“I must complain the cards are ill shuffled till I have a good hand.” This Jonathan Swift quote encompasses both sides of the poker spectrum. On one side, poker is a game of chance. The cards are shuffled and dealt in random order to players who know of only their own cards. On the other side is a world of complex math and strategy that, when implemented successfully, can yield financial rewards. The true nature of the game has been vehemently debated over time between avid players and advocated of gambling addiction relief. The true nature of the game will never be truly revealed, but there is one more school of thought that seems to make the most headway towards an answer.
In an upcoming essay, I will address the concept of philosophical and social agency and how it relates to society. My vehicle in to this topic is the game of poker. The game of poker has evoked my interested in agency and structuralism based on the distinct connections between the two seemingly unrelated topics. It is a combination of these factors that leads to the construction of a third school of “poker thought.” This blog will be a small precursor of my length essay. This small passage is intended to clarify my direction and organize my thoughts, as well as open up a new perspective on the game.
Let’s begin by clarifying two sides of the argument in the social aspect. First, there is the argument of structure. Structuralism is a complex system of interrelated parts. These parts make up society and influence the set of determined actions possible within the structure. Our roles and actions are predetermined and executed without any ability of the agent to change it. In poker, this can be considered the gambling aspect. When a player, or agent, sits down at a table and joins a game, he or she is subjecting himself or herself to a structure that they have no control over. The cards are shuffled, dealt, and the odds of the game take control. The player is just along for the ride, either reaping the benefits or suffering the losses.
This attitude is what most people will subject to gambling addiction. Gambling addicts live and breathe for this uncertainty and often fall victim to the rush and financial burden of the game. People believe that poker addicts have no control over their games and that they are destined to pour their income down the drain.
The second side of the poker coin is the players who believe poker is a decision-based game. Since the invention of online poker, the amount of games and hands a poker player can see per day has increased exponentially. Professional online poker players are known to play upwards of 20 tables at one time for hours a day. The truly successful professionals have stuck to a complex set of rules and strategies that make them profitable.
These strategies, however, change over time. The best players in the world have a keen sense for change and will adapt to the new styles accordingly. These professionals are similar to agents in the theory of methodological individualism. In this theory, the “agents” can construct and reconstruct their own societies. As the best players construct new techniques and strategies, they gain a profitable edge over the other players. The agents are in total control over their fate given a proper sample size and strict management. When the rest of the poker world catches up with the curve, these agents are able to then once again craft their poker actions and reconstruct their abilities, insuring a profitable future.
It is in this ability that we see the connection between poker and methodological individualism. The poker society is not driven by random chance or luck, but instead by the acts of individuals and the observations of these acts. It is this thought that allows professionals to truly believe that they are in control of their own fate.
As factually accurate both of these sides are the answer cannot simply lie in just one realm of poker understanding. The truth is, the answer most likely is a mixture of both luck and skill. In poker, we find that there is no true volume that will determine a player’s profitability. Over time, players venture through patches of good luck and bad luck called variance. Sometimes, a player can’t d wrong. They win every flip, hit every flop, and river every nut. We’ve all gone on a “hot streak” before. Sure, we haven’t changed our play, but we’ve been rewarded on a more frequent basis. Poker players have also all gone through a bad swing of variance. Sometimes, no matter how solid your strategy is or how good your odds were, you lose. The rouge diamond on the river or the lone Ace on a turn, poker can surprise us in many ways. The sad truth of poker is that you are only fully in control of your own games; other will march to the beat of their own drum.
This concept is prevalent in the third opinion on agency, known as structuration. Structuration is defined as not focusing solely on an individual or a society, but the social practices ordered across space and time. We essentially reside in a set of rules and norms that are pertinent to our society, in this case poker, and we have the freedom to act upon those options. This means that our actions are partially predetermined based on the given options. It is the repetition of these acts, the calls, raises, and folds that build the structure of norms and values. Do you know exactly why you don’t play 72 off suit? It is widely held to be the worst starting hand. But there is no force stopping you from playing it and from time to time, winning with it. These structures and beliefs don’t determine our actions; they instead constrain them and regulate them. On the other hand, our actions are always forming and reforming the structure of the game.
This is how poker evolves.
