In my previous post, I argued that there are a number of political issues (construing the term somewhat broadly) that I don’t think anyone would argue shouldn’t be, and in any event were and are, discussed at thousands of poker tables around the world. This includes government actions such as the UIGEA, the Black Friday indictments, and legislation authorizing new online or brick & mortar gambling venues.
In today’s post I want to bridge the gap between these issues that are of obvious interest to poker players and other political topics that may not seem directly poker-related but that still have some tangential relationship to poker players and the decisions that we make about where to play. These are topics about which poker players are likely to have divergent opinions, but I think that they merit more discussion than they get in the poker world, both over the table and elsewhere.
The opposing argument here is the “I come to the poker room to play poker, I don’t want to hear anyone talk about politics” attitude. Your decision to play poker at a particular venue is political, it has political consequences, and I see no reason why these consequences shouldn’t be legitimate topics of conversation. Choosing to ignore or refuse to discuss these consequences doesn’t make you apolitical, it just makes you ignorant.
The following is something like a case study. It’s an example of how poker players can’t just avoid politics, though we can and too often do ignore them. My stance on this specific subject is not a strong one, and I have myself played at these poker rooms before, though it always made me uncomfortable and I’d prefer to avoid playing at them again. I use it rather as an example of an issue that I think some but not all poker players would care about if they were forced to think about it. My point, overall, is that discussion in the poker world ought be more, not less, overtly political than it currently is, and the following is a small contribution thereto.
Playing Poker at Dog and Horse Tracks Subsidizes the Racing Industry
Many poker rooms in the US are at dog- or horse-racing facilities. Often, when seeking legislative authorization to introduce poker and/or casino gambling on their premises, the owners of these facilities explicitly argued that the racetrack alone was no longer economically viable and that other forms of gambling were needed essentially to subsidize the industry. Playing poker and otherwise spending money at these facilities is very directly supporting the racing industry, even if you don’t actually place any racing bets. The Florida Times-Union reports that,
The “decoupling” movement has created an odd alliance between racetrack casino operators, who see the races as a burden, and animal rights groups out to end greyhound racing altogether, much as they succeeded in outlawing cockfighting several years ago.
“When decoupling passes, it will lead to a slow and gradual end” of the industry, said Carey Theil, executive director of the anti-racing group Grey2K USA.
Dog racing’s troubles also could be a preview of things to come for the horse racing industry, which in some states has identical laws tying it to casino gambling. Money bet at thoroughbred tracks dropped from just over $15 billion in 2003 to less than $11 billion in 2013, according to the Jockey Club, an industry clearinghouse.
Though stronger financially than dog racing, horse racing is also far more expensive to stage, and only a handful of the biggest tracks are profitable without casinos to support them.
Some within the horse racing industry see decoupling laws as a threat to their own sport.
“They could set a dangerous precedent for all breeds of racing,” said Lonny Powell, the CEO of the Florida Thoroughbred Breeders and Owners Association, who worked for years as a regulator of dog races.
In Florida, casino owners and animal welfare advocates have actually gotten together to support a bill that would decouple casinos from race tracks, a move that would likely be the death knell for the racing industry in that state. This should give you an idea of the importance of casino patrons to the continued viability of the race track at venues where the two are coupled.
Animal Lovers Should Have a Problem With That
I realize that some people just don’t value animal welfare very highly, and I’m not going to argue that point right now. Judging by the number of “look at my adorable dog” posts I see on my Twitter timeline, I suspect that many poker players do not want to subsidize animal cruelty and have just never really thought about or been pressed on the topic. According to advocacy group Grey2KUSA,
“To racetrack promoters, dogs are short-term investments. Even the fastest dogs only race for a few years, and are expected to generate enough profit during that time to make up for their total costs. The pressure to generate profits can lead to negligent care. Adoption groups often receive dogs in a general state of neglect, including dogs suffering from severe infestations of fleas, ticks, and internal parasites. To cut costs, dogs are fed raw 4-D meat from dying, diseased, disabled and dead livestock. This meat is deemed unfit for human consumption. The quality of veterinary care a dog receives can also be compromised by financial considerations.”
Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that,
horse racing continues to wrestle publicly with a drug culture that its officials concede has badly damaged the sport. A New York Times investigation in 2012 showed how a pervasive drug culture, encouraged by trainers and aided by veterinarians, put horses and riders at risk. The Times found that 24 horses a week died at American tracks, a rate greater than in countries where drug use was severely restricted.
These are at the very least problematic industries, and as far as I know there’s been virtually no discussion among poker players about boycotting events at these facilities, although in my opinion there’s more of a case for that than for boycotting the Venetian and other Adelson properties.
Not Talking About Politics is Political
This is a political issue of the sort that could prompt someone to say, “Shut up with your bleeding heart politics and just play poker.” Then again, bringing the issue up at a poker table could easily bring the issue to the attention of someone who does care about it and who will change his behavior accordingly. Thus, the call not to talk about politics is also a call to keep this person in the dark, which of course serves the interests of the racing industry, which would rather not have people talking about issues such as doping or the disturbingly high death rate of their animals.
I’ve gone into detail on this one, but there are similar issues related to many poker venues. Animal lovers might also think about the treatment of captive marine mammals before playing the PCA at Atlantis. Indian casinos have their own set of complications, as I’m sure do most casinos.
It’s easy to shrug and say, “I’m just here to play poker, none of that is my concern.” But should we? And more to point, should we chastise those who do not?
Just wanted to chime in to say that I found both of these posts to be thought provoking and valuable. Thanks, AB.
Indeed. The blogs and comments about them were a pleasant distraction *away* from the daily poker grind for me.
I’m a poker theory geek, but I’d still rather hear a poker player’s socio-political opinions than a discussion of how he plays ace jack in the big blind. Well, as long as I broadly agree with his opinions! 😉
To be slightly more serious, I’m a great believer in speaking out about issues you think are important. It’s become a cliché, but “If you don’t stand up for something, you’ll fall for everything” rings true for me. Wearing a slogan t-shirt or writing a blog doesn’t radically alter the world, but if it gets one person to THINK, instead of blindly accepting the status quo, that’s got to be a good thing.
Karl Marx: Nothing to Lose But Their Chains.
Maybe Andrew you are right.Maybe more politics is good thing.
Often professional poker players lives in a kind of ghetto like people in Gaza.
American media perceive people living in Gaza as terrorists and fanatics.
Often poker pros are perceived as bunch of hustlers and low-lifes.
So you have consequences of this in real life.
Oliver have to sneak across the border under false pretense to play online poker and good professional e-gamer does not have problem to get visa from the State Department.
I mean the visa which is granted to traditional athletes(tax,etc).
You have e-tournaments in USA with 10 mln $ founded by sponsors:Coca-cola,American Express,software giants,etc.
By the way you have e-tournaments where you have e-athletic scholarships from American universities and institution.
And you have poker tournaments.
Andrew, I think you are correct that these things should be discussed. I think most of our actions are a complex balance between things we like/support and those we do not. How does one decide whether the personal gain from playing poker at a dog track (or an Adelson property) outweighs the indirect support my action gives to those who mistreat animals (or lobby against online poker)? Given the complexity, we can only benefit by discussing these issues widely. Obviously, many of those conversations can take place away from the felt, but it seems natural for them to occur in game as well.
I am totally with you on poker talk at the table.
Are you going to move on an discuss politics on televised poker. I think that is the root of the problem in the t-shirt issue. If they’d just worn the t-shirts to the local casino we wouldn’t be discussing it.
Andrew, great discussion on politics at the felt. To add fuel to the fire of live poker vis a vis animal rights considerations, such concerns are not limited to those places whose associations are obvious, such as Palm Beach and PARX and Delaware Park. Many, many states have statutorily mandated that some portion of casino revenues go to funding Thoroughbred racing or standardbred racing. An abbreviated list of casino states where money is routinely channeled to tracks would be Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware and West Virginia. In Maryland alone, more than $130M has gone to horse racing interests since casinos first opened just four years ago. Until quite recently, when racing-earmarked money was diverted to the Atlantic City Alliance, New Jersey also sent a steady stream of cash from casinos to the racing industry. A point to be made is that if animal rights were a deal-breaker for a poker player who wanted to be scrupulous about how his rake-fees-taxes were used, that person’s choices would be slim indeed. In the end, all great stuff to mull. I guess that’s why this place is called Thinking Poker.
I think this is an important point, and it should be kept in mind as we push for legalization of onine poker in the U.S. The payments Bill highlights were agreed to in order to get live card rooms through the legislative sausage factory. In what ways will be sleep with the devil in order to get online poker through that mill?
Yes, very important point. As much as outrage as there was in the poker community at the process by which the UIGEA was passed (attached as a rider to a port security bill), I’m sure the majority of American pros would support passing a pro-poker bill by far shadier means if that’s what was necessary.
Thanks very much Bill. I knew that Maryland’s horse racing industry was a (nominal) impetus for talk of legalized gambling – maybe as long as 20 years ago I remember discussion of adding slots at race tracks? I didn’t know about this arrangement though, really unfortunate.
This whole thing seems like a straw man argument. It can be answered with a great big WGAS?
About the use of poker TV as a political platform and the ethics/benefit of doing that, I think you’re missing a point that may be tangential, but it might help you to ask the appropriate WGAS? question.
I would not go as far as Coleman to say that poker is a “dark game,”
but I will say that the TV it’s produced is (at best) completely ephemeral. Their attempts to politicize the coverage may just be a new way to mask the game’s non-eventness (and maybe mask something deeper in themselves). The TV coverage holds absolutely zero interest for anyone outside of poker (and for many who play it). If you watch it and imagine you know nothing about poker, the immense vacuity of it is overwhelming and hilariously absurd. You can say the same thing about playing the game.
The “personalities” are grotesque and wearying for the viewer. No one involved in it seems to have any idea that the “fame” they acquire is of the most fleeting, empty sort. They seem incapable of realizing that no one really cares. Like they don’t realize the hype that these media outfits try to manufacture is ironic and a joke even to them. The mega-superstar who’s being interviewed doesn’t seem to have a sense of this. Most of that stuff is painfully awkward. I’ve played with/met some of these people IRL, and it’s not a trick of the camera.
This is prob inevitable though due to the marginal pub these people receive, the type of life they’ve lived prior to attaining this “fame,” and the chance nature of what determines coverage. It’s hardly merit-based as a sport would be, so it rings hollow. Not the stage to effect any real political change. Maybe the same force as a desecrated flag hanging in the room of a confused adolescent.
Re: your thought that politics is ubiquitous or inescapable: What do you think about the claim that the highest art is apolitical? And that the worst is often highly politically-charged? I’ve held the conviction for a long time that discussing/thinking about politics is worse than worthless. Of course someone has to, but your claim seems a little too enthusiastic.
“What do you think about the claim that the highest art is apolitical? And that the worst is often highly politically-charged?”
Guernica-Picasso
Diego Rivera
The Scream-Edvard Munch
Pete Seeger
Richard Wagner
Woody Guthrie
James Baldwin
Langston Hughes
Ossie Davis
Isaac Bashevis Singer
Nina Simone
How many more you want me to name
Nice list Keone. Even better than the examples I was going to give.
I’ll go a more pedestrian route and argue that a lot of what I consider the best television of recent years has been pretty explicitly political, stuff like The Sopranos, The Wire, and Orange is the New Black. A lot of the seemingly apolitical dreck on TV actually has a somewhat political purpose, which is to encourage consumption and perhaps even to express one’s politics through one’s consumption.
Brendan, I think I see what you’re getting at, but I think it’s a pretty broad point that applies to a lot more than poker. Aliens who understood nothing of human behavior would probably find a lot of what we do to be absurd. I don’t see how your claim about “worse than worthless” follows from the rest of your post.