The Wisdom of Craps
Noam Scheiber (h/t Andrew Sullivan) comments on the ethical implications of the recent Time story that contrasted Obama’s canny poker playing with McCain’s reckless craps habit. As someone who spent way too much time in casinos in an earlier phase of my life, both pieces read to me like they were written by guys who’s closest brush with the business end of a craps table was in a graduate seminar on Veblen.
What neither seems to realize is that cards are work and craps is vacation.
Beyond this, a craps table is the last bastion of true democracy in America: a diverse group of people working together for a common purpose. Looking around a craps table one person at a time is like the platoon sergeant in a WWII movie taking roll call in the foxhole: Johnson!, Martinez!, Weinstein!, Strombowski!, …
Now, Heaven knows how to put a proper price on its goods, and craps is not free. As a retired player, however, I am prepared to share with you Jim Manzi’s three rules that will guarantee that you win at craps.
1. ALWAYS bet on a man in a hat.
2. If you are throwing dice at some casino in the Caribbean, and the Fat Boys invite you on a booze cruise, ALWAYS go.
3. NEVER bet the ‘don’t pass’ line. This is the behavior of an anti-social freak. It is wearing a Yankees cap at Fenway or short-selling the entire stock market. You succeed when all those around you lose. If this is how you get your kicks, perhaps you’d be more comfortable over there at the poker table with Mr. Obama.
Poker isn’t work – poker is a sport. And it’s social. You think the guys playing speed chess or hoops in the park are working? That’s what a friendly but serious poker game should be.
Whereas craps is, indeed, entertainment. It’s more like playing the horses than like playing a game, except there’s not even the illusion that there’s any skill at all involved.
None of this is my bag; the gambling I do is work, and I don’t need to do it for fun. But I understand it. The game I can’t understand the appeal of is roulette. (And slots, of course.)
— Noah Millman · Jul 8, 06:34 PM · #
This is way off topic, but: Jim, do you think it’s still possible for counters to get an edge at blackjack, or have adjustments to the house rules (like very frequent reshuffling) made that all but impossible?
— philosopher · Jul 8, 06:41 PM · #
Noah:
Yes.
philosopher:
You are truly living up to your name. I’ve wondered that myself, and it’s not obvious to me how one would do it. But I’ve beene out of the game so long, for all I know there is a well-understood solution. One observation is that the last time I looked, you could still get a lot of hand-shuffled games in LV / AC.
— Jim Manzi · Jul 8, 08:14 PM · #
A Fat Boys reference! Sadly, I didn’t need to click on the wiki link.
— Ferrell · Jul 8, 08:46 PM · #
There is some wisdom in this, but not much.
The craps table is entertaining, but not in the manner of a democracy. It’s more like a medieval court. All come as courtiers before the king (the House) and seek to win his lucre. Most win their favors by cunning and elegance and wit at the pass line; other low and traitorous creatures choose the supplication and self abnegation of the don’t pass bet. But at the end of the day, the king is glorified by the spectacle and all who surround him are diminished.
Poker is your true democracy, or—if you like—capitalism. Without first cowering before the sovereign, all are allowed to test their courage and luck on an even field. If a player chooses to join the battle and loses to a stronger foe, he has none to blame but himself. No man stands against the common weal, but each stands for himself. (The rake is an affront to this ethic, but less insulting than the overweening odds of the tyrant.)
— southpaw · Jul 9, 12:14 AM · #
My suggestion for making money at gambling is to be a state legislator and play poker every week with lobbyists with expense accounts. This strategy seems to have worked for Obama, as Time reports that he routinely left his Wednesday night poker game with lobbyists and other politicians a winner.
— Steve Sailer · Jul 9, 05:06 AM · #
I find Steve to be the exact opposite of Matt Yglesias, who views everything through an anti-McCain lens, including McCain’s ‘gambling addiction.’ Obama’s reputed poker prowess can only mean that lobbyists were trying to bribe him by playing poorly, according to Steve’s all-seeing eye.
— Klug · Jul 9, 07:41 PM · #
I was about to name-check Steve for his poker comment, but he beat me to it.
The facts are that as a state senator, Obama played a weekly poker game with lobbyists and, according to Time, “usually won.” If you told me that Obama played a weekly golf game with lobbyists or a weekly tennis game and that he usually won, I would assume that the lobbyists weren’t playing their best, because, well, because they’re lobbyists and he’s a state rep.
Actually, that suggests a good dodge – if you want to take a legislator on a fancy golf junket, don’t offer to pay for it, just offer to bet the cost of the trip on who plays the better game. After all, you know you’re going to come in a couple strokes below him anyway. . .
— J Mann · Jul 10, 03:19 PM · #