I found this via a tweet by Matt Savage yesterday, a post tournament star Matt Glantz made to his blog:

http://www.mattglantzpoker.com/news/...lity-in-poker/
Responsibility in Poker
It's all about tournament pros, of course. The issue he leads off with is bringing chips or borrowing money from other players rather than wiring a stake ahead to your tournament destination. Deep in the article he describes issues of behavior and demeanor (hurling chairs at bustouts, calling TDs idiots in public spaces like Twitter, berating players or dealers, and so on).

All of the things he calls out are bad things (although the money management issue is in a separate category of planning ahead rather than demeanor at the tables). Each and every one of us, tournament pros or not, will have better lives as working pros if we keep them in mind.

But Glantz presents all this in the context of the ridiculous Epic Poker League. Players who have qualified for the league, he says, ought to be setting an example for all the other players who look up to them.

Speaking as a working five-days-a-week pro grinding it in the mid-stakes, I could give a good god damn about the demeanor of participants in the Epic Poker League. They are simply not relevant to my daily poker experience.

I think Glantz is a bit hypnotized by the notion of "professional." We talk about professional players and "going pro," but the truth of the matter is: poker is not a profession. Poker has none of the hallmarks of a profession. There is no licensing organization; the only barrier to entry is access to ready cash[1]; poker play for a living is not limited to people from bourgeois or propertied classes -- the ranks of pros are filled with people from all class backgrounds. Even the stiff qualifications of the EPL are phenomenological: anyone can be a member if they are able to perform sufficiently well at tournament poker.

Glantz is pushing against the Tragedy of the Commons: since anyone can be a poker pro, there is only minimal incentive to conform to identified community standards of behavior. Communities like 2+2 promulgate values for serious players, but spend an evening in the high-stakes room at the Commerce, and you'll see how poorly-accepted those values really are.

I don't think what Glantz is aiming for is bad, but I think he's barking up the wrong tree. Professional poker play depends on other people losing money. As pros, beyond are immediate interest in finding games we can beat and beating them, we should be focused on stewardship of our hunting and fishing grounds: welcoming weaker players, fostering a friendly and enjoyable climate in which to play, working to support the legal environment that allows games to continue and flourish. Yes, a lot of that involves good demeanor at the table, but it isn't "professionalism," it's enlightened self-interest.


[1] Trust fund kids can start playing professionally right away; people of limited means have to build up bankrolls big enough to sustain the swings of variance at profitable stakes, and that is a significant obstacle -- but they can also build up their rolls by saving.

The issue is more amplified online.

Try explaining the Tragedy of the Commond to a gaggle of 24 tabling, HUD-using, rakeback-getting online grinders when they complain that the games are too tough now. Better yet, try and explain it to the Legislation Forum when the topics of "player experience", rakeback, multi-tabling and HUDs are broached as a possible topic for regulation.

(Mind you, not a recommendation of such regulation, but the mention that licensees might raise the issues for discussion.)

It's collectivism to say it reflects on everyone...whether that's the perception of people or just his perception. No one is being paid to be a role model or live their lives for anyone else. If they want to act stupid in public or at the table they fit right in (ala Tony G and Helmuth). Frankly, it hurts you and you alone to insult fish...like Amarillo Slim said "you can sheer a sheep many times, you can only skin 'em once". If I'm cool with fish and you aren't, guess whose table they'll be at tomorrow night?

This is less of a Tragedy of the Commons issue than it is a situation where you go into woods hunting with bells on your shoes scaring all the game off, while I walk in wearing camo and being quiet. The more they talk, even if not insulting, the more they ring bells. The more they ARE insulting the louder those bells get. Either way, they scare the game away from themselves, not everyone. In fact, me having a neighboring piece of hunting land, they are scaring game to me. The less we talk, especially insults and rude over-the-top behavior, the more game comes our way. The nicer we are, the better the hunting will be.

Poker is more of an individual thing...there is no real Commons, other than games being robbed, cheaters being prevelant, et cetera. Otherwise the only Trajedy you're causing by being a dick is for yourself.

PS. A lot of fish are rude bells-on-shoes type players too...so this is a lot about psychology to. We remember it when it's young pros doing it...we don't remember everytime a fish called us an idiot and we laughed it off.

PPS.

I don't agree. If you do it for a living it is a profession. If you think you need liscences and barriers to entry (beyond knowledge) to be a pro at something I feel like you're (a) way too trusting of institutions who hand these things out and (b) saying someone who braids hair without some liscence, makes a living from it, and is the best hair braider on Earth, is not a pro because they didn't pass some silly test (which is itself a barrier to entry usually put in place by institutions with large market shares who do not want competition).

I just had surgery not too long ago. I told my foreign born doctor that his degree meant nothing to me...what I wanted to know was his reputation and if he was knowledgable (autodidactism does not preclude knowledge). The last time I checked, driver's liscences are handed out like candy, and teen sober drivers kill more people than all drunk drivers. Nearly every bad driver in the total of drivers are liscenced. Career criminals don't have degrees, liscences, or other regulatory affirmations, is another example.

Barriers to entry (beyond knowledge) do not make a professional...in fact they make monopolies or pseudo-monopolies that hurt markets and their efficiency longterm. This also serves to degrade the education needed in the field of expertise longterm. You said it has no barriers to entry beyond cash...well except specialized knowledge, right? I mean having a bankroll is not enough to play professionally.

Wikipedia:

Notice it doesn't say you need some degree, liscence, or hurdle some other barrier to entry. It says you need specialized education. In poker this is predicated on reading books, experience, conversations with other great players, etc. This means it is a profession, and no barrier need exist beyond specialization. You can self-educate.

Yes, I'm quoting myself...as a retraction. I was sitting here debating this point with a friend, and they convinced me I'm wrong. Poker as a job can be a "profession" in the colloquial sense, but
it does (as OP said) lack certain defining characteristics in a literal sense. Also, I made a few bad analogies above. I used to drive professionally (CDL Class-A), and the analogy with normal driver's liscences made no sense in retrospect given the discussion on professions. I can make the assertion most CDL drivers suck, and it would be true imho, but that wasn't the argument I made.

I'm convinced...poker is not a literal profession. I'm also convinced I never want to be part of a profession, and that they are negative overall (given their definition). Monopoly, required to be recognized by a state, etc...not good things. I do like the ethical aspect to a degree though.

My friend also pointed out career criminals often DO have professional institutions...called mafia...lol. Oopsy!

So I retract the entire quoted part, except the part where I point out knowledge is a barrier to entry. That is not, however, sufficient to the definition of a literal profession. I was confusing the colloquial term for the actual term...my fault.

I stand by the rest of the post (the first half) though

Not quite. If a fish gets insulted, two bad things can happpen to the general welfare of the poker economy.....

(1) He might get smart and realize what a fish he is and stop playing altogether, The only table he will be at tomorrow is some other form of entertainment.

(2) He gets pissed and stops playing. His disposable income for entertainment will no longer be part of the poker economy.

As a corollary, operators expect a certain return on their investment. To the extent that they have to spend more marketing dollars to recruit new fish, instead of churning/retaining fish, then their likelhood of subsidizing winning, volume individual players might drop.

You're correct but let's consider the probability of these scenarios:

1, Insults fly like crazy at tables. Most of them are from bad players, not pros. If even 10% of players are pros (rough numbers just for the sake of argument), and all 10% insult people (not likely), we have fish being exposed to insults by pros 10% of the time (maybe a little more since pros play more hours overall, but we'll ignore this for now since I'm overestimating the percentage of pros as it is, and the percentage of rude pros). Now, let's suppose 10% of the insulted fish decide to quit (a quite liberal assumption I'd say, judging by what I've seen in my experience...although you may have a different experience). So 1% of the fish that quit are the responsibility of pros, and we can't expect to control the behavior of fish themselves (we're discussing pros contribution to this problem).

This is an obviously inflated number...unless you disagree. I'd say it's inflated because both of my 10% numbers are overinflated, and because 90% of the people who insult them (using my original inflated numbers) are bad players too, and therefore they largely become immune to this behavior. I'd think the bigger risk from pros is making the fish better at poker as they listen to the inbedded advice in the insults.

Most people do not quit poker due to insults...not in my experience. I admit, however, some will. But this is the rare case where they just don't walk to another table with a friendly face like yours or mine who will take their money and treat them nicely. They enjoy our company, and often will look for us to play with if they truely just play for the enjoyment of the social aspect of the game (which is nice when you are being hunted by the fish, right?).

The real question is, do the small percentage of players that quit actually leave the game faster than new players come into the game? Given population rises at the pace they are, I'd say no on that basis alone (just assuming a constant percentage of overall population being poker players, and remembering how many baby boomers are retiring becoming recreational players in retirement).

2. Same as number 1.

As to the concern about marketing costs...what attracted players in the poker boom of Moneymaker? Was it a great recruitment scheme by marketers? Not really (although they did capitalize on it after the fact). It was WHO won and HOW (an every-man through a low buy-in satellite). What attracts fish for the most part is the chance to win a large sum for a small investment. These players like tournaments mostly. The fish attracted to cash games imho are there for social aspects (like tourists, etc.), and therefore may be more effected by your first concern than tourney players. I concede that what you say is true...but to what extent? Sure, the house can use this as an excuse to raise rakes or what have you, but wouldn't that just be an excuse? Do you see in the last 8-10 years a serious decline in players/fish even as the poker rudeness level has risen per capita and overall? The only decline I saw was when BF happened. Now that was a Tragedy of the Commons (or is that a common tragedy?...lol).

I think we are overestimating the effect this has.

What could cause this to be a problem is if it became a social norm...but that's unrealistic at best. Even now, most players are not rude. In terms of a social norm, politeness, joking around, etc., are the norms for the vast majority of players. Unless rudeness becomes a serious norm this can't have super-widespread effects.

I admit there is a tipping point...but to approach it would take a serious change in norms. It's like the bells-on-shoes analogy I gave. If every hunter in a 10 mile radius wore bells on their shoes, sure the one guy without bells may not have game to hunt or game chased to him, as the massive bell ringing would be heard for miles and keep all game in the brush. But that isn't likely to happen. A few will ring their bells, most will not, and those who ring these bells will chase the hunt our way as we're on neighboring land hunting without bells.

Pardon the bad analogy...but I believe the tipping point is so hard to approach that it's never probable to occur (although is not impossible, for sure).

I think just mentioning it in OPs like this to keep players aware is plenty to keep this from becoming a social norm. I think similarly about "tapping the glass"...as long as someone says "hey, stop tapping the glass" once in a while it will not become a social norm. I think that the effects of this are worse than what we're debating about here, but even it's effects I think are largely blown out of proportion. Remember, the majority of bad behavior are not pros, they're other bad players.

That's just my opinion based on my experience...I could be way off, or really wrong.

Well put Alanbostick and I agree completely. The way "professional poker players" act as a whole is completely wrong. Online, everyone sitting out the second a fish bust. Online and live: Being rude, name calling, poker lessons at the table, etc. If the well runs dry we will have collectively deserved it.

Glantz's feeling is now the subject in the most recent issue of Bluff!.