Super Bowl XLVIII and Passive Tilt

I mentioned when I signed off on the last of my travel reports from Deauville how I was eyeing a long travel day on Sunday with a schedule getting me home about an hour before Super Bowl XLVIII was set to kickoff. It’s about a 45-minute drive from the airport to the farm, and so if all went as planned I’d make it home just in time to watch the sucker get started.

There were a number of odd little moments and weird delays going from Deauville to Paris to Philadelphia to Charlotte to the farm, plus one fun coincidence running into fellow tourney reporter Mo Nuwwarah in the Philly airport (also on his way home from a reporting gig, his being at the Borgata). But I ran well enough to stay mostly on pace and only a lengthy wait on the tarmac at CLT for an open gate made me late getting home. I walked in the door about halfway through the first quarter, glad to reunite with Vera and our cats and horses, and after 18-plus hours of traveling was almost giddy just to plop down on the couch and tune in.

I’d listened to the start on the radio, and so knew about the safety and how things had begun less than ideally for Denver. It was 5-0 when I turned it on, then 8-0, then quickly 15-0 and 22-0, and I just had to laugh about having wanted to get home in a hurry to watch such a stinker.

Had been so busy during the week I hadn’t really thought too much about how the game might go, but I can’t imagine any thought process that would have led me to suspect an outcome such as the one that occurred.

Easy in retrospect to point back to the last time a top-rated offense clashed with a top-rated defense in Super Bowl XXXVII, to note how the defensive power (Tampa Bay) crushed the offensive one (Oakland) by 27 (forcing five turnovers along the way), and perhaps to use that to support a thesis that Seattle might do something similar, thereby proving the maxim about defense winning championships, regardless of the sport.

But I doubt I’d have gotten around to that idea on my own, and I know most didn’t. Indeed, it sounds like the sportsbooks did well as the majority of bettors leaned Denver’s way -- two of every three, according to the Las Vegas Sun.

I was vaguely rooting for Denver, although was reminded by my mother over the last week how as a kid I was a Seahawks fan, mostly because they were new, had cool colors and a menacing logo I could draw in my notebooks, and a quarterback whose first name started with a “Z” (Jim Zorn). Also, no one else liked them. But since the Panthers arrived that’s where my allegiance has been, and so wasn’t all that committed either way last night.

And, of course, not too long after I got home, there wasn’t much to root about once the game had gotten out of hand. Was a little like watching a poker player take a hit early in a session and then start making bad play after bad play in a tilty effort to right the ship. Although John Fox’s conservative tendencies -- something that we Panthers fans well remember and which came up last year in that AFC Championship game versus the Ravens -- made Denver seem less like a player betting too much when he shouldn’t, but rather one who had tightened up too much after losing early.

I like John Fox and was sorry to see him leave Carolina. And while coaching hardly decided yesterday’s game (as Bill Barnwell notes at the start of the “Thank You For Not Coaching” section of his column today), it definitely felt like Denver’s lack of readiness to take any risks at all yesterday made it essentially impossible for them to put up any sort of fight after getting knocked down early.

Any doubt about the outcome was erased once Seattle returned the kickoff for a TD to start the second half and go up 29-0. But then Denver got the ball back, marched to the Seattle 38-yard-line, and on 3rd-and-10 called a draw. I flashed back to Fox’s Panthers days, when the 3rd-and-long draws routinely drove us insane. Then after losing a yard they punted down four scores, which definitely seemed the equivalent of a beaten-down poker player folding again, clearly not able anymore to give himself a chance even to get lucky.

I liked Fox at Carolina and still pull for him, but talk about “passive tilt”...!

Speaking of “passive tilt,” one of the great thinkers about tilt, Tommy Angelo, has a new contribution over a Learn.PokerNews today, another installment in his “Tilt for Beginners” series, this one titled “Writhing Over Rules” -- check it out.

Poker and Stereotyping

Earlier this week I had an opportunity to attend a talk by Gloria Steinem, the feminist and political activist whose name is synonymous with the women’s liberation movement of the ’60s and ’70s.

Younger folks don’t necessarily recognize Steinem’s name or her once iconic cultural status the way those of us of a certain age do. Ask those who were around a few decades back, and we’ll instantly associate Steinem with women’s lib, Ms. Magazine (which she founded in the early ’70s), N.O.W. (the National Organization of Women), her support of “reproductive freedom,” and the (ultimately unsuccessful) fight for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment.

The talk was thought-provoking. Actually Steinem herself was suffering from laryngitis and so a younger woman delivered the speech while Steinem (now in her 70s) sat next to the podium. There were a few observations made in the lecture regarding cultural attitudes toward the older generation -- thus did those points about ageism sound a little funny being delivered by a woman in her 20s. Steinem did step up to the mic for the Q&A afterwards, though, and gamely answered questions for at least half an hour despite her ailment. In both the lecture and her answers to questions, Steinem was highly engaging, witty, smart, and even occasionally inspiring.

Steinem is a controversial figure, of course, who has been and who continues to be opposed by many for her views. Not being fully acquainted with all of her writings or positions, I’m not ready to endorse her without qualification, although I will say I respond well to her general message to avoid prejudging people on the basis of categories like sex, race, class, age, or faith.

Listening to Steinem got me thinking a bit about that piece I wrote recently for Woman Poker Player. I mentioned last week how I’d written half of a “He Said/She Said” column with Jennifer Newell in which we discussed the issue of women and online poker site sponsorships. I believe the plan is to write more of those columns going forward. Here are links to those again -- He Said: Women and Sponsorships / She Said: Women and Sponsorships.

Writing that caused me to think more specifically about stereotyping in poker -- both in terms of the way men and women poker players are differently treated and judged in the media (and thus in the sometimes mysterious world of online site sponsorships) as well as how a person’s sex potentially is given a certain significance at the poker table. Indeed, while many of us instinctively resist stereotyping others -- or at least try not to and/or are aware that it is wrong to do so -- at the poker table such stereotyping is not only understood as acceptable but some would argue essential.

Those who play a lot of live poker develop certain ideas about, say, women players, or those of a certain race or ethnicity, or older people, and so forth. Such ideas are difficult to resist, and in some cases prove useful when up against a new opponent for whom one has little or no information about his or her playing style.

When this topic comes up, I can’t help but think about a book like Play Poker, Quit Work and Sleep Till Noon! by John Fox, originally published in 1977, in which Fox includes a chapter early on about game selection. (Click here for more about this historically significant poker book.) Amid his advice about picking tables at which to play, Fox unashamedly delivers his “general rules for identifying weak players,” many of which involve stereotyping.

In the list of “desirable opponents” that comes at the end of the chapter, Fox includes some benign-sounding categories like “drinkers,” “nervous opponents,” and “players who expose cards.” However, many of his categories directly evoke -- in a decidedly pre-PC way -- the categories of sex, race, class, age, and even faith as useful indicators. Thus does his list include “rich people,” “young players,” “people displaying religious symbols,” and “ghetto residents.” And women? Important enough to list twice, with both “beautiful women” and “women in general” being desirable opponents for Fox.

Times change, and the significance of these categories evolve. Seems to me, though, that while we might think differently today about categories like sex, race, class, age, or faith, thereby assigning each different meanings to them than we might have back in the ’70s or earlier, we humans still nevertheless find it hard to resist prejudging others, with our prejudgments often affected by whatever ideas we possess about these categories.

Away from the poker table, many of us make a conscious effort to resist such stereotyping. However, at the poker table -- where we meet strangers in order to compete with them -- it’s a different story.

Play Poker, Quit Work and Sleep Till Noon! by John Fox

When in Vegas this summer I did get a chance one afternoon to visit the Gamblers Book Shop again. The store has a new location since my last visit, having moved from its previous spot over on 11th Street near Charleston Blvd. to a smallish strip mall over on E. Tropicana Ave. The new store has just about everything the old one did, although I missed the room full of old magazines and used books which didn’t make the trip.

I bought one book while there, one with kind of a historical value as far as poker literature goes. The book is by John Fox and is called Play Poker, Quit Work and Sleep Till Noon! or The Complete Psychology, Mathematics and Tactics of Winning Poker.

When one opens the cover, the title page looks like it might have been patterned after the title pages of 17th- or 18th-century British novels and satires, extending on and on down the page: Play Poker, Quit Work and Sleep Till Noon! or Play Poker With “The Fox,” or Poker for the Greedy Player, or The Complete Guide to Winning Poker, or Poker: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why, or The Secrets of a Professional Poker Player, or The Mathematics Professor Plays Draw Poker, or How to Be the Best Poker Player on Your Block (or the World), or Draw Poker Tactics and the Science of Behavioral Deductions, or How You Can Make a Living Playing Casino Poker, or How to Win at Poker Without Being Really Lucky, or A Brief Outline of Some of the More Fundamental Aspects of Draw Poker (in 600 Pages).

Fox’s book was first published in 1977, and as that long version of the title indicates the game on which it focuses is five-card draw. However, though much of the strategy discussed concerns that largely outmoded game, the majority of the book concerns psychological issues, with lots of specific pointers regarding tells, projecting an image, various strategems to elicit desired responses from opponents, and other advice not necessarily specific to draw poker.

As that long version of the title also probably suggests, Fox is quite the humorist, and employs a witty, engaging style throughout, peppering his discussions with funny anecdotes (some of which are laugh-out-loud hilarious) and what he calls “stratefices,” a word he invented to refer to “a tricky, extremely useful, carefully selected, profound, and more than a little underhanded maxim, principle, or rule.” When introducing the word, he explains its etymology in detail, claiming it combines elements of Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit, “in keeping with the learned nature of this erudite tome.”

The book was self-published, and has all the quirky, unexpected shifts in typeface, spacing, and sometimes erratic copy editing one might expect. Like I say, the book kind of reminds me of an old British satire, what with all of the digressions, the pseudo-academic apparatus, and other idiosyncracies -- including the author’s sort-of-crazy-sounding persona. For those who are familiar, think Robert Burton’s The Anatomy of Melancholy or Jonathan Swift’s A Tale of a Tub.

Fox’s book has a definite historical importance in poker literature, appearing a couple of years before Doyle Bruson’s Super/System and seven years before Mike Caro’s Book of Tells. Arnold Snyder, whose Poker Tournament Formula books I’ve recommended here before, speaks highly of Fox’s discussions of the psychology of poker and bluffing both in Play Poker, Quit Work and Sleep Till Noon! and in Fox’s second book, How to Hustle Home Poker (1981).

Says Snyder, Fox’s discussions “are truly exceptional,” adding that Fox’s first book “truly is in a class by itself as poker books go.” Snyder also points out how some of the “old timers I’ve talked with told me when Fox’s book first came out in 1977, it was viewed by many of the top players as a groundbreaking book on the game that did for poker what Ed Thorp’s Beat the Dealer did for blackjack.”

Snyder also commends Fox for the way he understands the relevance of mathematical probabilities in poker -- that is to say, knowing odds and frequencies are important, but not everything, and in some cases of no relevance whatsoever. Such a position provides fuel for Snyder in his ongoing fight with the “math heads” -- Mason Malmuth and David Sklansky. (I might come back to discussing this conflict in a post next week, actually.)

Caro acknowledges Fox in his Book of Tells, and in fact Fox appears in one of the photographs in Caro’s book (see left) in which he’s shown doing a poor job concealing his hand from the player to his right.

If you are interested in learning more about John Fox and his Play Poker, Quit Work and Sleep Till Noon!, the poker author John Vorhaus wrote a three-part series of columns for Card Player about the book last spring, titled “The Ageless Wisdom of John Fox.” The first two parts are available online (Part I, Part II), but I am not seeing the third installment, which appeared in the March 31, 2009 issue (Vol. 22, No. 6) -- apparently it didn’t make the cut for the online archive for that issue.

Anyhow, like Snyder and Vorhaus, I recommend Fox’s book as both an entertaining and useful read -- if you can find it, that is. It has long been out of print, and I’m seeing copies online being offered for $100 or more. I know the Gamblers Book Shop had a couple more on their shelves for considerably less than that, if yr really interested.