Candidates playing for high stakes (in more ways than one)

I generally don’t care for pop psychology, especially when it’s applied to politics. It’s only natural that the public wants to know more about the personalities and styles of national leaders, but it’s very hard to believe there’s much to be gleaned about a presidential candidate, for example, by checking out their iPod. Or what kind of clothes he or she wears. Or what their taste in food might tell us about how they’d govern.

Having said that, it’s with a tinge of guilt that I admit to finding this piece from Michael Scherer and Michael Weisskopf in Time pretty interesting.

The casino craps player is a social animal, a thrill seeker who wants not just to win but to win with a crowd. Unlike cards or a roulette wheel, well-thrown dice reward most everyone on the rail, yielding a collective yawp that drowns out the slots. It is a game for showmen, Hollywood stars and basketball legends with girls on their arms. It is also a favorite pastime of the presumptive Republican nominee for President, John McCain.

The backroom poker player, on the other hand, is more cautious and self-absorbed. Card games may be social, but they are played in solitude. No need for drama. The quiet card counter is king, and only a novice banks on luck. In this game, a good bluff trumps blind faith, and the studied observer beats the showman. So it is fitting that the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, raked in so many pots in his late-night games with political friends. […]

For both men, games of chance have been not just a hobby but also a fundamental feature in their development as people and politicians. For Obama, weekly poker games with lobbyists and fellow state senators helped cement his position as a rising star in Illinois politics. For McCain, jaunts to the craps table helped burnish his image as a political hot dog who relished the thrill of a good fight, even if the risk of failure was high.

I don’t gamble, but growing up, my Dad did (my typical summer vacation was a trip to Vegas or Atlantic City, neither of which were especially family-friendly in the early ’80s), and I learned a bit about games of chance.

And I actually think Scherer and Weisskopf might be onto something here.

While I don’t know Obama or McCain personally, this piece about their gambling habits tends to reinforce the popular perceptions about their personalities. Obama, for example, is competitive and methodical.

[H]e always had his head in the game. The stakes were low enough — $1 ante and $3 top raise — to afford a long shot. Not Obama. He studied the cards as closely as he would an eleventh-hour amendment to a bill. The odds were religion to him. Only rarely did he bluff. “He had a pretty good idea about what his chances were,” says Denny Jacobs, a former state senator from East Moline.

Obama’s play-to-win approach drove other players crazy. Former state senator Larry Walsh, a conservative corn farmer from Joliet, once got ready to pull in a pot with a four-of-a-kind hand. But Obama had four of a kind too, of higher rank. Walsh slammed down his cards. “Doggone it, Barack, if you were more liberal in your card-playing and more conservative in your politics, you and I would get along much better,” he said. […]

Obama usually left a winner. But he reaped a bigger payoff politically. When he announced his plans to run for the U.S. Senate, his poker pals — white guys from small-town Illinois — were among his earliest supporters…. But Obama’s risk-averse, methodical approach to five-card stud gives Link confidence in his potential governing style. “If he runs his presidency the way he plays poker, I’ll sleep good at night,” he says.

And then there’s McCain, who seems more interested in an adrenalin rush than in thinking things through.

In the past decade, he has played on Mississippi riverboats, on Indian land, in Caribbean craps pits and along the length of the Las Vegas Strip. Back in 2005 he joined a group of journalists at a magazine-industry conference in Puerto Rico, offering betting strategy on request. “Enjoying craps opens up a window on a central thread constant in John’s life,” says John Weaver, McCain’s former chief strategist, who followed him to many a casino. “Taking a chance, playing against the odds.” Aides say McCain tends to play for a few thousand dollars at a time and avoids taking markers, or loans, from the casinos, which he has helped regulate in Congress. “He never, ever plays on the house,” says Mark Salter, a McCain adviser. The goal, say several people familiar with his habit, is never financial. He loves the thrill of winning and the camaraderie at the table.

Only recently have McCain’s aides urged him to pull back from the pastime. In the heat of the G.O.P. primary fight last spring, he announced on a visit to the Vegas Strip that he was going to the casino floor. When his aides stopped him, fearing a public relations disaster, McCain suggested that they ask the casino to take a craps table to a private room, a high-roller privilege McCain had indulged in before. His aides, with alarm bells ringing, refused again, according to two accounts of the discussion.

“He clearly knows that this is on the borderline of what is acceptable for him to be doing,” says a Republican who has watched McCain play. “And he just sort of revels in it.”

Without more information, it’s hard to say for sure whether this might qualify as “compulsive” behavior, but it’s striking that McCain wanted a table brought to his private room in the midst of a presidential campaign, and even fellow Republicans wonder whether he’s going beyond what’s “acceptable.”

For that matter, Time’s article noted that McCain “tends to play for a few thousand dollars at a time.” I’m going to hope this is referring to McCain’s gamble per outing, not per roll.

As for what’s to be learned about the candidates from all of this, I had the same reaction Noam Scheiber did: “At the end of the piece, a former Obama colleague, refering to Obama’s contemplative gambling style, tells Time, ‘If he runs his presidency the way he plays poker, I’ll sleep good at night.’ I think the converse is true of McCain — I’d sleep pretty poorly if he were to run his presidency the way he plays craps. (And I think the odds are high that he would. He certainly seems to run his campaign that way…)”

From the Urban Dictionary:

crap shoot:

Something that is random, not based on skill. People think this refers to an a**hole (where your crap shoots out), but it’s actually a reference to the dice-rolling game called Craps.

The stock market is a crap shoot.

John McCain’s presidency will be a real crap shoot.

  • Would it be churlish to point out that McCain’s show-boating, good-time Charlie, everybody-look-at-me! game of choice (a few thousand dollars at a time) is underwritten by his wife’s beer money?

  • Assuming these anecdotes are true, it sheds some light onto why McCain went hard for the nomination in a year when the odds are very much against the Republicans. He seems like a “never tell me the odds!” kind of guy.

    A bad, high-stakes gambler – just what we need in the White House.

  • No, Jim, it wouldn’t. I was about to say the same thing.

    I would also point out that crap games not only are “random, not based on skill,” but that also the odds favor the house. Poker is a game of skill. Crap games are for suckers.

    We already have a sucker in the White House, getting rope-a-doped in a distraction while the real danger lurks elsewhere. Why elect another sucker?

  • Yes, agreed thst the comparison may be very useful in understanding the two men, for the reasons you mention and others. (One minor thing that I find fascinating is the reversal of stereotypes. You think of ‘avy men” as poker players or card players in general, whiling away the time at sea by playing a few hands. And I think there is still a mental link — going back maybe to Sportin’ Life from Porgy and Bess — between blacks and crapshooters.)

    The most important thing though is the difference between craps — which involves ‘pure luck’ and little mental activity beyond the basics of knowing the odds of a particular throw turning up — and card playing — which is, for almost any game but blackjack and baccarat, a game of both psychology and heavy brain work. Even more, a crapshooter almost has to be — I’d guess, it’s not a game I am fond of — someone who plays against what little brain work is involved. There would be little fun in playing strictly ‘by the odds.’ The fun is ‘riding your hunch,’ feeling if ‘the luck’ (or the dice) is ‘with you’ or not, in short, playing to pure ‘irrationality.’

    Cards are different — and I learned to count using a deck of cards. Playing cards even moderately successfully, whether poker, pinochle, or spades, involves both knowing the odds and ‘playing the opponents.’ I know I can gain plenty of knowledge about a person by playing cards with them. Yes, there is luck and ‘hunches’ involved, and knowing when to play against the odds is part of the game. But mostly they are games where the more you use your brains, the better you do.

    I’ll ask a question that plays into this. Let’s say you were invited into a spades game — or if you don’t play it, substitute any other member of the ‘bridge’whist’ family — with McCain, Obama, and, to fill out the table, either Clinton. You cut the deck for partners, high card getting to pick who you’d play with, and you get the high card. Who would you want as your partner? (I’d take Obama every time, btw, simply because he’d make the partnership better. I’d enjoy collecting the money from the other two, both of whom we’d wipe up the table with. Not because I’m a great player — I’m good, but have been in plenty of games where I knew I was outclassed by an opponent — bvut because we’d both be thinking and the others would be gambling.)

    The fact that people who have played against Obama at poker use it as an argument for supporting him is a pretty powerful one.

    [And, btw, if McCain’s love of crapshooting comes out, this will cost him another group of RRs that would condemn him for gambling. And it is yet another nail in the coffin of the “Obama is a Muslim’ absurdity, because strict Muslims don’t gamble either.)

  • in short, playing to pure ‘irrationality.’

    This reminds me of another McCain anecdote, namely that he’s incredibly superstitious, insisting on various “lucky” props and rituals. Not just irrational, antirational.

  • Prup said:
    And it is yet another nail in the coffin of the “Obama is a Muslim’ absurdity, because strict Muslims don’t gamble either.

    Don’t be silly. Playing cards is just a cover. It’s proof his is a covert Islamofascist just carefully waiting to make his move.

  • Time is sooo full of shit! Did I just say that?

    Here’s another take on the two candidates “social”gambling habits. I’ll go with Jeb!

    http://www.jedreport.com/2008/07/poker-pros-soun.html

    article highlight:

    “As you might expect, they were impressed by Obama’s choice — poker:

    Andy Bloch: “There are a lot of skills playing poker that would help the chief executive. In poker you have to put yourself in the shoes of your opponents, get inside their heads and figure out what they’re thinking; what their actions mean; what they would think your actions mean; and reading people’s bluffs. One thing that got us into the Iraq War was that George Bush didn’t realise that Saddam Hussein was basically bluffing, trying to look like a big man, when he really had no weapons of mass destruction.”

    Anthony Holden: “Barack Obama, like Lyndon Johnson, used poker to make political connections. He seems not to be much of a bluffer. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a giant bluff by JFK, which was not called by Khruschev. I don’t think we’ll get those kind of geopolitical gambles from Obama.”

    On the other hand, they were troubled by McCain’s preference for dice:

    Both men are concerned by the details of Mr McCain’s Craps habit. “You’re always at a disadvantage at craps,” said Mr Bloch. “It’s a problem, if you have a leader who believes they can beat the odds. You don’t want him shooting dice with the economy.” Mr Holden added: “We poker players don’t call poker gambling. It is a game of skill. Craps is an absurd game of luck. You may have thrilling short term wins but only madmen play craps.” ”

    Read the article, and tell Time Magazine to pick another hobby to write about; they clearly know NOTHING about social gambling!

  • And, you completely ignore the fact that successful poker playing involves deception and that Obama is apparently good at that too.

    Someone who is cautious will not lose big because he won’t bet on anything but a sure thing. If he gets lucky, he walks away a winner, but if he never bluffs he won’t be a consistent winner because he, like McCain, will be relying solely on luck and minimizing losses.

    I don’t admire cautious players. I have repeatedly talked about Obama’s cautious nature here. We are entering very troubled times and I doubt that cautiousness is going to dictate effective solutions. FDR had almost as many failed endeavors as winning wons in his fight against the last depression. If Obama only bets on sure things, then he is not going to be a good leader in the next decade.

    What does it mean that Obama’s poker playing buddies all like him? Maybe it means that he never really cleans their clocks. Usually, in a regular game, it means that someone wins as much as they lose over time. It isn’t consistent with Obama being a master player, as you all seem to want to portray him.

    It sounds to me like McCain is just blowing off steam, something you don’t much want to get cerebral about. Obama considers gambling serious business because he doesn’t have money to lose. McCain considers gambling a fun way to get rowdy because for him, there is no loss involved. I wouldn’t blame him for that — it is just a symptom of having a lot of money. If he behaved that way with Obama’s limited income, it would be a character flaw and perhaps suggest pathological gambling, but when there is no real gambling involved, it doesn’t mean much of anything, except he doesn’t like to think while relaxing. Not many people do.

  • (And here I was hoping that Mary had disappeared!) Gee, what’s worse:

    McCain blowing thousands of dollars of his wife’s beer fortune money one dice roll at a time, or

    Obama playing poker after long days in the legislature to get to know his fellow legislators a little better, with a $3 bet limit?

    Hmmm. I wonder which one most Americans will identify with? Somehow, I don’t think it’s the high roller.

    It was a silly story to begin with. Can’t a magazine like Time cover more details of the candidates’ positions, which voters say they want? Of course, that would require real journalism, which seems to be lacking this election year.

  • Hi Mary –
    I just learned that my sister is deathly afraid of Obama, but would vote for him if Hillary was his running mate.
    Is this how you feel? I personally find it weird, ’cause she went as far as possibly voting for McCain, althought she HATES the Bush’s (we both live in Florida).
    So, I’m tying to penetrate the wall she’s built up about Obama, she even let me know that she thinks that he’s a Muslim. We challenged each other to show the truth, and she susequently sent to me a bunch of unattributed crap. I’m only sending to her actual articles of journalism, complete with links for attribution.
    She hasn’t sent anyting to me recently (one thing she sent contained the ridiculous Book of Revelations, AntiChrist will be a Muslim lie).
    Anyway, Mary, my sister is not dumb, she’s sharp, but is not as interested in getting the whole story as I am. She’s bought into the lies & crap that the Corp Media (hello, Fox & AP) is peddling, as well as the email rumors & lies. I think that you two may have something in common, and I understand where you are coming from, at least a bit more.
    Please Mary, think of the actual choices. Or, are you being untruthful to us readers?

  • I don’t admire cautious players. — Mary. @9

    I’m 100% certain that, had the article described a reversed situation — McCain as a cerebral, cautious player and Obama as the reckless one — you’d have discovered that you cannot trust, much less admire, someone who is willing to gamble that Lady Luck will be kind to him. And I’m certain-sure that, in that case, mindless relaxing after work would not be a sufficient excuse, while doing it on his wife’s money would have caused you a heartburn from all the outrage.

    When you want to hit a dog, you can always find a stick. For you, *everything* is a stick to hit Obama with. What’s really amazing or, perhaps, “telling”, is that the one really serious thing, the thing most of us are bitchin’ and moanin’ about — Obama’s attitude towards the FISA “fix” — *you* seem to be perfectly OK with. It’s all carping and sliming about the littlest things, blowing them out of proportion, to release your bile…

    God, but you’re disgusting.

  • Senator Scaredycat’s overcautious nature at the poker table is indicative of a profound flaw, the inability to take risks like authorizing a trustworthy president to make hard decisions about when to invade countries that are threatening to put American women in chains stronger than the links already forged by arrogant American men. It takes a person with a spine to do that with the AUMF and then do it again with Kyl-Lieberman, ignoring the squeals of the naysayers who will criticize anything a female politician does while giving her male counterparts a complete pass. I don’t want a president who runs in fear from risky choices just because one didn’t turn out quite as well as planned. No pain, no gain — but you can’t tell Signor Delicato that. He’s too busy protecting his bony knees and elbows from scrapes and bruises.

    Senator Skinflint is so broke because he’s hypercareful. He should have paid off his and his wife’s $200K-plus law tuition loans within two years of graduating, but he was too busy living large on the South Side, driving a purple Cadillac and wearing a fedora. He has been a reckless spendthrift and now he is just as reckless in his lack of moxie. It’s hard to believe someone could so abuse both extremes, but the evidence doesn’t lie. What kind of wild abandon or complete fear of action would he simultaneously exhibit as president? Scary to think about it.

    Once again, this post shows that you Obamoveranalyze groupies just don’t understand the voters. Writing in blog comment threads helps normal people recreate. Normal people don’t associate relaxation with firing synapses.

  • Wow, Mary, I am sooo sorry you totally missed the point of my post.

    Andy Bloch and Anthony Holden are Professional poker players. They were just stating what ALL gamblers know about games of chance, such as craps, and games that require more skill to be successful, such as poker. The people I quoted do not know Obama, and would answer this question the same way no matter which candidate enjoyed which game, unlike you Mary, who must learn to read a Whole article before commenting on it!

    Back to school for Mary!

  • craps is a game invented by moron sailors at sea with too much time and money on their hands.

    Nasal Radiators love it since it’s the table equivalent ofr landing an airplane on a boat.

  • Why should McCain’s staff worry? He’s got his lucky shoe.

    Maybe this is what’s hiding in Cindy’s tax returns. After all, gambling losses are tax deductible.

  • Don’t forget McCain’s superstitions… such as,

    Throw a Hat on a Bed
    Woolly Mammoth Make You Dead

  • For the last almost 8 years, the people who ran this country fancied themselves high-stakes, no-limit Texas-Hold-Em stars. They had the big stack, and played bully poker the whole time, and now they’re getting ready to pull out of the game and take their winnings with ’em. They won some pretty big pots.

    The gambler metaphor makes my blood run cold. In high-stakes gambling, the really successful gamblers have learned to forget the ab$olute value of the bets they make, but to regard the chips merely as disposable counters.

    In the games we’re discussing here, friends, in case you hadn’t noticed, it’s you and me who are the things that give their chips value. When one of these sons of bitches goes “all in,” they’ve thrown US into the pot to back their play. So they don’t really CARE if they win any particular hand, cuz they’ve got the bank, and an endless supply of chips to play. The House always wins in the long run.

    So please forgive me if I wish we’d stop valorizing these cheap hustlers, okay?

  • There was another politician who played a pretty good hand of poker with other pols – Harry Truman. I believe he was at the usual poker game with his Senatorial friends when they brought him news of FDR’s death.

  • Comments are closed.