Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
About 10 or 12 years ago I was playing poker at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas. At the table with me was an older gentleman from South Carolina and we got involved in a hand against one another. I check raised him on the river and he thought for several minutes before folding his cards. As I was stacking his chips he asked, "Did you have it?" I smiled and said, "Sorry, no. That was a bluff." He leaned back in his chair and in his deep southern drawl announced loudly, "Deceit has no place in the game of poker." The whole table cracked up. Well I'd like to steal his phrase and announce, in all seriousness, that religion has no place in the game of poker.
What prompted that announcement? I was watching the final table of the World Series of Poker main event on ESPN the other day and there was a hand between Jerry Yang, the eventual winner, and Lee Watkinson, the only pro at the final table. Watkinson was all-in. The camera moved back and forth between Watkinson's fiance and Yang as they fervently prayed to win the hand.
Watkinson's fiance was exhorting the Lord, saying, "Come on God. Now weapon can stand against you." Then the camera goes to Yang who says, "In the name of Jesus, you have a plan for my life today." Then back to Watkinson's fiance who says, "Please God, make Lee a believer, show him that you're real." It was, quite frankly, appalling.
First of all, how stupid is Watkinson's fiance? Make Lee a believer and show him you're real by letting him get lucky to win a poker hand? Well lady, he lost that hand. Does that mean God isn't real? Of course not. She'll rationalize it away, but almost certainly without bothering to question the idea of praying to God to win a freaking poker game. If that isn't using God's name in vain, what could possibly be?
And the same goes for Yang. Yes, he's got a compelling story, having escaped Laos to a refugee camp in Thailand, then to America where he is now a therapist for at-risk kids. I'm sure he's a great guy. But Jerry, God doesn't give a shit whether you win a poker game. And you're behavior is just as stupid as hers because if you'd lost that hand and lost the tournament, you would still have believed that God has a plan for your life.
Religion has no place in the game of poker.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
I agree completely, Ed, and was appalled at the same scene. I wrote a post on this a few days ago as well, it was just disgusting.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | October 12, 2007 9:28 AM
Sorry for the double post, but I just caught this -- I think what Timmi (Watkinson's fiancee) was quoting was a Bible verse, Isaiah 54:17, which goes:
I thought that was so bizarre I rewound it twice to listen to it, and still got it wrong. A couple of Google searches pointed me to the right phrasing.
The whole thing was weird, but in addition to the idiotic "God didn't let him win so there must be no God" problem that Timmi won't ever face (beyond "It was God's will"), I thought it strange to describe A9 off-suit as a "weapon". I guess that makes pocket Queens the "Whores of Babylon" and pocket jacks "Princes of Sodom" or somesuch.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | October 12, 2007 9:34 AM
It was disgusting. Definitely not proper poker etiquette.
I was hoping Scotty would make it to the final table, but ...
Posted by: nal | October 12, 2007 10:04 AM
Bizarre. And I was taught (back in the day) that gambling -- even just buying a lottery ticket -- was sinful. Guess these yahoos go to a church that ditched that teaching.
(And even the atheist me still doesn't gamble, though that's probably got as much to do with: a) being pathologicaly risk-averse, b) being statistically literate and c) supremely sucking at any game requiring strategy and reading one's opponent).
Posted by: Eamon Knight | October 12, 2007 10:04 AM
If ones believes in an interventionist god, I see nothing inconsistent or stupid about praying to said god to win a poker game. Might as well pray to God about that as anything else. After all, if God is omnipotent then he is equal able to help you win the game and save the lives of millions of starving children in one fell swoop. And if God is silly enough to require a human's prayer to do the latter, then he may as well also do the former.
Posted by: Gretchen | October 12, 2007 10:07 AM
Funny how this guy didn't discover that little moral insight before he started playing the game. Did he only learn the rules after he put his money down?
Oh, and bluffing isn't really "deceit," at least not in poker; it's just a result of incomplete information.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 12, 2007 10:33 AM
Of course, we know that god answers all prayers. But sometimes, as in Watkinson's fiancee's case, the answer is "Your fiancee shouldn't have gone all in."
Posted by: Dan | October 12, 2007 10:39 AM
Are you kidding me? It is in just such games of chance where individuals have no control over the outcome that they are most compelled to beg magical forces to intervene on their behalf. Is it stupid and irrational? Of course, but that's what religion is. It's not supposed to make sense. It's supposed to trick a powerless person into thinking that they are doing something useful. As a psychological mechanism, it seems religion has played its part here flawlessly.
Posted by: H. Humbert | October 12, 2007 11:04 AM
Maybe she should have consulted the Urim and Thummim thingies. The problem wasn't praying, per se. Rather, the problem was Lee didn't know whether it was God's will that he win the hand. See? Makes perfect sense if you are a Determinist. Of course, in that case, everyone was bound to make themselves look like fools to begin with, and we were bound to mock them. There's something comforting about that.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 12, 2007 11:18 AM
I was wondering if you would comment about this. If I recall, that incident was fairly early on in the two-hour broadcast, and since I already knew that Yang had won I was thinking we were going to be subjected to this silly piety all night long. I think he did one more time, but then he stopped. I wonder if he realized what an idiot he sounded. It certainly was a bizarre moment.
I think if I had been subjected to it, I would have called him on it and asked him why he thought that Jesus was on his side.
One thing in Yang's favour is that he said he was donating 10% of his winnings to charity, and it seems as though he picked real children's charities, and not some fake religious ones:
In end though, Yang probably will be about as good for poker as Jaimie Gold was--i.e. not much. After Raymer and Hachem, it's been a bit of a let down the last couple of years.
Posted by: tacitus | October 12, 2007 11:35 AM
It wasn't a terribly interesting final table, either. I just read some comments from those who had watched it live and although they also thought the final table was a poor one, they did comment on how different it was from the way ESPN made it seem.
Certainly ESPN gave no hint at the amount of time it took to play. It seemed as though Yang was bulldozing his way through the field in double quick time, but the final table took 14 hours to play. Of course, if you only have about 75 minutes to show action (after all the ads and fluff) you have to be very selective, but they should at least have conveyed this basic bit on information in some way. It also appears that they left out a number of pivotal battles and confrontations.
Not impressed this time around.
Posted by: tacitus | October 12, 2007 11:42 AM
All of this reminds me of the way the word karma is frequently used as an expression of faith in a divinely administered talion principle. When people who feel they've been wronged give warning to the wrongdoer that there is a thing called karma, I always wonder why they don't seem to consider the possibility that the injustice they've suffered isn't repayment for some past wrongdoing on their own part.
Posted by: Dr X | October 12, 2007 12:50 PM
Hey, Ed, off-topic, but i have a question for you. Which casino in Vegas would you recommend as the best place to go play some $1/$2 No-Limit?
Posted by: Enigma | October 12, 2007 1:32 PM
Aren't you not supposed to tell your opponents that you bluffed? I used to make that mistake, and it made it a lot easier for people to find my tell.
If you want a story of religion doing something right, look up Reverend David Duncombe. He's spent the last month fasting and walking the halls of Congress, asking Congressmen to relieve national debts for third world countries. I almost cried when I read about this.
Posted by: Brandon | October 12, 2007 3:10 PM
There is nothing wrong with admitting to a bluff.
There is also nothing wring with admitting to a bluff while the dealer collects the cards that would prove you had a royal flush.
Poker, like all games with bluffing, is a game where you have to play the meta-game as well.
Posted by: Rick Pikul | October 13, 2007 8:23 PM
So now you have admitted that you bluff.
Always knew it.
Posted by: Emanuel Goldstein | October 14, 2007 8:22 AM
On an episode of Late Night Poker some time back, Dolly Brunson asked "What's the difference between praying in church and praying at the poker table?"
His answer was "At the table you really mean it."
Posted by: Pieter B | October 15, 2007 2:52 AM
This reminds me of a Jonathan Coulton song, The Gambler's Prayer. Please God, help me take money from my friends.
Posted by: Carrie | October 16, 2007 3:51 PM
"It is bad luck to be superstitious." -Andrew W. Mathis
If you read any sort of poker strategy you will no doubt be advised not to place any stock whatever in superstitions. Not that I needed to read a book to learn that, but there is a consensus on this among top poker players. Winners at poker consistently win based on their own abilities and a grasp on the mathematical principles of radomness and probability.
Religion is just another superstition. Yet another way poker emulates life.
Posted by: Matt | October 16, 2007 4:32 PM
They say faith is blind, but I'm not sure if it's the big blind or the little blind.
Posted by: SteveG | October 19, 2007 6:39 AM
In response to "Religion in Poker" I have a few comments:
Background: Born Jewish, practising Buddhist Philosopher with an arguably Atheist belief structure. Note - Not a "religious Buddhist" - no bells, gongs and chanting for me
While watching the WSOP 2007 table I was appalled at the antics at the final table for 2 reasons.
1. Of the ~14 hours of action - they wasted time on a religious outburst. Made me question the editing. Although I am sure it made "Good TV" it is arguably unacceptable, in that it demeans the very activity they are broadcasting.
2. Although I do not begrudge others their beliefs. To throw those beliefs in the face of others in a public settings shows callous disregard for the activity in which you are engaged. Poker is a game of skill and probability, to bring superstition, super-powers, or anything other than your skills to bear is insulting and emphasises luck over skill in such a critical situation.
Lastly in response to Dr X. on the subject of Karma:
Karma is often seen as supernatural gauge of your actions by which whatever action you take will come back to you. Good or Bad. This is Buddhist Religion and Hindu - not the Buddhist Philosophy - a CLEAR distinction.
This is Dualism at heart and is against the fundamentals of Buddhism. There is no external force acting on the natural world, there is only the natural world.
Christianity would say: Do unto others as you would do unto yourself.
Buddhism says: Do not unto others as you would not do unto yourself.
The difference is subtle but is tied to the idea of Karma. You cannot manufacture Good Will(tm), it is simply a reminder that you can only affect things to which you are aware and have attempted to understand all the non-random elements. In poker this is extremely telling for if you are fully aware of all around and empathetic of all the players at your table you are Karmically Balanced. A state which in poker is extremely useful as you can exact good decisions at the table.
Fundamentally the poker table is a closed system with a luck element. Karma is every decision you make which is educated by information gleaned not luck. You either call, raise or fold, and that is a small summary for life. You may take from others and they in turn may take from you - but at no point are you doing so against their will - for they are willing participants of the game.
In this case religion - or as I would argue - a philosophy - has clear value at the table. If others wish to invoke their superstitions - gods - it is clear their Karma is unbalanced at that serves me, and saddens me that they are not fully present to enjoy the great game and opportunity before them.
Once must question the belief of a man who praises a god and yet worships at the foot of money and reward. To win on luck and not skill is exactly the definition of Karma. If I suck out, I know I have erred and must question why I was in that situation in the first place - he will never do so and believe that through the grace of a higher power he has been granted this boon.
No good sirs and ladies I believe that unlike former WSOP Champions, Raymer/Hachem/Gold - he if anything brings the game into disrepute.
Posted by: BhodiTree | October 24, 2007 11:46 PM
Nice blog! More people should read it. If you want, you can register your blog www.pokerweblogs.com. It is free and and it automatically updates when you do an update, so visitors of our site can see when you updated your blog. The big advantage is that it will attract much more visitors to your blog.
Greets Peter
Posted by: Peter | December 1, 2007 11:04 PM
Ugghh!
I just saw this on ESPN2. I was surprised that the announcers didn't have more fun with it than they did. With both sides invoking God, it's a joke that pretty much writes itself.
As I typed the first part, Yang just came from behind and knocked out Lee Childs. As he was awaiting the cards to be revealed, he was at it again... "Let people see your miracles"
Sickening!!!
Posted by: doctorgoo | December 25, 2007 10:39 PM