Innocent Questions, Complex Answers

I've been doing a lot of interviews lately in support of my new poker novel, Under the Gun, and I've noticed that many of the interviewers from general-interest publications betray a closet fascination with poker as a lifestyle and a career. And while I've spent way too much time assuring journalists that poker (a) is legal, (b) has nothing to do with card counting, and (c) doesn't involve guns, ranch deeds, or songs by Kenny Rogers, I think I've been dealing mostly with people who secretly wonder, "Is poker the game for me?" With that in mind, I'd like to share with you both the text and the subtext of some of these recent discussions: the questions I was asked and the answers I either did or did not give.

Can poker be beaten? Of course it can, manifestly. Otherwise, who'd ever play? The real intent of the question, though, is to determine whether the average schmo (or reporter) can be a winning poker player, and the answer to that is much trickier. First, we know that if everyone had equivalent skill, everyone would lose, thanks to the house rake. To be a winning player, then, you have to beat not just your foes, but also the rake.

Poker, I tell interviewers, is a pyramid, with a wide, broad base of losers who fund an increasingly diminishing number of players above them. These semi-winners, in turn, fund a very small percentage of very excellent players. By the logic of the pyramid, most players are losers, paying upward in the pyramid to the minority of winners, who pay, in turn, the tiny fraction of really excellent players. So - can poker be beaten? Sure … if you have talent, instinct, courage, awareness, and an unrelenting work ethic. Otherwise, not so much.

What's the worst mistake a poker player can make? Whenever I get this question, I reply, "Playing too many hands." I give this answer because it's easy to explain and easy to grasp. Poker, I say, is like a footrace, and every time you start with better hands than your opponents, you're giving yourself a head start, of a sort. Naturally, that head start is an advantage, and in the long run, if you give up that advantage (by playing too many hands, and therefore too many bad ones), you can't expect to win. So … simple strategy … just play tighter than the other guys, deal yourself that head start, and you're bound to finish first more often.

That's the answer I give - but it's not the one I believe. I actually think that playing too high - putting too big a percentage of your bankroll into play - is a more catastrophic error, because mere normal fluctuation can leave you broke and out of action, and how can you be a winning player if you can't even get in the game? But I don't give that answer because you already have to be a player to understand it. To insiders, I say, never put more than 5 percent of your bankroll into play at any one time. That way, you're unlikely to go broke, and that's not a bad result, no matter where on the pyramid you are.

Is online poker safe? Well, heck, is crossing the street safe? Bungee jumping? Riding a bike without a helmet? I don't believe that online poker is inherently safe or unsafe. It has risks, like everything else, and the sensible player evaluates the risk and acts accordingly.

Online poker is a generally fair and level playing field, and the money you put into online play is generally safe. That said, there are documented instances of cheating online, everything from collusion to superuser accounts to software hacks. There are also documented instances of players not being able to get their money back from online poker sites. And then there's the ever-present danger of, you know, just not playing too well. With all these things in mind, I advise outsiders and first-timers never to put more than recreational sums of money into play online. That way, if a bad thing happens, the damage will be minimal, a hit you can afford to take.

Can you make a living playing poker? Me, personally? No. "As a poker player, I'm a pretty good writer." Also, I have neither the fearlessness nor the single-mindedness of purpose that it takes to be a poker careerist. Plus, I often get bored. I find writing a much more compelling day-to-day activity. But that's just me. For others, I would say, "Yes, you can make a living playing poker, but you're going to have to buck long odds to do it."

Thinking again about that pyramid, and imagining that "just beating the game" will not be sufficient, you know you'll have to be in the slim minority of truly excellent players - the best of the best of the best - just to draw down a living wage. I'm not saying it's impossible. After all, someone gets to be the best, whether in baseball, darts, acting, poker, whatever. It helps if you have minimal expenses - a small monthly nut - and it's vital that your dedication, discipline, and bankroll management skills be unrelentingly sound. I would never discourage anyone from taking a shot at turning pro - I'm not in the business of discouraging dreams - but I'd never rate anyone as better than a long shot to succeed.

What's the one thing it takes to win? I think most interviewers expect me to say "luck," but of course I don't, since luck evens out, and everyone is exactly the same amount of lucky in the end. I might say that "response to luck" is a winning characteristic, in that those who make the most of their good luck and suffer least from their bad luck (not just financially but mentally) tend to do better overall. But that answer is disingenuous. The fact is, there's no one thing it takes to win.

I mean, would you rate math skills over psychology? Memory over odds knowledge? Self-awareness over tell-awareness? How about experience, study, bluff-ability, resistance to tilt, game selection, knowing when to quit, image management, or good old-fashioned guts? Poker is a complex game requiring a complex package of skills. To beat the game, you must do a hundred things right at the table - and then not do a different hundred things wrong away from the table. Still, the famously "hard way to make an easy living" remains a seductive promise to those outside the game, especially, it seems, to journalists, so I try to give them an answer that makes sense. I boil it all down to this: "Take the game seriously. If you don't take it seriously, you won't take it well." That seems to satisfy the journalists, and I hope so, 'cause I'm counting on them for good reviews!

John Vorhaus is the author of the Killer Poker book series and the new poker novel Under the Gun, in bookstores now. He resides in cyberspace at vorza.com, and blogs the world from somnifer.typepad.com. John Vorhaus' photo: Gerard Brewer.