Comments on: Poker as Storytelling: Affect, Trickery, Common Sound http://htmlgiant.com/craft-notes/poker-as-storytelling-affect-trickery-common-sound/ the internet literature magazine blog of the future Thu, 24 May 2012 09:44:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: How Hypnotism Really Helps You Quit Smoking? | Fit for Life http://htmlgiant.com/craft-notes/poker-as-storytelling-affect-trickery-common-sound/comment-page-2/#comment-62412 How Hypnotism Really Helps You Quit Smoking? | Fit for Life Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:19:38 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=29406#comment-62412 [...] HTMLGIANT / Poker as Storytelling: Affect, Trickery, Common Sound [...] [...] HTMLGIANT / Poker as Storytelling: Affect, Trickery, Common Sound [...]

]]> By: peter breslin http://htmlgiant.com/craft-notes/poker-as-storytelling-affect-trickery-common-sound/comment-page-2/#comment-61803 peter breslin Fri, 26 Mar 2010 05:33:43 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=29406#comment-61803 On the one hand, poker does hang together in these epic and significant ways, with all these analogies to great art like Beckett's. Like boxing, there's something brutally beautiful about poker, something seductive and alluring, something almost exactly like the promise of significance. Ultimately, poker is just plain brutal, just like boxing. Just brutal, rapacious, greedy, deceptive, unsatisfying, a cheap substitute for significant, purposeful, artful behavior. It's fun, still, somehow, in some perverse way. But while I admire the art it takes to find such deep resonance in what is essentially bullshit and whoring, I have grown weary of romanticizing. On the one hand, poker does hang together in these epic and significant ways, with all these analogies to great art like Beckett’s. Like boxing, there’s something brutally beautiful about poker, something seductive and alluring, something almost exactly like the promise of significance. Ultimately, poker is just plain brutal, just like boxing. Just brutal, rapacious, greedy, deceptive, unsatisfying, a cheap substitute for significant, purposeful, artful behavior. It’s fun, still, somehow, in some perverse way. But while I admire the art it takes to find such deep resonance in what is essentially bullshit and whoring, I have grown weary of romanticizing.

]]> By: peter breslin http://htmlgiant.com/craft-notes/poker-as-storytelling-affect-trickery-common-sound/comment-page-2/#comment-145617 peter breslin Fri, 26 Mar 2010 05:33:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=29406#comment-145617 On the one hand, poker does hang together in these epic and significant ways, with all these analogies to great art like Beckett's. Like boxing, there's something brutally beautiful about poker, something seductive and alluring, something almost exactly like the promise of significance. Ultimately, poker is just plain brutal, just like boxing. Just brutal, rapacious, greedy, deceptive, unsatisfying, a cheap substitute for significant, purposeful, artful behavior. It's fun, still, somehow, in some perverse way. But while I admire the art it takes to find such deep resonance in what is essentially bullshit and whoring, I have grown weary of romanticizing. On the one hand, poker does hang together in these epic and significant ways, with all these analogies to great art like Beckett’s. Like boxing, there’s something brutally beautiful about poker, something seductive and alluring, something almost exactly like the promise of significance. Ultimately, poker is just plain brutal, just like boxing. Just brutal, rapacious, greedy, deceptive, unsatisfying, a cheap substitute for significant, purposeful, artful behavior. It’s fun, still, somehow, in some perverse way. But while I admire the art it takes to find such deep resonance in what is essentially bullshit and whoring, I have grown weary of romanticizing.

]]> By: Lee http://htmlgiant.com/craft-notes/poker-as-storytelling-affect-trickery-common-sound/comment-page-2/#comment-60520 Lee Sun, 21 Mar 2010 10:04:43 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=29406#comment-60520 Poker is becoming the new Freud. And what a bluff this whole post is! Poker is becoming the new Freud.

And what a bluff this whole post is!

]]> By: Lee http://htmlgiant.com/craft-notes/poker-as-storytelling-affect-trickery-common-sound/comment-page-2/#comment-145616 Lee Sun, 21 Mar 2010 10:04:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=29406#comment-145616 Poker is becoming the new Freud. And what a bluff this whole post is! Poker is becoming the new Freud.

And what a bluff this whole post is!

]]> By: David http://htmlgiant.com/craft-notes/poker-as-storytelling-affect-trickery-common-sound/comment-page-2/#comment-60399 David Sat, 20 Mar 2010 06:06:05 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=29406#comment-60399 I've been thinking about this over and over and I've had to come back and say more. On reflection, one of the most fascinating things this opened up for me, Blake, is questions to do with the composition of belief: what works it, what compels it, what happens in lieu of it. You write: "One of the biggest mistakes a neophyte makes when bluffing is failing to make their bluff make sense: they simply push hard, thinking that it is sheer aggression, and not calculated stories, images, that win pots." Belief <i>as pure belief</i> - as making someone do 'believing' - fails; it needs to invent itself through the <i>systematicity</i> of belief, a logic, a line of elaboration. But such systematicity has little to do with the <i>feasibility</i> of the occurence of the thing believed in. As you also write, "most hands of poker fail to develop into powerful hands" and the cold rates of unlikelihood of a winning hand inform the game less than the creation of a system of communicative poise and action that sells a system of belief to opponents, that causes them to overcredit, to believe, the victory that would be otherwise in doubt. This interests me because it makes me think that belief is often less to do with conviction than the creation of a "realism" which then becomes an irresistible compulsion toward which one must fold. It left me to wonder, however, about the cards themselves, the fact that most poker hands don't develop powerfully, as you say, and so tend toward the person with story power. It made me wonder about the deferred reality of the fail rate. I find myself asking about this fail rate, especially in relation to Beckett, because there's a dimension in which nothingness in Beckett is not nothingness like total vacancy but a nothingess so pure it is <i>a little more or less than nothing</i>, nothingness negated into the nil of itself. That is to say, a voice without a mouth, a voice muttering a trace. Part of why the presentation of narrative is credible in poker is precisely because the skeletonic structure (beautiful phrase by the way) makes the overall certainty of defeat ("over time fate levels all") a matter of the probability of play. Because the rules of the game render the probabilities indeterminable in any one player's assessment of the cards themselves, or if calculable abstractly, calculable only in mathematical estimates mostly beyond the resources rendered available by the compression that the moment of decision demands, story, then, is a way to parlay the not quite nil of nothingness into a perverse positivity that, in one's surrender to it, lets the wagerer (and the watchers of the wager) win. It makes me wonder though where the metaphor leads. Because the wagerer's win always cleans someone else out, someone else, in High Stakes Poker, who is also an expert spinner, a teller, a wagerer in it to win. The high level of skill in the examples you've given seems to equal the stakes of the loss but it leads me to think: Is there a storytelling for those who have little dexterity, who lack the skills, the believability, to play? If narrative is the image kept in compelling play, what if you are no competent imagineer? If "the magic comes not in what you give or are given, but how it is melded, shifted, stuck", what if there is a givenness to melding, shifting and sticking? Thinking here of the obvious relevance of such defectiveness to Beckett's books, I'm curious as to any thoughts you might have on how that factors into the composition of story and how the composition of story handles that? I’ve been thinking about this over and over and I’ve had to come back and say more. On reflection, one of the most fascinating things this opened up for me, Blake, is questions to do with the composition of belief: what works it, what compels it, what happens in lieu of it. You write: “One of the biggest mistakes a neophyte makes when bluffing is failing to make their bluff make sense: they simply push hard, thinking that it is sheer aggression, and not calculated stories, images, that win pots.” Belief as pure belief – as making someone do ‘believing’ – fails; it needs to invent itself through the systematicity of belief, a logic, a line of elaboration. But such systematicity has little to do with the feasibility of the occurence of the thing believed in. As you also write, “most hands of poker fail to develop into powerful hands” and the cold rates of unlikelihood of a winning hand inform the game less than the creation of a system of communicative poise and action that sells a system of belief to opponents, that causes them to overcredit, to believe, the victory that would be otherwise in doubt. This interests me because it makes me think that belief is often less to do with conviction than the creation of a “realism” which then becomes an irresistible compulsion toward which one must fold. It left me to wonder, however, about the cards themselves, the fact that most poker hands don’t develop powerfully, as you say, and so tend toward the person with story power. It made me wonder about the deferred reality of the fail rate. I find myself asking about this fail rate, especially in relation to Beckett, because there’s a dimension in which nothingness in Beckett is not nothingness like total vacancy but a nothingess so pure it is a little more or less than nothing, nothingness negated into the nil of itself. That is to say, a voice without a mouth, a voice muttering a trace. Part of why the presentation of narrative is credible in poker is precisely because the skeletonic structure (beautiful phrase by the way) makes the overall certainty of defeat (“over time fate levels all”) a matter of the probability of play. Because the rules of the game render the probabilities indeterminable in any one player’s assessment of the cards themselves, or if calculable abstractly, calculable only in mathematical estimates mostly beyond the resources rendered available by the compression that the moment of decision demands, story, then, is a way to parlay the not quite nil of nothingness into a perverse positivity that, in one’s surrender to it, lets the wagerer (and the watchers of the wager) win. It makes me wonder though where the metaphor leads. Because the wagerer’s win always cleans someone else out, someone else, in High Stakes Poker, who is also an expert spinner, a teller, a wagerer in it to win. The high level of skill in the examples you’ve given seems to equal the stakes of the loss but it leads me to think: Is there a storytelling for those who have little dexterity, who lack the skills, the believability, to play? If narrative is the image kept in compelling play, what if you are no competent imagineer? If “the magic comes not in what you give or are given, but how it is melded, shifted, stuck”, what if there is a givenness to melding, shifting and sticking? Thinking here of the obvious relevance of such defectiveness to Beckett’s books, I’m curious as to any thoughts you might have on how that factors into the composition of story and how the composition of story handles that?

]]> By: David http://htmlgiant.com/craft-notes/poker-as-storytelling-affect-trickery-common-sound/comment-page-2/#comment-145615 David Sat, 20 Mar 2010 06:06:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=29406#comment-145615 I've been thinking about this over and over and I've had to come back and say more. On reflection, one of the most fascinating things this opened up for me, Blake, is questions to do with the composition of belief: what works it, what compels it, what happens in lieu of it. You write: "One of the biggest mistakes a neophyte makes when bluffing is failing to make their bluff make sense: they simply push hard, thinking that it is sheer aggression, and not calculated stories, images, that win pots." Belief <i>as pure belief</i> - as making someone do 'believing' - fails; it needs to invent itself through the <i>systematicity</i> of belief, a logic, a line of elaboration. But such systematicity has little to do with the <i>feasibility</i> of the occurence of the thing believed in. As you also write, "most hands of poker fail to develop into powerful hands" and the cold rates of unlikelihood of a winning hand inform the game less than the creation of a system of communicative poise and action that sells a system of belief to opponents, that causes them to overcredit, to believe, the victory that would be otherwise in doubt. This interests me because it makes me think that belief is often less to do with conviction than the creation of a "realism" which then becomes an irresistible compulsion toward which one must fold. It left me to wonder, however, about the cards themselves, the fact that most poker hands don't develop powerfully, as you say, and so tend toward the person with story power. It made me wonder about the deferred reality of the fail rate. I find myself asking about this fail rate, especially in relation to Beckett, because there's a dimension in which nothingness in Beckett is not nothingness like total vacancy but a nothingess so pure it is <i>a little more or less than nothing</i>, nothingness negated into the nil of itself. That is to say, a voice without a mouth, a voice muttering a trace. Part of why the presentation of narrative is credible in poker is precisely because the skeletonic structure (beautiful phrase by the way) makes the overall certainty of defeat ("over time fate levels all") a matter of the probability of play. Because the rules of the game render the probabilities indeterminable in any one player's assessment of the cards themselves, or if calculable abstractly, calculable only in mathematical estimates mostly beyond the resources rendered available by the compression that the moment of decision demands, story, then, is a way to parlay the not quite nil of nothingness into a perverse positivity that, in one's surrender to it, lets the wagerer (and the watchers of the wager) win. It makes me wonder though where the metaphor leads. Because the wagerer's win always cleans someone else out, someone else, in High Stakes Poker, who is also an expert spinner, a teller, a wagerer in it to win. The high level of skill in the examples you've given seems to equal the stakes of the loss but it leads me to think: Is there a storytelling for those who have little dexterity, who lack the skills, the believability, to play? If narrative is the image kept in compelling play, what if you are no competent imagineer? If "the magic comes not in what you give or are given, but how it is melded, shifted, stuck", what if there is a givenness to melding, shifting and sticking? Thinking here of the obvious relevance of such defectiveness to Beckett's books, I'm curious as to any thoughts you might have on how that factors into the composition of story and how the composition of story handles that? I’ve been thinking about this over and over and I’ve had to come back and say more. On reflection, one of the most fascinating things this opened up for me, Blake, is questions to do with the composition of belief: what works it, what compels it, what happens in lieu of it. You write: “One of the biggest mistakes a neophyte makes when bluffing is failing to make their bluff make sense: they simply push hard, thinking that it is sheer aggression, and not calculated stories, images, that win pots.” Belief as pure belief – as making someone do ‘believing’ – fails; it needs to invent itself through the systematicity of belief, a logic, a line of elaboration. But such systematicity has little to do with the feasibility of the occurence of the thing believed in. As you also write, “most hands of poker fail to develop into powerful hands” and the cold rates of unlikelihood of a winning hand inform the game less than the creation of a system of communicative poise and action that sells a system of belief to opponents, that causes them to overcredit, to believe, the victory that would be otherwise in doubt. This interests me because it makes me think that belief is often less to do with conviction than the creation of a “realism” which then becomes an irresistible compulsion toward which one must fold. It left me to wonder, however, about the cards themselves, the fact that most poker hands don’t develop powerfully, as you say, and so tend toward the person with story power. It made me wonder about the deferred reality of the fail rate. I find myself asking about this fail rate, especially in relation to Beckett, because there’s a dimension in which nothingness in Beckett is not nothingness like total vacancy but a nothingess so pure it is a little more or less than nothing, nothingness negated into the nil of itself. That is to say, a voice without a mouth, a voice muttering a trace. Part of why the presentation of narrative is credible in poker is precisely because the skeletonic structure (beautiful phrase by the way) makes the overall certainty of defeat (“over time fate levels all”) a matter of the probability of play. Because the rules of the game render the probabilities indeterminable in any one player’s assessment of the cards themselves, or if calculable abstractly, calculable only in mathematical estimates mostly beyond the resources rendered available by the compression that the moment of decision demands, story, then, is a way to parlay the not quite nil of nothingness into a perverse positivity that, in one’s surrender to it, lets the wagerer (and the watchers of the wager) win. It makes me wonder though where the metaphor leads. Because the wagerer’s win always cleans someone else out, someone else, in High Stakes Poker, who is also an expert spinner, a teller, a wagerer in it to win. The high level of skill in the examples you’ve given seems to equal the stakes of the loss but it leads me to think: Is there a storytelling for those who have little dexterity, who lack the skills, the believability, to play? If narrative is the image kept in compelling play, what if you are no competent imagineer? If “the magic comes not in what you give or are given, but how it is melded, shifted, stuck”, what if there is a givenness to melding, shifting and sticking? Thinking here of the obvious relevance of such defectiveness to Beckett’s books, I’m curious as to any thoughts you might have on how that factors into the composition of story and how the composition of story handles that?

]]> By: Matty Byloos http://htmlgiant.com/craft-notes/poker-as-storytelling-affect-trickery-common-sound/comment-page-2/#comment-60348 Matty Byloos Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:35:09 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=29406#comment-60348 Great post -- Casey and I were talking about it briefly on the phone today and I had to carve out some time to sit with it. A total pleasure. So -- thanks for putting your thoughts to the post. Great post — Casey and I were talking about it briefly on the phone today and I had to carve out some time to sit with it. A total pleasure. So — thanks for putting your thoughts to the post.

]]> By: Matty Byloos http://htmlgiant.com/craft-notes/poker-as-storytelling-affect-trickery-common-sound/comment-page-2/#comment-145614 Matty Byloos Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:35:00 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=29406#comment-145614 Great post -- Casey and I were talking about it briefly on the phone today and I had to carve out some time to sit with it. A total pleasure. So -- thanks for putting your thoughts to the post. Great post — Casey and I were talking about it briefly on the phone today and I had to carve out some time to sit with it. A total pleasure. So — thanks for putting your thoughts to the post.

]]> By: Sean http://htmlgiant.com/craft-notes/poker-as-storytelling-affect-trickery-common-sound/comment-page-2/#comment-60341 Sean Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:41:55 +0000 http://htmlgiant.com/?p=29406#comment-60341 Uh, want Denver game. With Diagram http://webdelsol.com/DIAGRAM/10ofdiagrams.html deck Uh, want Denver game. With Diagram http://webdelsol.com/DIAGRAM/10ofdiagrams.html

deck

]]>