Comments on: Oh, you're a bad pony. And I'm not gonna bet on you.

Oh, you're a bad pony. And I'm not gonna bet on you.

bashos_frog — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:32:43 -0800

Poker and politics have often been intertwined. Former U.S. President Richard Nixon reportedly financed his first political campaign with money he won playing poker in the U.S. Navy during World War II. Harry Truman had his own presidential poker chips, and the "buck" which stopped at his desk is also from the game. Today David Mamet (House of Games) has some interesting poker advice for the Democrats, in the LA Times.

By: NorthernLite

NorthernLite — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:38:14 -0800

Not the biggest fan of his playwriting - but David Mamet for Dem Prez candidate. Or at least chief political strategist. This is yet another piece that voice the frustration I've had with the castrated pseudo-Dems of the past five years.

By: bashos_frog

bashos_frog — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:49:15 -0800

In poker jargon, the Dems have been playing weak-tight. They wait too long for the perfect cards, and they can be run off a hand anytime the opposition shows a little aggression. They can never win the game because they are always too afraid of losing.

By: nervousfritz

nervousfritz — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:56:13 -0800

There is no game. Application of any simple combative strategy to real life is limited at best. Nonetheless, obviously insightful.

By: weapons-grade pandemonium

weapons-grade pandemonium — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 09:58:55 -0800

Gambling presidents are OK, as long as they're dealing from a full deck.

By: Happydaz

Happydaz — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:01:09 -0800

Nervousfritz, games (and game theory, which is obviously a bit different than the article) have direct applications to real events. Politics is one huge, complicated game and I'd like to hear some logical reasons why you don't think it's a game. You have the players, the rules, the goal, strategies and tactics and defined outcomes (e.g.: One of the players "wins.") In my experience, people approach poker as they do life. Not all people are poker players, of course, but if a man is weak-tight at a poker table, he is very unlikely to be a leader or seize the initiative in his work or hobbies. Mamet says it better so I won't try to paraphrase, but in failing to attack, Democrats have relied on weakening defenses. It's like playing football and letting the other team control the ball for the whole hour. You might have a great defense, but eventually someone is going to break through, and if there's no offense of your own to give a reprieve, you're headed for disaster.

By: allen.spaulding

allen.spaulding — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:12:50 -0800

Game theory aside, there is an analogy to be made about the role of television in changing the two enterprises. Once politics/poker started being shown on television, lots of money and its idiot owners flooded in thinking they could make a quick buck. This analogy, (like any) doesn't go too far. The frat boys who think they can "read your tell" because they watch ESPN tend to lose big to people with basic math skills. Yet these same frat boy types seem to do much better with the big-stakes game of politics when they get older. Mamet's Richard Roma would probably work for the undersecretary of the interior in the Bush Administration before moving onto Monsanto.

By: basicchannel

basicchannel — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:15:56 -0800

Let me buy you a pack of hurricane relief. I'll show you how to administer it.

By: furtive

furtive — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:19:49 -0800

It takes brass balls to ~~sell realestate~~ play presidential poker.

By: spacewaitress

spacewaitress — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:19:53 -0800

Loved that David Mamet essay. Yet another in the chorus of voices saying, in essence, the Dems need to grow a pair.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:21:01 -0800

the democrats won't fight because they don't have anything to fight for that they're willing to lose over ... they would rather keep their safe seats, keep their pork barrel projects than upset the apple cart by actually opposing what the republicans are doing ... and the republicans talk a big game about cutting the size of government, making america more moral, etc etc, but they actually do very little ... and where the budget is concerned, exactly the opposite of what they say they want to do the corporations continue to amass power ... the middle class continue to get little gifts here and there ... and the poor and powerless are left with empty rhetoric and promises the basic questions and status of our country has not changed for decades ... neither party is willing to change them

By: fenriq

fenriq — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:24:49 -0800

If Bush were playing poker, the deck would be filled with jokers.

By: cavalier

cavalier — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:25:23 -0800

Great link, thanks, (heart) Mamet.

By: wakko

wakko — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:25:29 -0800

In other political poker news, some idiots are still trying to ban online gambling.

By: mosk

mosk — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:56:03 -0800

"Weak-tight" indeed, whereas the Republicans are loose-aggressive, a style that will continue to work unless/until the Dems stand up to them and make it stick. FWIW, the poker style that is most successful is tight-aggressive -- you play fewer hands, but you play them for all they are worth, and extract maximum value from both value bets (bets when you have a wining hand) and bluffs. To clarify Mamet's line, you are either folding or raising. Your opponents fear playing with you because you usually win, and you make it very costly for others to play back at you. One nice metagame feature of this style is that strong play accelerates your rate of winning, because your opponents become cowed. (By contrast, loose aggressive play works against weak opponents but not against strong opponents, who will milk you dry by virtue of better starting requirements and better positional play.) But this assumes a table with (at least) several opponents. In a headsup game, which is what we have in our two party system, aggression is 90% of the contest. At this point, the Dems are toothless, and need to find a hand they can play and put all their chips behind it. You'd think that recent events, both domestic and abroad, would have given them the opportunity they need to make their stand...but it does take balls, which the Dems couldn't find with both hands and a flashlight.

By: nervousfritz

nervousfritz — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:04:38 -0800

Politics is one huge, complicated game and I'd like to hear some logical reasons why you don't think it's a game. That's why I think philosophy is a lot better than politics. Politics hardly exists either. Nor does philosophy. But especially, there is no game. Anyway, I'm familiar with game theory. It's a branch of mathematics which is used in combination with psychology in the effort to harness people's desire to be happy, in order to make a buck. The net effect is hardly ever happiness, except for those who enjoy using systems to manipulate lots of people.

By: mzurer

mzurer — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:20:37 -0800

It was the rumor in DC in the 80's that Mayor-for-Life Marion Barry used to play high-stakes poker with the developers who were bidding for contracts in downtown. He always took in the big pots and went home with the money. He was not otherwise known for his card skill.

By: alumshubby

alumshubby — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 11:27:42 -0800

Control of the initiative is control of the battle. In the alley, at the poker table or in politics. One must raise. The American public chose Bush over Kerry in 2004. How, the undecided electorate rightly wondered, could one believe that Kerry would stand up for America when he could not stand up to Bush? A possible response to the Swift boat veterans would have been: "I served. He didn't. I didn't bring up the subject, but, if all George Bush has to show for his time in the Guard is a scrap of paper with some doodling on it, I say the man was a deserter." As Mad magazine used to put it, "Scenes We'd Like To See Dep't."

By: caddis

caddis — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:47:31 -0800

That is the appeal of Dean, he has a brass set. It's still his appeal. Time to crank up the heat, the war is a mess, the Feds let NO down and they aren't going to have the fortitude to stick with the reconstruction, and by the way the budget is in shambles due not just to Katrina but poor planning by the current Republican power brokers. Turn 'em out in '06. The rallying cry needs to start now.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:47:50 -0800

Mamet's essay could be applied to the Chicago Cubs as well.

By: solid-one-love

solid-one-love — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:56:00 -0800

FWIW, the poker style that is most successful is tight-aggressive It's only the most successful against a ringful of loose-weak players, like the typical fish who think they know how to play poker. The folks who will almost always pay to see any unraised flop and will almost never raise. Against a crowd of tight-weak players (the folks who've read Hellmuth but are too frightened to apply it) the optimal strategy is to play loose-aggressive. The optimal strategy is usually to play the opposite of the bulk of the players at the table. If they're loose, play tight. if they're aggressive, play weak. But in heads-up play, as in the Mamet example, you pretty much always have to be aggressive.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:07:20 -0800

"like the typical fish who think they know how to play poker" See, from the pictures, I always thought it was dogs that played poker.

By: Balisong

Balisong — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:27:56 -0800

If you show up to a poker game, look around the table to see who's the 'mark', and can't tell who it is, it's you.

By: matteo

matteo — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 05:31:18 -0800

By contrast, loose aggressive play works against weak opponents but not against strong opponents, who will milk you dry by virtue of better starting requirements and better positional play that's the post-1994 Clinton presidency for you. excellent comment. and awesome post