I'm around a number of Buddhists, though I'm not one myself. (Or, you could say, I'm an awful Buddhist who drinks, smokes, eats meat and denies being a Buddhist.) Recently, the lead teacher at the Insight Meditation Center, where I took their meditation course and occasionally attend while practicing my own form of bad Buddhism, mentioned that a Buddhist wouldn't bluff while playing poker since it was an act of false speech, and a violation of the five precepts (code of ethics) of Buddhism.
As a refresher, they are:
- Abstain from taking life.
- Abstain from taking what is not given.
- Abstain from sexual misconduct.
- Abstain from false speech.
- Abstain from fermented drink (though I would include all intoxicants).
Another poker writer I follow, who teaches an approach to poker that is remarkably Buddhist-like is Tommy Angelo. He recently published an eight part series on learning poker that mirrors the Buddhist Eightfold Path and at the end, tried to deal with the question of Buddhists playing poker.
These questions have been bouncing around in my head for some time. Would a Buddhist play poker? Would they bluff? Would they sit in a game with someone who clearly had a gambling addiction? Ultimately, I do not think that the Dalai Lama, or any other really mindful Buddhist would start playing poker. However if you are committed to playing poker, Buddhism suggests some specific ways to comport yourself at the table.
1: Abstain from taking life.
I don't think this is going to be a problem for you at the poker table, unless you know there is something you can do that will cause someone to be grievously injured. At the Palms $4/$8 game in Vegas I once saw a man have an epileptic seizure upon making the best hand, but his opponents neither knew that fact about his medical history, nor did they have an ability to cause it.
Conclusion: You can play poker without worrying about taking life.
2: Abstain from taking what is not given
This one is trickier. Assuming that you play for table stakes (what's on the table is the only thing you can bet) then you can assume that whatever chips a player buys in for are "what is given". If you buy the chips, you are making a conscious decision to offer them. In fact this means you can only play for table stakes, since if you were not, you might be in a hand and find yourself encouraging or asking an opponent to offer you something (his car, his girlfriend, that iPhone) as an asset to complete a bet.
Though I've just said it's kosher, you probably also don't want to encourage someone to bet, raise, or call while they're considering their decision. Though they've already put their chips on the table, encouraging them to put more in the middle if they're considering not to would err on the wrong side of "taking what is not given". It's also easier if you just don't talk during the hand.
Even when playing for table stakes, you might find your opponent considering a decision of whether or not to purchase more chips, or even to sit down. You must not influence this decision by encouraging him. (You are free to discourage him, especially if you think he has a gambling problem, but that's poor poker if you think you're the better player and not likely to help someone who's already standing in a casino.)
Conclusion: Do not encourage a player to play, put chips in the pot, or to buy more chips or you will be taking what is not given.
3: Abstain from sexual misconduct
Conclusion: You're not more likely to do this at the poker table than anywhere else.
4: Abstain from false speech
This is the thing you are most likely to do. Bluffing is not the issue. When you're in a hand, nobody expects you to only bet the best hand. However you can avoid talking at all and also avoid giving away any information. It's probably best to avoid lying about what you have ("Oh you better fold, I've got the nuts!")
Outside the hand you shouldn't lie. I've seen people deal with this in different ways, such as Tommy Angelo's trick of saying, "I never tell the truth when I talk about what I had". I often say absolutely nothing when asked.
There are also situations where I've seen people play the "opposite game" (I'm looking at you Chris H.), where they give bad strategy tips to novices to further impair their game. This is definitely false speech and should be avoided.
Conclusion: This is the most likely mistake, and governs everything you say outside a hand. Do not lie outside the hand.
5: Abstain from fermented drink
Conclusion: Being intoxicated isn't very good for your poker game, as it dulls your intellectual capacities. If you play a lot of poker, this is an excuse not to drink.
What's not covered?
An interesting question comes to mind: "What about berating other players for their bad play?" None of the five precepts seem to discourage you from being a jerk. And yet how could Buddhism be silent on the act of speaking in a demeaning manner about others that makes them feel unhappy?
I don't know Buddhism well enough to answer that with a reference to the dhamma (teachings of the Buddha). But I do know enough about poker to fling this truism at you, "Don't tap on the glass, it disturbs the fish". If a player is playing badly and you berate him, one of the following things will happen:
- You will become over confident and play badly against him. Bad players are dealt the same number of awesome hands as good players, and when he catches one and takes your money, you'll be on tilt.
- The act of complaining will make you more upset about his play as you spiral into tilt.
- He will notice he is playing badly (thanks to you) and play better, depriving you of equity.
- He will get up and leave altogether, depriving you of equity.
There's really no reason to berate a bad player from a poker point of view, and I doubt the Buddha would justify one, so don't do it.
If you have other suggestions about how to play poker as a Buddhist, post them in the comments!
This Saturday many of the groups that organized the "teabagging"
anti-tax day protests are going to stand in front of the local offices
of members of Congress and protest anything having to do with reforming
healthcare. This isn't a difference of opinion (public option vs no
public option? funding children's healthcare?), the groups organizing
these rallies want nothing at all to change. I can't fathom that
position.
This is the last serious thing I will say publicly about the healthcare debate for months.
Dear Rep. Speier,
I am very happy to see that you have come out strong for a public option in healthcare. Thank you for doing the right thing. If you don't read the rest of this letter (it is long) please know that you have my support in pushing for universal healthcare, of which a public option is a key component.
There are a couple of myths floating around the healthcare debate that I want to address, not because I think you buy into them, but because I want you to know your constituents don't buy into them.
Myth: A public plan would put a bureaucrat in charge of your healthcare.
Opponents of healthcare reform pretend this is a bad thing. All insurance is by definition, part of a bureaucracy. There is more paperwork in healthcare than we have trees. Today we have health insurance bureaucracies run by for profit organizations who are not answerable to anyone except shareholders, whose interests are diametrically set apart from patients. When they want to change the rules of your insurance coverage, they simply change the rules because they contractually reserved that right when you signed up. And because they are a near monopoly in the market, you don't have any choice.Government-run healthcare are systems that can be expected to follow reasonable and consistent rules, such as "You may not rescind coverage the day before you need to go in for chemotherapy treatment." When they don't follow these rules, there are appeals to the courts and to elected officials. The purpose of the enterprise, to keep you healthy and heal you when you're sick, is never lost.
Bureaucracy is inevitable with health insurance, whether run by the government or by the private sector. I'd rather my chances of survival be chosen by me and my fellow constituents than by a board of directors. I would prefer a bureaucracy run by someone responsive to me than by someone whose motivation is to pay out as little in healthcare services as possible. Like public safety, healthcare should be a service not subject to market forces.
Myth: 2 out of 3 workers will lose coverage according to independent analysis by The Lewin GroupThe Lewin Group is not an independent entity, it is an entirely owned subsidiary of health insurance company UnitedHealth. Secondly, the rising cost of healthcare is driving people to lose their coverage because costs of employer funded healthcare are rising faster than we can keep up. When I co-founded my web agency in 1997, we offered healthcare and paid the entire cost. Today that isn't possible anymore and employees share part of the cost, and many business don't even offer coverage, or offer "sham" coverage.
The reality is that the current approach to health insurance has resulted in a loss of coverage for millions of people. From 1998 to 2008, the percentage of large employers who offered retiree health coverage shrank from 66% to 31%, and the trend continues downward today . [Kaiser Family Foundation, slide #12]
Rising costs will mean that many employees who are offered coverage won't be able to afford to accept it. In addition, the KFF study shows that premiums have been rising quickly for the last ten years. What isn't shown in that study is that out of pocket costs have been rising along with non-covered events. We're paying more for plans that are covering less. And that assumes that we can get insurance, or that we don't lose it through rescission.
Myth: There are millions of Americans who go uninsured (also known as "naked") in this country. They should be motivated to work harder in order to afford health insurance. We shouldn't just give them this benefit or they won't see an incentive to work hard.
For millions of uninsured Americans, maybe the best job they have been able to find is not enough to afford a $400 per month or more health insurance premium, or the copays that go with it. In a capitalist labor market, some people just won't make enough money to afford health insurance as it costs today.Being poor in America, where we prize our standard of living, is itself a sufficient motivator to get people to work harder. If the promise of a flat screen TV, a new car, or an exotic vacation isn't enough to motivate you to make more money, the promise of a life with health insurance isn't going to motivate you more.
Withholding health insurance means that these people will be poor and sick, which will do nothing to make it possible to work harder, and will likely only result in more expensive chronic conditions that our hospitals (and we) will end up absorbing the cost of.
Having a public health insurance option that refuses nobody means that when they do get sick, they can be automatically enrolled in the program and therefore reduce the risk pool and healthcare costs for everyone. And of course, if they then decide that they want to buy a plan, they would be free to go on the open market and do business with the health insurance industry.
Thank you for fighting to hard for a public health insurance option. As we have recognized our responsibility to protect the health of our elderly and our children, the public option will ensure that we cover our nation's working poor and middle class not covered by the healthcare market.
Sincerely,
Shabbir Imber Safdar
August 07, 2009 in Commentary | Permalink | Comments (1)