Reconciling Buddhistic Practice and Poker

The meaning of “reconcile” in play here is “to make consistent or congruous.” In other words… How can someone walk the path of harmlessness if it has poker tables on it?

Let’s say there’s a guy who plays poker, and he starts meditating every morning and doing mindfulness stuff all day long and reading about it and talking to knowledgeable people about it. He goes all-in with the practice and the teachings. He learns about harmlessness, intellectually, and it makes sense. He learns about harmlessness, experientially, and he watches himself and his world change. He likes where it’s leading. Eventually a day comes when there are no poker tables on his path. It might have happened suddenly, a quick turn: “Poker harms me and others! Therefore I shall no longer do it!” Or it might have happened gradually, with no forethought, just a natural weaning. In either case, it was the move toward a life guided in part by an attitude of harmlessness that made him move away from poker, which, by his definition, causes harm.

Let’s look at another guy. He is a poker player, and last week he heard some things about meditation. He heard it would improve his concentration and make him less emotionally reactive. He thinks this would be great for his poker game. So he learns more, and he starts doing some of the practices, the ones that he thinks will help him focus better and therefore do better at poker. Over the next ten years, he builds his repertoire of mindful breathing and concentration exercises that he does while he plays poker, and he occasionally does them in regular life during high-stress situations. He and his life are made better (more tiltless) by the practices that he rightly thinks of as stemming from his poker life, in the same way that a businessman might think of poker as something that hones his people-reading skills. The concept of “harmlessness” is nowhere in the mix. Yet when he plays poker now, he harms himself much less than he used to. And when he plays poker, he harms his opponents less than he used to. The things he says. The things he does. The things he thinks. The vibe he sends out. The bitterness is gone. The meanness is gone. The need to make others small is gone.

The first guy quit poker. The second guy has no plans to quit poker. Both are walking the path of harmlessness.

 

 

10 Comments

  • Manny Posted September 18, 2009 1:28 pm

    We could also remember that we are playing game. I think people get harmed when it becomes more than a game. Even if you pay your rent with it, its still just a game.

  • Jeff Posted September 18, 2009 8:26 pm

    I’m not sure what you mean by “just a game” even if you pay your rent with “it” (assuming “it” is money used for playing the game.) There are games you play for free. There are games you pay a fee to play, the same as everyone else. And there are games where you are harmed if you lose, whether it be kickboxing or poker.

    If I play chess, I can’t really harm anything other than my ego. If I play chess somewhere that requires a fee (such as a USCF sanctioned chess tournament), then I can also harm my wallet, but I can’t be harmed relative to my opponent so it is not “part” of the game. If I play poker, I could harm my ego, I could pay a fee (rake) that harms all players, and I could also be harmed in my wallet either by bad luck or bad play.

    If you can lose money, or get hurt, would you consider that by definition already “more than a game”? (I think it would be difficult to console the widow of a boxer who just died in a match by telling her “it’s just a game”.)

  • Dayne Posted September 20, 2009 11:55 pm

    Great post, Tommy!

    What if I used to play with fear, no longer play with fear, and take my game to another level… because I’m fearless?

    What if I have a friend who played with fear, but learned not to play with fear, which earned him more money than he could dream of… but quit because making that much money made him scared? (True story).

    -Dayne

  • PokerAnon Posted September 22, 2009 10:17 am

    Both walking the path of harmlessness, the difference being that one is further along the path? Or is that too dualistic in thinking?

    I’m not sure that I’m on the path at all, but lately I’ve been wondering about the people that get harmed when I participate; those that tilt themselves when I win, or those that are addicted and continue to lose and lose.

  • Anon Posted September 26, 2009 6:58 pm

    In the end, we all have to have a preference. You can’t have both equally. One favors harmlessness, and it becomes the context in which poker is seen. The other favors poker, and it becomes the context from which harmlessness is seen. They are infinitely far apart.

    A seesaw with a small weight on it does not find balance; it leans one way or the other, and in the end, one of the seats ends up on the ground. Even if the weight is small. The notion of balance is just a trick to convince yourself you can have your cake and eat it too! 🙂

  • Buyinpoker.com Posted October 3, 2009 12:22 pm

    Yeah it is just a game…people does not need to give away or spend much money on the the game.

  • bastinptc Posted October 8, 2009 12:18 pm

    I have a friend, a practiced Buddhist for 30+ years. He once told me that in the realm of human interactions, compassion must be a reciprocal practice. If none is forthcoming from the other party, none need be given back. As poker players, we are taught there is no room for compassion in the game. Compassion equals less money. Yet, it is a small sacrifice to occasionally indulge with those more tragic. If then they gloat, meaning they have no understanding of their circumstances, mercy time is over.

  • xeromidas Posted October 13, 2009 11:49 am

    i liked a lot ur article. Am starting into this thing thing. I want to become a pro i hope soon, thats why am reading a lot, and also bulding a free poker bankroll, cause i dont want to risk anything yet.
    Gl and am looking foward for another article

  • play poker online at titan poker Posted December 11, 2009 5:45 am

    I have a friend, a practiced Buddhist for 30+ years. He once told me that in the realm of human interactions, compassion must be a reciprocal practice. If none is forthcoming from the other party, none need be given back. As poker players, we are taught there is no room for compassion in the game. Compassion equals less money. Yet, it is a small sacrifice to occasionally indulge with those more tragic. If then they gloat, meaning they have no understanding of their circumstances, mercy time is over.

  • Felix Trinidad Posted December 18, 2009 1:04 pm

    Hi – I found your oage by mistake. I was searching in Bing for PDF software that I had already bought when I found your site, I have to say your page is pretty cool I just love the theme, its amazing!. I don’t have the time today to fully read your entire site but I bookmarked it and also will sign up for your RSS feed. I will be back in a day or two. thanks for a nice site.

Add Comment