From time to time I receive letters, usually they correct something that I
have said. I received the following letter a few days ago and was
pleasantly surprised and relieved that it contained no criticism of me.
Plus, it's content impressed me so much that I decided to share it with
the poker community.
Dear Vince,
I was beginning to think I needed new glasses. I mean I couldn't
possibly be reading what they seem to be saying. The word
“appalled” came to mind and I thought maybe it was a joke, a gaffe,
but then I realized they weren’t kidding. There it was in black and
white, sure as warts when you’re a teenager. I’m talking about the
postings that were showing up in some of the Internet’s chat-rooms
(linked to poker) that boldly suggested some dangerous changes to
the demeanor of poker. Hey, it was scary. They were saying—are
you ready?—that we need more people in poker who behave badly
because it’s “good for the game.” Wait a minute…let me get this
straight. Bad behavior is good for the game? Excuse me? That’s
like suggesting you put arsenic in your coffee because it’s good for
your liver.
They were trying to sell the idea that poker would never gain a
large following of spectators without more raucous palookas and
loose cannons sprinkled about the tournaments. There are, of
course, a number of “class-clown” types in the industry that are
loud and active, but they are fun, pose no harm, and are good for
poker. Poker is also lucky to be graced by the presence of some
colorful and venerable characters like Byron ‘Cowboy’ Wolford,
‘Oklahoma’ Johnny Hale and ‘Amarillo’ Slim Preston; they too are
good for the industry. But, would adding a bunch of crazy rootless
players known for arriving and looking for trouble make for sure-fire
box-office success? Is this where the game should be headed?
Does the future hold that we show up for a tournament wearing a
helmet, shoulder pads, and carrying a first aid kit? Anyway, some of
the postings went on to insinuate that without a multitude of
spectators, poker would be hard pressed to secure badly needed
corporate sponsorship. Well, I’ll have to admit they had a legitimate
point. But if you ask me, blaming the lack of corporate sponsorship
on the lack of bad behavior in poker is as ridiculous as blaming the
Great Chicago Fire on a pair of defective hand warmers in Cicero.
But there you have it. And I’ve got a few questions. Like, whatever
happened to heroes? Whatever happened to fair-mindedness and
good sportsmanship? Is it necessary to witness fights, squabbling,
or sleight-of-hand to gain an audience? Does poker need the
outrageous, the damnable, and the kiss-this-if-you-don’t-like-it
attitudes to gain notoriety? Does poker need this kind of in mass
entertainment to get the type of television ratings that would entice
corporate interests to come sniffing around? Does anyone honestly
believe that if poker gains substantial corporate backing they will
insist that our industry woo a bunch of thugs into its fold? Is that
what it’s all about; making entertainment out of disgusting behavior
and making martyrs of the non-heroes? Would the rock throwers
have us believe that rooting for the hangman is the best way to
go? The devil with skill, bring on the table-pounders, chair
-throwers, and habitual rule-breakers... that thumb their collective
noses at accepted and time-honored behavior in poker. Sheesh,
bring on some aspirin, please!
Another thing, what is it with this arrogant attitude of lampooning
the good guys? A couple of the more acerbic comments concluded
that it would be “beyond boring to watch a table full of nice people
playing a final table.” The drift seemed to be that if you don’t show
enough emotion then you are a loser. Granted, when it comes to
the moment of winning or losing many of the more aloof and quieter
players exude about as much emotion as a large, land turtle. But
many of them also have the reputation of being illusory, smooth and
ingenious at the table and are admired for their expert play by their
peers. I cant believe that if, say, Doyle Brunson, Mike Sexton, Ken
Buntjer, Tex Morgan, Daniel Negreanu (or you, Vince) and Linda
Johnson, to name a few, were seated at the final table of the “Big
One” at the World Series of Poker, that anyone knowing anything
about poker would find the action boring? I promise, they would
bring some “oohs!” and “aahs!” from the audience. So, it begs the
question—why do these lampooners even watch poker? Go watch
hockey or the WWF. Try sleeping in a pen full of strange bulldogs—
that’ll put some spice in you life!
Who knows, maybe I’m out to lunch. Maybe this nice guy thing isn’t
all it’s cracked up to be. Maybe we all should learn the art of
calculated outbursts of cursing the fates—to say nothing of the
players. Perhaps we should make it a point to always berate the
dealers, and even become experts at audible exhalation such as a
“kee-yi” that warns of impending bodily harm. Heck that ought to
run the ratings up, right? No, I don’t think so. Somehow I really
don’t think that type of behavior would warm the cockles of the
corporate CEO’s hearts. It’s all very well in professional wrestling or
boot camp, but for my money it doesn’t fit poker. I don’t think
reputable corporations would want to link their image to a bunch of
guys that practice clinching and mauling during breaks for television
commercials.
Now I ask you, does anybody actually believe that the majority of
an interested public viewing the finals of the World Series of Poker,
for example, would love to have a final table full of neighborhood
bullies? I can see it now: “Okay everybody, take your seats! Bring
up the lights and roll the cameras! And…Action! Whoops, where’s
makeup? Need some blood on that fella over there in the six seat.
Somebody smack him in the mouth and make him bleed. No! No! I
said him, not her! Now look what you have done for crying out
loud! Okay, well, drag her off to one side and throw some beer in
her face and bring her to. And be quick about it, she’s got the big
blind next. Now, listen up. There isn’t enough trash-talking, card
throwing, threats, or the head-butting of the dealer. I mean, what
do you think this is, a damn poker game er what?!”
I don’t know maybe there’s still too much old-fashioned integrity left
in me. I suppose a certain amount of the ills that flesh is heir to will
always be a part of poker, but this talk of an anarchistic approach to
poker bothers me and is a sad commentary on our time. I’m of the
opinion that poker should not be a sideshow or a knife fight in a
dark alley. Nobody deplores genuine victory jubilation; it’s the
glorification of verbal abuse and repugnant behavior that is
disturbing. Remember this, poker really is a game of study and skill
and not some derisive imitation of a variety show. Leave poker as
poker.
So, Mr. Burgio, give me a succinct answer. Am I just an old goat
that ain’t got no learnin’ and I’m talking through my hat, or am I
mostly right about my concerns?
Reg Coalwell
Springfield, Oregon
Mr. Coalwell,
Thank you for the letter. In answer to your question, I could not
agree with you more. I wish I could have stated the situation as
eloquently as you did.
Vince Burgio
For what it's worth ...
have said. I received the following letter a few days ago and was
pleasantly surprised and relieved that it contained no criticism of me.
Plus, it's content impressed me so much that I decided to share it with
the poker community.
Dear Vince,
I was beginning to think I needed new glasses. I mean I couldn't
possibly be reading what they seem to be saying. The word
“appalled” came to mind and I thought maybe it was a joke, a gaffe,
but then I realized they weren’t kidding. There it was in black and
white, sure as warts when you’re a teenager. I’m talking about the
postings that were showing up in some of the Internet’s chat-rooms
(linked to poker) that boldly suggested some dangerous changes to
the demeanor of poker. Hey, it was scary. They were saying—are
you ready?—that we need more people in poker who behave badly
because it’s “good for the game.” Wait a minute…let me get this
straight. Bad behavior is good for the game? Excuse me? That’s
like suggesting you put arsenic in your coffee because it’s good for
your liver.
They were trying to sell the idea that poker would never gain a
large following of spectators without more raucous palookas and
loose cannons sprinkled about the tournaments. There are, of
course, a number of “class-clown” types in the industry that are
loud and active, but they are fun, pose no harm, and are good for
poker. Poker is also lucky to be graced by the presence of some
colorful and venerable characters like Byron ‘Cowboy’ Wolford,
‘Oklahoma’ Johnny Hale and ‘Amarillo’ Slim Preston; they too are
good for the industry. But, would adding a bunch of crazy rootless
players known for arriving and looking for trouble make for sure-fire
box-office success? Is this where the game should be headed?
Does the future hold that we show up for a tournament wearing a
helmet, shoulder pads, and carrying a first aid kit? Anyway, some of
the postings went on to insinuate that without a multitude of
spectators, poker would be hard pressed to secure badly needed
corporate sponsorship. Well, I’ll have to admit they had a legitimate
point. But if you ask me, blaming the lack of corporate sponsorship
on the lack of bad behavior in poker is as ridiculous as blaming the
Great Chicago Fire on a pair of defective hand warmers in Cicero.
But there you have it. And I’ve got a few questions. Like, whatever
happened to heroes? Whatever happened to fair-mindedness and
good sportsmanship? Is it necessary to witness fights, squabbling,
or sleight-of-hand to gain an audience? Does poker need the
outrageous, the damnable, and the kiss-this-if-you-don’t-like-it
attitudes to gain notoriety? Does poker need this kind of in mass
entertainment to get the type of television ratings that would entice
corporate interests to come sniffing around? Does anyone honestly
believe that if poker gains substantial corporate backing they will
insist that our industry woo a bunch of thugs into its fold? Is that
what it’s all about; making entertainment out of disgusting behavior
and making martyrs of the non-heroes? Would the rock throwers
have us believe that rooting for the hangman is the best way to
go? The devil with skill, bring on the table-pounders, chair
-throwers, and habitual rule-breakers... that thumb their collective
noses at accepted and time-honored behavior in poker. Sheesh,
bring on some aspirin, please!
Another thing, what is it with this arrogant attitude of lampooning
the good guys? A couple of the more acerbic comments concluded
that it would be “beyond boring to watch a table full of nice people
playing a final table.” The drift seemed to be that if you don’t show
enough emotion then you are a loser. Granted, when it comes to
the moment of winning or losing many of the more aloof and quieter
players exude about as much emotion as a large, land turtle. But
many of them also have the reputation of being illusory, smooth and
ingenious at the table and are admired for their expert play by their
peers. I cant believe that if, say, Doyle Brunson, Mike Sexton, Ken
Buntjer, Tex Morgan, Daniel Negreanu (or you, Vince) and Linda
Johnson, to name a few, were seated at the final table of the “Big
One” at the World Series of Poker, that anyone knowing anything
about poker would find the action boring? I promise, they would
bring some “oohs!” and “aahs!” from the audience. So, it begs the
question—why do these lampooners even watch poker? Go watch
hockey or the WWF. Try sleeping in a pen full of strange bulldogs—
that’ll put some spice in you life!
Who knows, maybe I’m out to lunch. Maybe this nice guy thing isn’t
all it’s cracked up to be. Maybe we all should learn the art of
calculated outbursts of cursing the fates—to say nothing of the
players. Perhaps we should make it a point to always berate the
dealers, and even become experts at audible exhalation such as a
“kee-yi” that warns of impending bodily harm. Heck that ought to
run the ratings up, right? No, I don’t think so. Somehow I really
don’t think that type of behavior would warm the cockles of the
corporate CEO’s hearts. It’s all very well in professional wrestling or
boot camp, but for my money it doesn’t fit poker. I don’t think
reputable corporations would want to link their image to a bunch of
guys that practice clinching and mauling during breaks for television
commercials.
Now I ask you, does anybody actually believe that the majority of
an interested public viewing the finals of the World Series of Poker,
for example, would love to have a final table full of neighborhood
bullies? I can see it now: “Okay everybody, take your seats! Bring
up the lights and roll the cameras! And…Action! Whoops, where’s
makeup? Need some blood on that fella over there in the six seat.
Somebody smack him in the mouth and make him bleed. No! No! I
said him, not her! Now look what you have done for crying out
loud! Okay, well, drag her off to one side and throw some beer in
her face and bring her to. And be quick about it, she’s got the big
blind next. Now, listen up. There isn’t enough trash-talking, card
throwing, threats, or the head-butting of the dealer. I mean, what
do you think this is, a damn poker game er what?!”
I don’t know maybe there’s still too much old-fashioned integrity left
in me. I suppose a certain amount of the ills that flesh is heir to will
always be a part of poker, but this talk of an anarchistic approach to
poker bothers me and is a sad commentary on our time. I’m of the
opinion that poker should not be a sideshow or a knife fight in a
dark alley. Nobody deplores genuine victory jubilation; it’s the
glorification of verbal abuse and repugnant behavior that is
disturbing. Remember this, poker really is a game of study and skill
and not some derisive imitation of a variety show. Leave poker as
poker.
So, Mr. Burgio, give me a succinct answer. Am I just an old goat
that ain’t got no learnin’ and I’m talking through my hat, or am I
mostly right about my concerns?
Reg Coalwell
Springfield, Oregon
Mr. Coalwell,
Thank you for the letter. In answer to your question, I could not
agree with you more. I wish I could have stated the situation as
eloquently as you did.
Vince Burgio
For what it's worth ...
Should Poker Be More Like Wrestling
By Vince Burgio
By Vince Burgio
