If you’ve been watching WSOP action recently, you might have seen William Kassouf’s wild behavior deep in the Main Event. Kassouf used a barrage of insults, stalling tactics, and general auditory torture techniques en route to another non-final-table finish.
Watching the shenanigans, you might have found yourself wondering the same thing I did: is this actually “good for the game”?
That’s the argument people make when defending the behavior of players like Kassouf, Phil Hellmuth, and Martin Kabrhel. They say the outbursts and aggressive showmanship brings new fans to the game. And the reality is – that’s probably true. In the age of Reddit threads and YouTube shorts, extreme behavior does have more virality.
But maybe what gets more views isn’t the right metric to judge things on. Maybe the right question would be to ask what kind of people do we want to attract to the game? And whether what’s happening today is actually helpful to that goal.
Because the reality is that the more airtime we give poker trolls, the more appealing (and profitable) it becomes to act like them. Is that what we want? Is it good for the game to attract players who desperately need to always be the center of attention? Players who genuinely enjoy being disruptive? Players who choose to exploit their captive audience by acting in abusive and domineering ways?
Because, in my mind, the question isn’t whether Will Kassouf is good for the game, it’s whether 1,000 Kassoufs will be.
Would it be good for the game to have a Phil Hellmuth type player constantly insulting his opponents in every poker room around the world? How about ten of them? Because if we’re telling players like Hellmuth, Kassouf, and Kabrhel they can continue putting their own impulses above the good of the game, we’re saying everyone else can too.
And if that’s the case, what type of environment are we sending new players into? How could that possibly be good for the game?
Besides, it’s not really what the game is about, is it? Since when has irritation been a valued poker skill? Yes, table talk can be effective, but it’s not meant to be a spray-and-pray approach, it’s supposed to be surgical, For example, the way Daniel Negreanu or Charlie Carrel know exactly what buttons to push, without degrading or intimidating their opponents, to get what they need.
Because those who argue that poker is a game of “by any means necessary” forget that not too long ago, acting like this in a poker game would have gotten you kicked out by the scruff of your neck like a cartoon character being tossed out the door.
That’s what we do as a society. We hold each other accountable. We say: you can’t abuse, intimidate, or generally bring misery to the population at large. So why then do we no longer ask people to abide by those same rules at the poker table?
And most importantly, if we don’t start doing so in a hurry, how long before what made us fall in love with poker is no longer fun – before the juice is no longer worth the squeeze?
I’d argue, hardly any time at all.
