Poker and Philosophy

by Bronson, Eric

  Those who know their poker history will recognize the significance of the Matador scene previously described. In the late 1800s, the Birdcage Theater in Tombstone, Arizona was a place where poker and prostitution were all the rage. The theater boxes, also called cages, were made available to men like the Matador. Prostitutes would service players, while poker games carried on below. This is the origin for the phrase, “the girl in the gilded cage,” and the popular song from the 1800s:

  She’s only a bird in a gilded cage,

  A beautiful sight to see,

  You may think she’s happy and free from care,

  She’s not, though she seems to be,

  ’Tis sad when you think of her wasted life,

  For youth cannot mate with age,

  And her beauty was sold, for an old man’s gold,

  She’s a bird in a gilded cage.1

  As early as 1922, the woman in a gilded cage became a common theme in film mythology, beginning with the black and white silent film, Dr. Mabuse: The Gambler. The film features a male protagonist who controls others’ minds in order to win at gambling. Women begin to play a part in poker films with the 1930 comedy Queen High, where two business partners play poker for control of the business. Ginger Rogers starred in the comedy film as a love-interest. Sunset Trail was released in 1939 starring William Boyd as Hopalong Cassidy. Boyd used poker to root out evil in this pre-World War II cinema classic—again, women are side-notes to the fuller, male-driven symphony of heroism. In 1948, “the Duke,” John Wayne, starred in Three Godfathers, continuing the twentieth-century patriarchal poker theme in film. Loaded Pistols premiered in 1948 with Gene Autry. Autry, like Boyd in Sunset Trail, helped a damsel in distress played by Barbara Britton, whose brother is accused of murder during a poker game. Born Yesterday was originally released in 1950 with Judy Holliday playing the dumb-blonde, and was remade in 1993 starring Melanie Griffith and Don Johnson—Griffith played the dumb-blonde role in the remake, though Johnson was a close second. Gregory Peck starred in the 1950 film, The Gunfighter, which briefly used poker to enhance the masculinity of the hero.

  In 1957, ABC aired a show produced by Hollywood heavy-hitters Warner Brothers, called Maverick. James Garner starred as Bret Maverick, a role that would follow him throughout his career. Bret Maverick was a clever fellow, good-natured, good at cards, and handsome, fond of giving or getting attention from female characters on the show. The show remained a weekly fixture on ABC through 1962 and introduced a plethora of Maverick men with Bret’s brothers, Bart and Brent, played by Jack Kelley and Robert Colbert, as well as their cousin, Beauregard, played by Roger Moore (who would later star as the quintessential man’s man, James Bond). Just after the Maverick stretch on ABC, Hollywood brought out more films involving poker.

  The Cincinnati Kid hit the big screen in 1965 with Ann Margaret and Steve McQueen, followed by Kaleidoscope and Big Hand for a Little Lady in 1966. Warren Beatty starred in Kaleidoscope, and Joanne Woodward stole the show in Big Hand for a Little Lady as a woman who must take over her dead husband’s place in a high stake’s poker game to win back her life’s savings. The catch is that she doesn’t know how to play poker, but that small detail doesn’t prevent her from making the big win at the end. Woodward is charming and intelligent, though such characteristics are veiled by her utter ignorance of the game, making for good comedic relief. Woodward beats men at poker rather unwittingly and against all odds, leaving the audience to wonder, if a woman plays and wins at poker, is it just a funny fluke?

  In 1973 and 1974 Hollywood brought us The Sting, starring Paul Newman, and California Split, starring George Segal and Elliot Gould. Both films focus on a male-driven plot with masculine protagonists who prove their machismo by taking risks and romancing women. Such continued success in male-driven poker films got Maverick writer, Roy Huggins, thinking about reprising his successful character. Huggins collaborated with television-great Stephen J. Cannell for a Maverick-like character reprise with James Garner as Jim Rockford in the 1974 series, The Rockford Files. Garner’s gamble on the new series would later pay off as his role as Jim Rockford earned him a Best Actor Emmy in 1977. In 1978, Garner was a part of a short-lived television series, Young Maverick, which launched a TV movie, Maverick, in the same year. Garner would reprise his Maverick character again in a television movie and series in 1981 entitled Bret Maverick. The series ran until 1982.

  Huggins was not alone in his dreams of bringing back a male-gambler in 1974. Paramount Pictures produced a film in 1974 that took a more direct line on gambling. The Gambler, directed by Karl Reisz, featured James Caan as Axel Freed, an English professor and compulsive gambler who owes $44,000 to a rather unforgiving set of men. Caan takes advantage of the women in his life, his mother, who cashes out her life savings to help Caan repay his debts (which he then gambles away, putting him even further in debt), and his girlfriend, played by Lauren Hutton, who ultimately walks away from his abuse. Six years later, television would pick up the poker torch again with a made-for-television movie also called The Gambler, starring country singer Kenny Rogers as Brady Hawkes. Rogers would reprise the role in two other Gambler television movies in 1983 and 1987. The made-for-television movies featured Rogers as a good-natured man, functioning rather benignly as the male protagonist in the series. Rogers also sang the title track to the television movie. The song with its classic refrain (“You got to know when to hold ’em . . .”) quickly became the most popular poker song of all time.

  During The Gambler decade, Warner Brothers executives began production on a Maverick movie, bringing back James Garner as the original Maverick, and co-starring Mel Gibson as Maverick’s son, Bret Maverick, Jr. However, Warner Brothers got smart and decided to utilize a woman as more than just a girl in a gilded cage. Jodie Foster played Mrs. Annabelle Bransford, a high roller who could play cards! Annabelle’s character used her femininity to her advantage while playing poker by taking advantage of female stereotypes, pretending to be shy, soft-spoken, and indecisive. Sadly though, nothing much changed in the end as Bret Maverick falls for Mrs. Bransford’s shy glances, southern lilt, and soft laughter—again, reinforcing that females in the world of poker must always serve as the masculine-enhancing female.

  Hollywood newcomer, Matt Damon, grabbed the poker-in-film torch in 1998 with his movie, Rounders, also starring Ed Norton. The film shows buddies Damon and Norton, playing their way through dangerous poker circles. The same year, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels came to the big screen. Directed by Guy Ritchie, the British film delves into the male-driven criminal underworld with a comedic sensibility. These sleeper films were followed by another in 2000, Luckytown, starring Kirsten Dunst, who dreams of finding her father, ironically played by James Caan, in a classic Joseph Campbell-like hero quest. Dunst can play cards and pole dance—one step forward, two steps back.

  From Matador to Duke

  As we have seen, there has been a definite pattern for women and poker in both film and television. Women are generally portrayed as not knowing how to play or are used as props to prove the masculinity of the male hero. Women typically function in the gambling and poker world as eye-candy, a beautiful good luck charm hanging on the arm of a high roller. Though recent films like Luckytown with Kirsten Dunst, and the television series like Tilt with Kristen Lehman, show women as able poker players, the women in the roles still function as eye-candy. The World Series of Poker hostess, Shana Hiatt, fits the same mold: blonde, young, fit, and beautiful. While there’s nothing wrong with these attributes, the use of women like Dunst and Lehman in film and television roles takes away from the legitimacy of their characters’ talent as good poker players. This is an old problem in all forms of entertainment; it only repeats a familiar patriarchal pattern with a focus on poker. The mythology created by the last one hundred years of film and television reinforces an age-old female stereotype—the only worthwhile women are beautiful women; it’s okay for them to know how to play poker, as long as they also slip i
n some pole dancing.

  But today’s reality sharply contrasts with the culturally reinforced patriarchal vision of poker. There are a multitude of champion female poker players, including the sisters of poker guru Howard Lederer, Annie Duke and Katy Lederer, who use their rationality and their emotions to excel at the poker tables.

  According to Katy Lederer’s memoir, Pokerface: A Girlhood Among Gamblers,2 she and Annie had a difficult upbringing. Their father was an English teacher at a private school in New Hampshire and the family lived on the school grounds. It wasn’t always easy, as the Lederer family lived among the rich, yet were not rich themselves. Their mother was an alcoholic and eventually left the family after several failed interventions. Yet both sisters remained strong and forged ahead, and Annie, despite an eating disorder, completed her college degree in psychology and English at Columbia, and even pursued graduate studies in psycholinguistics at the University of Pennsylvania.

  Duke (Annie’s married name) is not the stereotypical blonde-bombshell portrayed in most poker-related television and film. While an attractive woman, she is not glamorous, wearing little make-up and comfortable clothing. Duke’s hair is an auburn-red—far from the bottle-blonde which seem to be an ever-present focus in male-driven fantastic female imaging. Duke is strong and smart with family values, and she can really play cards. Even seasoned pros like Phil Hellmuth admit, “[Duke is] the best all-around woman poker player in the world today.”3 Duke herself talks about why she loves the game of poker. “People often ask me what it is that I love about poker. When I pull it all together . . . I feel the surge that I imagine quarterbacks feel when throw a touchdown pass, or that writers feel when they nail a perfect paragraph, or that IRS agents feel when they nab a cheat. I feel invincible.”4

  Watching Annie Duke in the 2004 World Series of Poker Tournament of Champions was simply incredible. The audience could clearly see how Duke was pained during the game while playing with brother, Howard. After all, he was the one who got Duke involved in poker in 1994 after inviting her to participate in the World Series of Poker. Duke took thirteenth place winning a total of $48,000, and that was just the beginning. In the 2004 tournament, it was obvious that Duke was disturbed that her brother was going to lose. And this is what makes Duke one of the top poker players in the world today—not just one of the best female poker players. Annie Duke has been quoted as saying that poker is one of the only sports where women are on totally equal footing with men. Because poker is a game of both strategy and luck, Duke is correct, at least in one sense. Social conditioning works both ways. While women have learned to develop their emotional side under the patriarchal shadow of popular culture, men have also been affected, developing their own macho sensibilities—sensibilities that give them a distinct disadvantage when playing poker with women. Duke writes that

  women, for the most part, have a distinct advantage over men at the table. . . It has to do with the mere fact that men sometimes get unhinged in our presence . . . For too many men, the table strategy is aimed at . . . either luring us back to their apartment for some variant of strip poker or kicking us out of their all-male sanctum.” (p. 133)

  Poker is a game in which using your emotions to deceive others and interpreting your opponents’ emotions are essential to success. Where men are discouraged in larger society from showing, or even using emotion, women are given leave to use their emotional intelligence freely. Males who show emotion, who show pain for example, are thought to be lesser men. Though as Freidrich Nietzsche pointed out, “All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth comes only from the senses.”5 By quashing the senses and thereby emotions, males leave themselves vulnerable. Sun Tzu recommended avoiding the strong and concentrating on what is weak. Obviously, Duke agrees.

  One reason why women have risen to top levels of the previously male-dominated poker tournaments is because of their reinventing basic Stoic philosophy. Due to its inherent distrust of emotions, Stoicism does not typically appeal to women. Because women are more encouraged to utilize emotions, the Stoic philosophy must be re-tooled for that gender allowance. Like the crippled slave, Epictetus (50–130), women understand early in life that much will be beyond their physical control. Perhaps a new brand of female-centered Stoicism is finding its way to the poker tables. Epictetus said, “Make the best use of what is in your power, and take the rest as it happens.”6 This is exactly what female poker players do. In traditional Stoicism, happiness is dependent upon a rational choosing of things according to one’s nature. In other words, one chooses to act and think within the appropriate limits set by nature. This is the Stoic doctrine of oikeisis, an attachment to what is appropriate. Correct thoughts leads to happiness. For the early male Stoics, correct thoughts meant detaching oneself from one’s emotions.

  More recently, Harvard psychologist Carol Gilligan developed a theory about the nature of morality in women called care ethics, which argues for a more female-centered ethical focus.7 In care ethics, women as nurturers are shown to make decisions based on relationships, which are oftentimes heavily dependent on emotions. The rational choice is always what is appropriate to one’s nature, both in Stoicism and care ethics. Gilligan’s findings argue against a detached Stoic sensibility based on objective duty. Epictetus himself didn’t realize that the old male-oriented ethics of justice is in direct conflict with his Stoic idea of making rational decisions based on one’s nature. While Epictetus believed that distancing oneself from one’s emotions was true to one’s nature, today’s women know better.

  Classical scholar Joseph Campbell discusses how all cultural myths deal with the pain of life, because life is pain.8 Campbell’s description is both literal and metaphorical. The pain of life is dealing with the conflicts and struggles often brought on by human emotions. To try to ignore this basic human instinct, or worse, bury it using exaggerated male behavior like that tough exterior all male characters share in poker-related television and film, is completely against human nature. There is no chance of happiness as the sage Stoics believed, no glimmer of winning at life, or at poker. All people must strive to break free from the cultural myths that inundate daily life through popular culture. Emotionality exceeds the boundaries of gender roles as a natural part of human nature; going against one’s nature is not rational. Many women, however, value emotions and utilize those emotions when making decisions, in life and in poker. Modernizing the old Stoic idea, women are therefore more rational than men who do not value or use emotionality—this is why women are succeeding in the world of poker. If this philosophical truth is lost on male poker players, so much the better. Even Sun Tzu made clear in The Art of War that one should never underestimate one’s opponent: “Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance.”9

  The Ultimate Game of Emotions

  The ladies of poker are leading the way for a new generation of poker players, both male and female, with a much broader understanding of the function, the real function, of female poker players. Katy Lederer touches on this in her book where she recalls a conversation about playing poker with her brother, Howard.

  “I mean, you never really know anything,” he told her. The best poker players trust their emotions more often than their rationality. “Sometimes things just don’t feel right . . .” (Poker Face, p. 131). Perhaps this conversation reveals why “the Professor” Howard Lederer has become such a respected player—like the lucky ladies who play in the poker circuit today, he is not afraid to trust his emotions.

  While men still dominate the poker playing field, it is becoming increasingly clear that women are an up-and-coming force in the world of poker and that success will only continue as more women venture into the poker arena armed with their emotions and their rational decision-making skills. Excellent poker players on the current scene include Kathy Liebert, Jennifer Harman, Cindy Violette, Wendeen Eolis, Cissy Bottoms, Cyclona “Clonie” Gowen, Barbara Enright, and Nani Dollison, just to name a few. Female poker players use every possible as
set to win, including their emotions, giving them a distinct advantage over male counterparts who choose to follow a cultural gender stereotype, selling themselves, and their gender, a bit short.

  Perhaps that’s why Ben Affleck turned to Duke’s tutelage before he won the 2004 California State Poker championship and its gaudy $356,000 prize. In 2005, Ashton Kutcher laid down $14,000 (in a Hurricane Katrina benefit) for the privilege of being taught poker from the emotional Duke.

  It looks like real life Hollywood stars are starting to get the point. Gender perceptions are seriously skewed in our popular culture. It’s time to call that bluff.

  _____

  1 Thanks to Eric Bronson; see http://www.tombstoneaz.net/birdcage.php3?SID=110987941

  2 New York: Crown, 2003.

  3 http://www.launchpoker.com/personalities/women_in_poker/-annie-duke-/

  4 Annie Duke with David Diamond, Annie Duke: How I Raised, Folded, Bluffed, Flirted, Cursed, and Won Millions (New York: Hudson Street, 2005).

  5 Friedrich Nietzsche, Twighlight of the Idols or How to Philosophize with a Hammer, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).

  6 See http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/Epictetus

  7 Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1982).

  8 Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973).

  9 Sun Tzu, The Art of War, edited by Dallas Gavin (New York: Barnes and Noble, 2003).

  19

  “The Cheating Game”: Poker’s Culture of Violence