor has a huge edge. For example, if we are equally talented, and I'm playing tennis for fun but you're playing to win, you're going to beat me. You'll work harder to develop your skills, study my game, and attack my weaknesses. I won't run for some of your shots, but you'll try to return every one of mine, even if you're exhausted.

Exactly the same principle applies to poker. Ruthless competitors work harder, study more, focus better, and do whatever else it takes to get every little edge. Balanced people want to win, but it is not an insatiable need. They want to play, not work. They take foolish chances, relax, chat with each other, think about other things, and generally treat poker as a game. When they play against ruthless competitors, they usually lose.

You therefore have to decide how important winning is to you. You simply cannot have balanced motives and be a winner, unless you play against only normal people or are much more talented than your competition. If you are not driven to win, and play against equally talented but much more ruthless competitors, you are going to lose.