Andrew and Nate skip the strategy this week to get right to a special hour-long interview with Olivier Busquet. Busquet discusses his win in the EPT Barcelona Super High Roller, the economical and personal value of playing in big buy-in tournaments, and, of course, the political t-shirt drama.
Enjoyed and impressed, well done, you’ve raised the level of discourse.
A smart man would just say “ditto to Gareth’s comments”. I will reveal my lack of intelligence by continuing.
I really like that your show exists for these types of issues. I also appreciate, and think it was appropriate that there was no strategy segment (regardless of the reason).
I had been stereotyping Olivier as a pompous ass for a while. Thankfully, his appearances on your show have convinced me otherwise, and exposed flaws in my judgment. I have a sense I would disagree with him on many topics, but he’s smart, clear, honest, and self-aware. I also like that in both his appearances, he has put questions back on our intrepid team of Andrew and Nate.
Olivier said twice if he had planned to make a political statement he would have chosen a different topic. I’m curious what he would have chosen. I think this is a slight knock on him, as I would expect him to be more deliberate in his actions. John Wayne claimed that his father’s motto in life was to never “intentionally” insult/injure another. The Duke countered that a better motto was never to “UNintentionally” insult/injure another. However, I like that Olivier was supporting his close friend. It is valid motivation.
I really like his (and Nate’s) point that in a globally connected world you are going to be exposed often to stuff that offends you. How one responds to offense says a lot about one’s character. I agree people are too easily offended and make too big a deal out of that fact. A lot of what has been directed at OB (and DC) is just garbage.
Olivier seemed to agree that Stars is following a social norm by enforcing dress codes. I thought of the PGA, which mandates players wear pants, and fines players every time they curse or spit on television. He asks if the balance of power is out of whack between corporate entities and players in poker. I don’t know but that is the fundamental question. Those opposed to OB’s stance on Gaza should consider how they would react if Stars banned them from wearing something they hold dear (maybe a “John 3:16” shirt or something supporting the second amendment).
I have two criticisms. First, I am skeptical of the value of “awareness” campaigns. I find OB’s contention that I decide my opinion on the GAZA conflict with the same casual, subliminal effort I use to pick a soda. I find that offensive. But also, the message he expressed on the podcast was uncontroversial. I doubt there are many who do not support peace in that region and compassion for its inhabitants. But his two word t-shirt did not appropriately get that message across (judging by the controversy) so his awareness effort seems to be a failure. It is analogous to his Pepsi sponsorship coming in the form of a list of the ingredients, which are bound to offend those opposed to sugar and artificial colors. Second, when Andrew suggested a capitalist solution would include competing poker tours, OB brought up how unions did more than competition to change work environments. Was he suggesting he was the Norma Rae of poker? He’s a millionaire who wore a t-shirt! The right to wear a political t-shirt is a far cry from the rights early unions fought for. He admitted it was only a last minute, unplanned idea. Perhaps I read too much into that comment. I’ve been wrong on OB before.
Enjoyed and impressed, well done, you’ve raised the level of discourse.
Thanks for the compliments and very thorough comments. I agree that this isn’t the sort of thing that should be done casually, and I actually think that a lot of the blame for that falls on Dan. Dan must have this in mind for a while to have brought the t-shirts with him, but he didn’t spring the idea on Olivier until half hour before play began? Obviously I don’t know the details of their relationship, but it sounds like an awkward spot to put your friend in, especially if you know that he’s inclined to support you in endeavors like this even if he has some misgivings.
This was why I didn’t push too hard on the point about what OB meant to accomplish with the shirts. Once he acknowledged that it wasn’t well thought out, I figured the more interesting discussion was about when and where politics and poker should mix rather than about what OB and DC specifically did or meant to do. I’ll have more on THAT topic forthcoming on this very blog shortly! 🙂
You’ve hinted at some changes in your life. I hope whatever happens, you can keep this up. I think it is meaningful and I benefit from it greatly.
AB,
You’re judgment was correct IMO. No need to push him for just supporting his friend. And Kudos to OB for supporting his friend, serving as the face of this as it became controversial, and handling it with class.
Thanks for the thoughtful and thorough comment.
Agreed that it’s bizarre (and offensive) to compare a millionaire wearing a T-shirt to the heroes of the labor movement.
That said, I took Olivier not to be doing that but rather to be pushing back against Andrew’s comment, which might have been perceived as springing from a naive belief in a certain kind of free market, or a certain kind of libertarianism. Olivier’s point, I think, is simply that one can’t always sit back, relax, and wait for market forces to accomplish what needs accomplishing. (This isn’t to say that this is the right way to characterize Andrew’s own view or that Olivier’s response to that view is a good one!)
Well, Andrew was mostly just trying to present that point of view, not necessarily present it as his own.
Yeah, I was afraid I misconstrued that comment. And I was aware Andrew was being a good conversationalis, not necessarily a good capitalist.
Yeah, I was afraid I misconstrued that comment. And I was aware Andrew was being a good conversationalist, not necessarily a good capitalist.
To be honest, I’m no expert on nineteenth century labour law, but i would be a bit skeptical about the accuracy of the statements OB half made to counter Andrew. It was all a discussion contained in a hypothetical bubble, I thought.
Agreed.
and now for something completely different
Thanks for a great interview, AB and NM. PokerStars is going to have some tough calls in future–what constitutes a political statement in poker attire?
The T-shirts were ambiguous: save Gaza… From whom? How? Free Palestine… From what? I suspect Dan and Olivier had an anti-Israel intent, but it isn’t at all clear from those slogans. “Save Gaza from Hamas” is equally possible. Given how many truly outrageous, partisan statements are made about Gaza in the media every day, these were pretty tame and the best response was to ponder them quietly or ignore them altogether.
That said, I wonder what the policies of the NFL, MLB, NBA, etc are wrt political statements on spectators’ clothing at events? Since both fans and poker players pay to attend, it seems like an apt comparison.
I am against injecting politics into poker-the costs seems high for all players.
The good example is another Daniel- Nr1 member of Team PokerStars.
Over the years -he was very succesfull branding PS as anti-Arab,anti-Muslim site.
I do not recall any reaction from PS.
I get the sense that Daniel’s rants are generally taken as his own opinions and not to be endorsed by PokerStars. Although he finds his foot in his mouth pretty often I don’t think it’s ever been the sort of thing where PokerStars should have fired him to show their strong disapproval. Although I agree that a lot of his comments are problematic I don’t think that “anti-Arab,anti-Muslim” is a very nuanced way of understanding them.
I agree with you Andrew.This is not my opinion.
But I overheard this opinion when I played on WinMax from (Muslim?German?)players.
There is quiet large young population of Muslim in Western Europe.
They play poker.I am interested to keep pool growing and big as possible as on PS because I play mid-stakes PLO on PS.That’s all.
Hi – I heard Andrew make reference again to the costs of transferring money from one currency to another and his concern that he may lose too much along the way. While currencies may move between the time you place a transaction one way (say to buy in to an EPT event) and then the transaction going the other way (say when you ship the money you have won from the EPT event back to the country you want it to go to), the competitors to the major banks are able to provide a much better transaction rate these days.
I’ve used ozforex.com.au since 2011 when I was based in Sydney, Australia and wanted to cut a better deal than the Aussie banks offered. I’ve sent a bunch of AUD to New Zealand via ozforex.com.au over about 10 transactions 2011-2012. And this year I’ve sent a bunch of NZD from New Zealand to Australia over another 4 or 5 transactions
Happy with their service. Forex Cross rates and fees Much Better than the banks offered.
They have subsidiaries in a number of countries (if you are happier going for a company based in your country)
For example
http://www.usforex.com
http://www.canadianforex.com.ca
http://www.ukforex.co.uk
http://www.ozforex.com.au
http://www.nzforex.co.nz
I’ve seen there is a http://www.forex.com as well, but do not have personal experience with that company. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were other companies as well. The major banks were majorly clipping the transaction ticket when I switched over to ozforex in 2011. So there would have been plenty of room for other niche forex providers to set up and compete with the banks.
Do your own research and maybe, if you choose to go to one of the providers competing with the banks , transfer a small amount first, compare what it would have cost via major banks, then, when happy, transfer larger amounts.
If interested, you could toodle off to http://www.usforex.com/why-us/fees and http://www.usforex.com/customer-rates then compare the rates with a bank you were thinking of using
If anyone else has experience with other forex providers perhaps they could comment as well.
Thanks for posting this Hamish. It was sloppy of me to try to pass on your advice to Olivier off the top of my head. FWIW I did forward your recommendations to Brian so he got accurate information anyway. Thanks again!
The whole thing strikes me as strong evidence of a) the poverty of content in the mainstream of the poker-entertainment world and b) the general shallowness of debate in the bulk of the poker media, and generally fills me with dispair.
OB’s a good guest, though.
Agree on all accounts!
I agree with Ian.
It was a decent episode of course.
Whats are the names of the music/songs in this podcast?
It is difficult to swallow that someone so obviously hyper-intelligent could be so naive about the power of symbolic speech in this context. He promoted a message known to inspire violence and hatred, in front of the worldwide media, and his long form explanation serves only to elucidate his self-confessed ignorance of the subject.
If only Olivier had sad, “I am passionate about this issue, and here’s why it’s important to me… ”, because he actually has our attention! But instead, we get (at 57:31), “If I could have chosen an issue, this probably wouldn’t have been the issue that I would have chosen.” Swing and a miss: both interviewers missed the hanging change-up. What the fuck is actually important to you, Olivier? You and Dan have had the bully pulpit of the poker world twice in recent weeks: first Dan chooses to say nothing, and for an encore, you give us SAVE GAZA. Forgive me for vomiting just a little bit.
Whether or not politically charged speech should be allowed at the poker table is another issue altogether, upon which Nolan Dalla muses intelligently in his initial blog: http://www.nolandalla.com/political-censorship-place-poker/response and then with passion and vitriol in a rambling 38 minute video reply to Robbie Straznski: http://www.nolandalla.com/video-reply-robbie-straznski-politics-poker-table/
Thank you for the long form interview, guys. While I have an enormous respect for Olivier’s game, his political statement appears to be, “we should all talk more about politics”.
In response to Nate’s lament for the dearth of good poker journalism: wouldn’t this be a perfect time for a Nolan Dalla podcast?
Holy Backpeddling, Batman!
I understand that Olivier might have wanted to take back his stance a bit, especially considering the amount of flak he has gotten. But this seems like going a bit too far. I mean, he hasn’t even said a word about the actual situation in Gaza on the podcast. (Nor did you prod him on that). If he would have simply mentioned on air that over 400 children have died as a result of Israeli bombing, that would have gone a long way in my book. Even putting this picture in listeners’ minds: the horror of one child dying from a military assault, times 400, would have given some sort of visibility to the actual issue that Olivier chose, however arbitrarily, to represent.
I’ll tell you what really troubles me about all of this. As an Israeli Jew, I encounter extreme difficulty in communicating these issues over here in Israel. People, perhaps understandably, don’t want to listen: allowing themselves to be challenged with dissenting opinions might force them to re-examine the entire school of thought on which they’ve grown up; that sounds like a lot of work, with no clear benefit, so better to just keep believing that “the only democracy in the middle east” is probably the good guy. But in the U.S., I’m not sure what’s the source of all the backlash against practically anyone that dares to express an anti-Israeli stance.
I am amazed at the sheer amount of force applied towards one side of this issue in the U.S., so much so that anyone who dares express a dissenting view is immediately subject to all manners of personal attacks. I have few ways to explain this phenomenon because, as someone who sees these things on the ground, there is no possible way on earth to have a justifiable one-sided view on these issues. The middle east conflict is so complex, so nuanced, that basically anyone who “picks sides” is wrong right off the bat. It’s a story of power-struggles between powerful players, mostly at the expense of the lay person. It is certainly not a story of who’s religion or who’s founding myth you like best, or who is “more democratic”. So seeing the one-sidedness of public discourse, and seeing how strongly those who voice a dissenting opinion are attacked, just baffles me.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I have a strong feeling that Olivier knew very well what cause he was choosing to support, but got retroactively talked out of it by being reminded what he has to lose. I don’t blame him for it if this is indeed what happened, but I am very saddened that even in a freewheeling field like poker, it is so easy to shut up people who support a reasonable cause, as unpopular as it may be. No one was supporting Hamas here. The subject of the message were the suffering people of Gaza (and they *are* suffering, according to both sides). How have things gotten to the point where even stating the simple fact that they are suffering and that you long them to be free is immediately construed to be an anti-Israeli, or even an anti-semitic, point of view?!
It’s highly disingenuous of Olivier to act surprised that he received this much blowback. If he just wanted to raise awareness of humanitarian tragedies, there are plenty of more grisly examples he could have chosen (though even talking about suffering on that scale as though its a measurable/comparable thing feels distasteful). Everyone has the same attitude towards Congo/Darfur – ‘that’s horrible’ – but Israel/Palestine is such a disproportionately heated issue because it’s easy for people to align themselves with one side and be convinced that anyone who disagrees with you is endorsing genocide. It’s not an issue that allows for moderation, in any sense of the word. A guy as smart as Olivier shouldn’t play dumb; when you wear ‘Save Gaza’, you’re inviting obvious questions – from whom? How? A T-Shirt with the Red Cross logo would do more actual good than any abstract value raised by that kind of statement.
Re Dom’s comment: “It’s highly disingenuous of Olivier to act surprised that he received this much blowback”.
What makes you think he’s not genuinely surprised? To many people, myself included, the uproar about the wearing of these t-shirts is almost comical. The conflict in the Middle East is clearly an ongoing tragedy. Displaying a two-word slogan that might upset a few viewers of a poker tournament is not. It’s a non-event. The “Save Gaza” shirt is basically a fashion statement or a meme, and has roughly the same moral value as Mike McDonald’s Ron Burgundy t-shirt, or a pin that says “Rock the vote!”
One could argue that the slogans trivialize the conflict, but so what? Colman and Busquet aren’t representing the poker community at the United Nations. They’re representing themselves in a televised card game.
Nice perspective 🙂
It was my guess that Andrew and Nate were more interested in covering the broad issues of politics and poker and not the specific issues of Gaza/Israel. I could be wrong, but I think Olivier would and could expand on his position in the right forum. I just don’t think this was promoted to him as a forum to expound in depth on this most complex subject. A debate over israel and palestine would be valuable, but it would really have no place on a poker podcast. Only the broader topic seems applicable for the global audience of the TPP.
However, I do think it is valid to criticize OB for not explaining and defending his position on Gaza. Perhaps a proper forum for that will avail itself. If it doesn’t than I think his goal of awareness seems to be lost.
Olivier said something about Hu hypers sng being the form of poker with the “lowest amount of variance”(not huge swings etcetc) attached to it… is it true ? i mean i ve always thought husng hyper were the exact opposite…Could someone help me out understand this ?
I’d expect any two-person tournament format to be pretty low variance. There are only two possible outcomes, and the EV difference between them is small. Hypers are basically flipping a coin with a small edge (53/47 or something like that). I’d think it would be hard to go on streaks where losses predominate over wins by 50 buy-ins, and especially hard to get them early which is where they’d hurt you the most.
Thanks Andrew, this makes sense but then my next question wuold be “wouldnt the normal( 10min blinds) husng be the ones with less variance” ? but i guess that the “trick” that changes things is the huge amount of number of husng hypers that we can play in a given time period compared to the small amount of normal husng right ?
You’d have fewer and less severe downswings in them, anyway, which is what poker players are usually concerned about when they ask about variance. But I think also generally a lower hourly rate.