History's Worst Poker Players

Who are the worst poker players in history? I am not looking for people who actually played the game of poker. Rather, I am talking about people who made huge poker-type mistakes in the game of life. As you know, I enjoy applying ideas from the game of poker to the real world, as there are many parallels.

The people on my list all made the same poker mistake, one seen often in beginners taking up the game. That common mistake is looking only at your own hand, as opposed to making your best effort to calculate how it will match up against your opponent's hand. Any good poker player will tell you that a big part of the game is figuring how you match up. A straight is often a good hand, but you have to notice things like a three-flush or a pair on the board, which can give you a clue as to what the real situation might be. You also must take into account factors such as your position and the skill of your opponent. My historical list is comprised of people who either ignored or underestimated the strength of the opposition, usually to their eventual detriment.

Adolph Hitler: This poker player started out beating the local game, but as he moved up, he completely ignored the growing strength of the opposition. In 1938, he won a great diplomatic victory at Munich, taking over the Sudeten region of Czechoslovakia without even having to fight. A year later, figuring that the European democracies were too peace-loving to go to war, he invaded Poland, bringing about a conflict with France and England that escalated into World War II. Poland fell in only three weeks, and France was conquered a year later. Flushed with success, Hitler violated the nonaggression pact that he had made with Stalin, and launched an attack on the Soviet Union. He had a strong hand (the best army in Europe), but he was out of position (long supply lines to the front) in a game with bad playing conditions (the Russian winter) and very tough opposition (inhabitants of a huge country who were determined to defend their motherland). His terrible decision cost him his whole stack.

Napoleon Bonaparte: Napoleon was a French general who led a coup d'état against the French state in 1799 and became its leader. During the next 13 years, he racked up a series of military victories that made France the dominant power in Central Europe. However, in a prequel to the Hitler flick, he led his "Grande Armée" in an attack on Russia. He ran into the same dual problem of being out of position in a game that he was ill-equipped to play. Bonaparte did not lose all of his money, but he dropped so many chips with this blunder that his stack was greatly weakened, and he succumbed to his enemies a year later at the Battle of Leipzig. He spent two years in exile on the island of Elba, then took a rebuy and went at it again in a match against extremely strong opponents. At the 1815 Battle of Waterloo, he went broke for the second time, and spent the rest of his life in exile at St. Helena under British supervision.

Saddam Hussein: (This assessment is for his performance only in the 20th century, as we do not want to get involved with 21st-century politics here.) Saddam became the dictator of Iraq in 1979. He wasted no time in getting into a high-stakes game, launching an attack against his neighbor Iran in 1980. The opponents were equally matched, so the rake ate up both of them (both countries suffered grievous losses). After a decade-long struggle, peace was made. A year later, Saddam attacked Kuwait. His opponent was easily vanquished at the table, but managed to escape with a lot of chips and was able to buy and beg a strong alliance to get its seat back. Apparently, Saddam had thought that conquering Kuwait would end the game, but he was wrong. A U.S.-led coalition took back the country. Saddam told all of his friends and neighbors that he had won in the game, but everyone knew that he was a liar. A bright future was not predicted for a player who had trouble keeping his head on his shoulders; it would be just a matter of time before he lost all of his chips.

George Armstrong Custer: This man graduated last in his class of 34 cadets at West Point. Although he served in the Civil War, he is best known for his performance against the Indians in the 1876 Battle of the Little Bighorn. At that time, he was the general in command of the Seventh Cavalry, a force of about 600 men. He refused the support offered by Gen. Terry of an additional four companies of the Second Cavalry. Custer stated that he "could whip any Indian village on the Plains" with his own regiment, and that extra troops would simply be a burden. He found an Indian encampment and immediately decided to launch an attack. He had plenty of heart, but was lacking in acumen. His opponents were a coalition of several Indian tribes - the Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapaho - amounting to a force of about 1,800 men armed with rifles. His opponents were chiefs Sitting Bull, Gall, and Crazy Horse. In poker terms, Custer bought in with a short stack, feeling his aggressive play would overcome the array of talent and money he had to face. He also was playing in a game that could be called "three brothers and a stranger." Custer's aggression was easily countered, but he continued to stay in the game until he went broke.

William the Conquerer: "Wait a minute," you say, "William won. He conquered England in 1066." Well, let me tell you how he won. William of Normandy claimed that he had been promised the English throne when the king died. However, at the start of 1066, the English Witan picked Harold to be the new king. William told everyone that he was going to take over England by force, and organized a fighting force of fewer than 10,000 men to conquer a whole country. The English knew his plans, and were well-organized to counter them. About a week before the Norman invasion, King Hadratta of Norway invaded England. He was defeated in the Battle of Stanford Bridge, but the English forces suffered severe losses, as the Norsemen were very good fighters. A few days later, the crippled English army faced the Norman invaders at the Battle of Hastings. This all-day battle could have gone either way, but William prevailed. Had the winds for sailing from Normandy to Britain been fair a little sooner (which was William's desire), William probably would have gone down in history as "William the Blunderer," because he would have been up against a much stronger force. In poker terms, William was an undercapitalized player in a game that he did not know how to play well. But he was very lucky, and produced what might be the biggest drawout in history. As we poker players know, weak players do not always lose!

Bob Ciaffone has authored four poker books, Middle Limit Holdem Poker, Pot-limit and No-limit Poker, Improve Your Poker, and Omaha Poker. All can be ordered from Card Player. Ciaffone is available for poker lessons: e-mail [email protected]. His website is www.pokercoach.us, where you can get his rulebook, Robert's Rules of Poker, for free. Bob also has a website called www.fairlawsonpoker.org.