Book Announcement: Poker & Pop Culture: Telling the Story of America’s Favorite Card Game Coming 2019

I have some fun news to share, and for some reason April 1 felt like a good day to share it. This one is a long time coming, something I’ve hinted at here on the blog a few times before.

The “poker & pop culture” book is happening. No foolin’! (And no shinola.)

The book will be published by D&B Poker. After many years of publishing strategy books, D&B Poker has widened its scope a bit to include other poker-related titles like Tricia Cardner and Jonathan Little’s books on psychology and poker, as well as autobiographies by Mike Sexton and Phil Hellmuth.

You’ve probably heard as well about Lance Bradley’s book due to appear this summer titled The Pursuit of Poker Success: Learn From 50 of the World’s Best Poker Players that features Bradley interviewing many of the game’s best known and most successful players. You can preorder Lance's book now either via D&B Poker or Amazon.

My book will be titled Poker & Pop Culture: Telling the Story of America’s Favorite Card Game. Ordered somewhat chronologically as a history of the game, the book primarily will focus on poker’s prominence in American popular culture or the “mainstream.” In other words, I’ll be examining the game as it has been discussed and portrayed over the last two centuries-plus not just at the tables, but in newspapers, magazines, letters, memoirs, paintings, fiction, drama, radio shows, music, film, television, and elsewhere.

The book will additionally highlight poker being frequently evoked in politics, business, economics, warfare and diplomacy, business, economics, sports, and other “non-poker” contexts, with all of those references furthering the argument for poker’s importance to U.S. history and culture.

Such references to poker popping up day-to-day American life also tend to foreground links between certain ideals and values considered “American” -- things like individual liberty, self-reliance, the frontier spirit, egalitarianism, the “pursuit of happiness,” the ideologies of capitalism, and so on -- and so that obviously will be part of the story, too.

The idea of doing some sort of poker book probably began for me way back during the early days of the blog (begun almost 12 years ago), at some point not long after I picked up the habit of writing about poker on a regular basis both here and then soon after for a variety of different sites and publications.

For a few years that was mostly just an idle thought encouraged by the fast-growing number of Hard-Boiled Poker posts. However, once I developed and began teaching my “Poker and American Film and Culture” class in 2011, the idea began to take on a more concrete shape as I envisioned creating a book that might serve as a kind of textbook for the course.

Then in 2014 things got even more specific when with the help of an agent I began shopping book proposals and developing blurbs, detailed outlines and annotated tables of contents, sample chapters, and the like.

That process evolved into a year-and-a-half long mini-adventure that was interesting for me though less so for others, I imagine, so I’ll gloss over the details. Instead I’ll just skip ahead to the happy ending of D&B Poker entering the picture. I’ll be spending most of this year writing and rewriting as I get the manuscript together, with the 2019 World Series of Poker being the current target for the book to hit the stands.

I’ve written a book-length disseration and two novels before (Same Difference and Obsessica), and so I have had some experience planning and completing long-term writing projects. As in poker, patience is a big part of seeing such things through and having something to show for it in the end.

But this will be something different, a new and different kind of writing challenge. And I expect it ultimately to be a lot of fun for your humble scribbler and (hopefully) for some of you, too.

I’ll keep you updated on the project over here as well as on Twitter. Meanwhile big thanks to everyone who has read posts here and other articles of mine, and whose support and feedback encouraged me to keep writing. I know already the list of people I’m going to want to mention in the Foreword will be a long one.

Image: A Friend in Need (1903) by Cassius M. Coolidge, public domain.

You Wanted the Best, You Got the Best

The WSOP Main Event drew 7,221 entrants this year, a big boost from a year ago and actually the third-largest field ever behind the pre-UIGEA 2006 Main (8,773) and the last pre-Black Friday one in 2010 (7,319).

They’re down to a final table now, with the two-day respite before that gets going very welcome to those of us who've been at this for 10 days running. You’re no doubt following the action in the usual places, as well as on both ESPN and PokerGO (a very welcome addition to the coverage, imo).

Just to report quickly here on a few off-the-beaten path items, the WSOP Media Event happened back on Tuesday. Close to 100 played, I think, and your humble scribbler made it to the last 20 or so before finally busting a short stack.

“Thanks to all my backers,” I tweeted, forgetting to add the obligatory “AQ<QJ” afterwards. (The Media Event is a freeroll).

A few days after that Howard Swains and I felt uptight on a Saturday night and so spent part of the dinner break walking over to the other side of the Rio All-Suite Hotel and Casino to enjoy a round of KISS Mini Golf.

Was a fun 45 minutes or so knocking golf balls around the course replete with cool black lights and glow-in-the-dark decor full of all sorts of KISS imagery, with the tunes blasting the whole way (natch). Click that pic above for a bigger image. Imagine “Calling Dr. Love” pounding through your device’s speakers as you do.

I’m going to post a full report in a few days over on the PokerStars blog which I’ll link to here. (Here’s that report: “Rock in the Rio at KISS Mini Golf.”)

Finally, the day after that (Sunday the 16th) I was parked as usual on media row when Antonio Esfandiari came around to settle up his “shirt bet” with Lance Bradley (here with Pocket Fives). Was humorous watching them tie up that loose end, then seeing Esfandiari look up at everyone with a grin to say “Who’s next?”

Most everyone cowered behind their laptops in response, not having Lance’s courage. (If you aren’t familiar with the bet, Lance spells it out here.)

More to come.

Travel Report: PokerStars Festival New Jersey, Day 3 -- Shirt Tales

Worked through Day 2 of the PokerStars Festival New Jersey Main Event on Thursday, a relatively short day during which the field was whittled down to 23 players. Still several in the field who’ve notched big scores before, including Darren Elias, Matthew Affleck, David Vamplew, Michael Gagliano, and Randy “nanonoko” Lew of Team PokerStars Pro Online.

Afterwards I grabbed a dinner with Jess Welman and Lance Bradley, where among the topics discussed was Lance’s famous “shirt bet” with Antonio Esfandiari. Not a bet per se but a freeroll for Lance that requires him to wear the same shirt (when in public) for one year in order to win $8K from “The Magician.”

If you haven’t heard about the bet, you can read all about here from Lance himself on PocketFives. As you might have guessed, Lance was quite careful when dining. I had a French Dip sandwich that came with an awkwardly-shaped gravy boat full of au jus with which I was extra cautious while sitting within striking distance of Lance and the shirt.

The situation inspired me to share that New Year’s Eve tale from a couple of years ago I wrote about here, one involving a reckless busboy and me ultimately wearing a full glass of red wine. Of course Lance has imagined such a horror already and thus has worked through both strategically how to avoid it and mentally how to deal with it should it occur.

Meanwhile that Third Annual Chad Brown Memorial tournament last night was a roaring success, drawing something close to 90 players who rebought enough to create 300-plus entries I believe. Appeared a very good time for all involved, and as I was saying yesterday I was to be encouraged to think again of Chad who was such a friendly guy and so well liked by so many.

I ended up making an early evening of it, passing up on a chance to play some poker and I think I made a good call as I was already asleep in front of Thursday Night Football by nine-thirty. Am seriously catching up on rest here after all the travel of late.

Back at it today for the Main Event and perhaps more as the Festival continues. Check the PokerStars blog again to see what’s happening.

Here Comes the Flood: Newsweek on Online Poker

A long cover feature about online poker from the latest issue of Newsweek became available online this morning, and it has already captured a lot of attention in the poker world. Titled “How Washington Opened the Floodgates to Online Poker, Dealing Parents a Bad Hand,” the article reviews recent legislative history regarding online poker in the U.S. while advancing a view that the current, nascent era of state-by-state legalization heralds a potentially negative future.

Most in peril are the youth of America, as emphasized by the cover image of a young boy holding an iPad with a poker hand displayed. There’s perhaps a humorous incongruity between his rueful look and the royal flush he “holds.” In any case, it’s not a subtle image. Nor is the article that subtle when it comes to tipping its hand (so to speak) with regard to online gambling.

The author is Leah McGrath Goodman who earned some notoreity back in March of this year after writing another cover story purporting to identify the inventor of Bitcoin by name -- a pretty big scoop given the fact that his identity had been previously hidden. The outing of Dorian Nakamato as Bitcoin inventor “Satoshi Nakamoto” spurred debates about ethics in journalism, then the adamant denial by Nakamoto to the Associated Press that he was the inventor of Bitcoin fueled further controversy. (Another person claiming to be “Satoshi” later denied he was Dorian.) While Newsweek stood behind the article, the question of the founder’s identity remains uncertain.

I mention that earlier article because part of the resulting backlash against it involved the Bitcoin community being critical of Goodman’s understanding of the cryptocurrency, as well as Goodman lashing back on her Facebook page at the “fanatical Bitcoiners” whom she said “will see this all in a different light once they reach puberty.”

In her new article, Goodman again comments at length on a subculture that includes a number of passionate defenders, even if none of them is represented in her piece.

Goodman speaks to a law professor who opposes the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel’s undue influence over law enforcement, a Republican member of the House from Utah who oppposes online gambling, a professor of child psychology and psychiatry who warns of 18-to-25-year-olds’ susceptibility to gambling addiction and who has knowledge of an instance of an underaged player losing money playing poker online, a psychiatry professor researching addiction who likens gambling disorders to substance abuse, and the executive director of the National Council of Problem Gambling who expresses similar concern about gambling addiction.

The article begins with a summary of the memorandum by Virginia Seitz of the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel first made public in December 2011 that opined the Wire Act only applied to sports betting and not other forms of gambling, thus helping create conditions for certain states to consider and in a few cases pass online gambling bills.

The DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel is further introduced in a dim light, starting with a winky parenthetical note referring to its writing “justifications of drones and waterboarding.” Then comes the law professor complaining about the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinions being “treated as legally binding,” followed by the Utah House member’s fears about online gambling “reaching all the states.” He, too, is concerned about the Office of Legal Counsel (“an office in the bowels of the DOJ”) having so much power. (Incidentally, no reference is made in the article to how the UIGEA became law.) The Congressman is also skeptical about geolocational technology and about preventing children from being able to gamble online.

Next comes the academics’ observations about gambling addiction, followed by an overview of the current status of legislative efforts regarding online gambling in the U.S. The last part of the article goes back to tell the story of how we got here, summarizing Black Friday, the subsequent settlements, and current efforts by lobbyists and those contributing to politicians’ campaigns with an interest in the online gambling issue (with a conspicuous lack of perspective regarding Sheldon Adelson).

While mostly letting others speak of the evils of online gambling, Goodman does frequently target both Seitz and President Obama, highlighting their connection via the Chicago law firm Sidley Austin where both have worked. We learn that Seitz has left the DOJ and is planning to rejoin Sidley Austin to practice law. Thus does discussion of the Sidley Austin firm having “expanded its deal-making practice in the gambling space, which now includes major markets in North America, Europe and Asia” indirectly -- and speciously -- suggest that Seitz might have had a personal motivation for promoting online gambling. (Goodman did speak to Seitz, too, who reminded the author that the memo she wrote was an opinion.)

Obama’s acceptance of contributions from the gambling industry is also given a lot of attention near the end of the article, again kind of indirectly (and weirdly) suggesting that the nation’s growing interest in passing online gambling legislation helps support a larger goal of the current administration.

Many of the points shared in the article involve issues with more nuance than the commentators suggest. For instance, the professor of child psychology and psychiatry tells of a college student describing to him the “general progression” some take with Facebook games in which they start out playing them “purely for fun,” then some go “to the next level, where it’s for fun and money,” then some of those move further to “where the fun has disappeared and they are doing it just for money.”

Cool story, bro, but hardly as representative as it is made to appear. Nor does it account for the many other factors that contribute as causes for gambling addiction. Nor does it acknowledge that Facebook games are not the same as the regulated forms online gambling currently available in three U.S. states. In other words, in this article it is essentially a non sequitur, although it might have been useful to share in a feature about social gaming.

Speaking of there only being three states on board at the moment, to say the “floodgates” have been opened in the U.S. with regard to online gambling is so far from being true it can only be understood as either (1) a lethargic reliance on clichéd language (one of two in the headline), or (2) propaganda. Three states have passed laws, and in none of them is online gambling thriving by any means. And only a few others are tentatively considering such laws (with very modest prospects), while many other states never will come close to considering such.

(And by the way, why are we highlighting poker in that headline and not other forms of gambling? Makes for a better photo?)

There’s a lot, then, that is potentially misleading here thanks to the article’s unapologetic bias, something that comes out again in the very last last line which also incidentally includes another obvious inaccuracy. Referring to the DOJ’s repayment of Full Tilt Poker players (I received mine in June), Goodman derisively alludes to “Americans who had money in their Full Tilt Poker accounts on Black Friday, even though at the time those people should have known it was illegal to gamble online in the U.S.”

It wasn’t, of course, illegal for Americans to play on Full Tilt Poker -- indeed if it were it seems preposterous to think the DOJ would bother to help facilitate the return of players’ funds. The snide comment reminds the reader of the perspective informing the entire article, one that instinctive elides gambling with other illicit and illegal activity, deserving of punishment not reward.

That’s not even one of the other “11 Serious Problems With Newsweek’s Weird Tirade Against Regulated Online Gambling” that Chris Grove has already compiled over at the Online Poker Report. Others are already chiming in, too, with articles and over Twitter. And Goodman is responding, occasionally sounding a lot like she did before when dismissing the “fanatical Bitcoiners” as too immature to share her own wise perspective:

I’ll cut Goodman a break and conclude that here she’s mostly intending to echo Lance Bradley’s criticism of her methodology with a facetiously imitative rejoinder. Even so, her response does remind us that by speaking in favor of online gambling -- or even just asking those who oppose it to clarify their positions -- you risk being labeled as in favor of exposing children to danger. Or being grouped with others who support morally dubious behaviors. Or worse.

To reply to “How Washington Opened the Floodgates to Online Poker, Dealing Parents a Bad Hand” with yet another cliché, I tempted just to call it fear-mongering. But I’ll end with a fear of my own, namely that many will read and agree with Goodman’s blinkered position about online gambling -- especially poker -- and thus be likely to dismiss those trying to point out its flaws as “fanatical,” too.

The Partial Information Game

Was just following the coverage of the start of Day 2a/2b of the World Series of Poker Main Event and was distracted momentarily by all of the tweets reporting how WSOP Executive Director Ty Stewart got things going with a request that all first-time Main Event players stand up to be recognized.

I’m guessing it was a heart-in-the-right-place kind of request, one designed to highlight just how many new players came to participate in poker’s most prestigious event this year. But the rapid-fire responses highlighted a perhaps obvious consequence of the first-timers identifying themselves in such a way.

“The @WSOP has all the first times stand up, all the pros be very thankful. #WillAllTheFishPleaseStandUp #WSOP” tweeted Remko Rinkema. “The fish actually tagged themselves this time,” said AlCantHang, while Chris Tessaro added “No word if they then applied bulls eyes.”

A couple of pros chimed in amid my timeline. “Thank you @WSOP for getting all the first timers to stand up and identify themselves,” said Mizzi. “Now I know who to punish #3barrelbluffs.” Steve O’Dwyer, meanwhile, looked at the situation from the first-timers’ point of view. “How much equity did @wsopSUITd [Stewart] just cost the WSOP first timers by asking them to stand and identify themselves?” he wondered.

As I read the tweets I began to think about the possibility of experienced players standing as a kind of early “bluff” suggesting to their opponents they were less savvy than they actually were. Then Bluff’s Lance Bradley articulated the same thought: “Wonder how many non-first timers, local regs stood up to purposely misidentify themselves as first timers. #LevelsOnLevels.”

Another worthwhile point made by several was to note that just because a player was in the Main Event for the first time, that didn’t necessarily make the player a novice.

Still, interesting to consider just how the players who remained seated interpreted the situation when watching their tablemates stand up before play began today.

On Lindgren and “Rehab”

Over the weekend BLUFF magazine posted an interview with Erick Lindgren focusing primarily on the poker player’s significant sports-betting woes. Titled “Broken: The Erick Lindgren Story,” the article by BLUFF Editor in Chief Lance Bradley relates how Lindgren recently spent two weeks in a California rehab facility “trying to work through his addiction to gambling.”

The piece describes how Lindgren, once something of a favorite among poker-TV celebs thanks both to his amiable personality and talents at the table, has seen his reputation plummet of late following reports of his multi-million dollar gambling losses and comprehensive failure to cover debts.

Reference is made to last spring’s revelations regarding the extent of Lindgren’s losses/debts, which at the time were much greater than most realized. I wrote a post then titled “Hero Call” that discusses what was being said about Lindgren while also reflecting on how his story had become yet another example of a one-time popular figure in poker proving disappointing to some.

Clearly an action junkie who cannot help himself when it comes to sports betting, Lindgren speaks in the BLUFF article of having “the degenerate gene” and thus having had a goal of “removing” it via his stay at the rehab facility. The article explains how as a member of Team Full Tilt, Lindgren received payments “upward of $250,000 per month,” all of which (it seems) was squandered via betting on sports and participation in high-stakes fantasy leagues. And then some.

When the dividends stopped coming following Black Friday, Lindgren’s ability to make payments and/or hold off creditors lessened considerably. According to Lindgren, his gambling debts total about $3 million at present, although at one time he had been more than $10 million in the hole. He is also currently in the process of filing for bankruptcy.

The mention of “rehab” and the acknowledgment of having “degenerate” tendencies perhaps suggest that Lindgren is looking for a way to stop gambling entirely, much like an alcoholic might try once and for all to give up drinking. But that is not the case, as Lindgren describes himself at the end of the piece having “been staked in poker and some sports (betting) to try and raise some money.” As Bradley puts it earlier, “Lindgren wasn’t in rehab to cure him of gambling -- that’s his day job and he knows he needs to continue to play poker and work in Las Vegas if he has any hope of paying all his debts and beginning the process of repairing his name.”

It all sounds very odd and not at all encouraging. A cynical response would be to say that the primary goal of the two-week stay -- not to mention submitting to the interview -- was to rehabilitate Lindgren’s reputation, not really to try to help him directly address his gambling addiction (and thus, by improving his reputation, improve his shot at finding backers). But even a more generous reading of Lindgren’s words and situation has to be filled with trepidation thanks to the obvious disconnect between addressing one’s gambling problem by formulating plans to figure out how to continue gambling.

Thanks to Bradley’s balanced approach, the reader is allowed to form his or her own opinions regarding Lindgren and his plight. As Lindgren’s example well proves, the poker world tends to enable such “degen” behavior, allowing those who are self-destructive to continue down the same path as long as doing so doesn’t negatively affect others too greatly. And in some cases those who write and report on poker might be said to contribute even further to the process of enabling by romanticizing wild, reckless gambling without acknowledging the damage often done. But Bradley avoids that tendency in the article, mostly letting Lindgren speak for himself and thereby allowing readers to make their own judgments regarding the poker player’s future prospects.

While I’m as hopeful as anyone that Lindgren makes good, it seems to me that most who read “Broken” and respond rationally will probably come to a similar conclusion regarding Lindgren’s proposed method of recovery.

Not to bet on it.

Tough Table

I’m a sports fan and particularly enjoy following basketball and football. As a kid, baseball was the number one game for me, but its appeal lessened considerably following the strikes, the ballooning of salaries, and free agency causing nearly half of the players to move to different teams from year to year. So these days I mostly just follow college b-ball and pro football, and will spend leisure hours watching both when I can.

I’ve mentioned here before how I’m not really a gambler by nature, and so rarely, if ever, bet on sports. Most recently talked about the subject in a post last spring titled “Confessions of a Non-Gambler.”

I did bet on baseball game this summer. I was in the MGM sports book watching the games go by, and just for kicks took a random shot at a Mets-Yankees game, placing a bet on the underdog Mets. They were at home, had a decent pitcher starting (or so the stats suggested), and would pay $26 for my $10 bet should they have beaten the mighty Yanks. They lost something like 9-1, natch, duly punishing me for my frivolity.

So I rarely bet on sports. And I never, ever got interested in the “fantasy” games that are so popular and which were given privileged status (like betting on horse racing) in the finalized regs of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. There it is said that “participation in any fantasy or simulation sports game or educational game” is allowed with a few provisions (e.g., the prizes have to be declared up front).

On the eve of this year’s NFL season, though, I did decide to join in Dr. Pauly’s football pool, in which one picks winners for all of the games every week (straight up, no spreads). The top four finishers (out of the 40 who are playing) split the prize pool. You can follow the standings, too, by going over to ESPN’s Pigskin Pick’em game and checking out the group Pauly’s Pub.

As Week 1 played out, I saw I’d hit 11 of the 16 games. Was feeling pretty good about that until I checked the standings and saw how that had put me near the bottom of the list. Everyone else had 12, 13, 14, or even 15 correct! Sheesh.

The next week I only picked 9 of 16 correctly, but everyone else struggled, too. Still my team name -- More Cowbell -- was appearing in the bottom half of the group.

This past week was a breakout week for me, as I hit 13 of the 16. Was most proud of having picked Detroit to beat Washington -- that’s right, I picked a team that had lost 19 straight games to win, and they won. Kind of felt like hitting a two-outer, there.

Still, though, my 33-of-48 performance thus far lands me right in the middle of the pack, tied for 22nd and looking up at folks like Lance Bradley of Bluff Magazine who sits with a gaudy 40 correct picks, including 15 this past week. Yeah, he picked Detroit, too.

Am starting to think I’m at a tough table here. A bit like what happened the other day at my usual PLO25 six-handed game. Took a seat and saw a player across the way with nearly a hundy, an obvious sign the dude had a clue. Sure enough, within a few hands it had become apparent that he was the one with the edge, raising more than other players, showing a bit more savvy after the flop, and basically keeping everyone else in a defensive mode.

How do you respond in that situation? Do you leave to find a better seat elsewhere? Or do you stick around, taking the presence of an obviously more-than-worthy foe as a challenge? And if you choose the latter, why do you play it that way? To prove yourself? To improve your game? Or out of a stubborn unwillingness to move and/or accept you might not be the best?

Sometimes, of course, you find yourself with a couple or three tough spots at the table (though not so often at six-handed PLO25 games). Then it becomes more obvious that remaining in your seat -- when there are always plenty of seats at other tables available -- is an even more meaningful decision. How do you play it?

More often than not, I react like the amateur I am and stick around. Partially out of curiosity (can I beat him?), but mostly because of stubbornness. And like that bet on the Mets game, it often doesn’t work out so well.

There’s no leaving Pauly’s Pub, though, as we’re locked in for the duration. Not that I want to, anyway. ’Cos I think I can beat these guys. I got a fever. And the only prescription is...

MORE COWBELL!