May 23, 2006
Poker and Life: An Interview Posted by Allen Barra at 10:15 AM EST Steven Lubet is one of America’s best-known literary lawyers. A professor of law at Northwestern University, he is the author of the popular textbook Modern Trial Advocacy and the widely praised Murder In Tombstone: The Forgotten Trial of Wyatt Earp. He writes a regular column for American Lawyer magazine and has also written for the Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, and American Heritage. In his latest book, Lawyers’ Poker: 52 Lessons That Lawyers Can Learn From Card Players (Oxford, $28), he takes on America’s newest gaming craze, poker, and explores the natural kinship between the card table and the courtroom. I spoke with him about poker, the law, and the Old West.
Your book is subtitled “52 Lessons That Lawyers Can Learn From Card Players.” Fess up. What kind of poker player are you? And don’t try to bluff me.
I am a student of poker strategy and an admirer of the poker greats, but I do not currently play. My basic point is that poker geniuses really know what they’re talking about, and that lawyers have lots to learn from them when it comes to strategy and tactics. Most importantly, then, you don’t have to be a poker player in order to learn from poker players. Just as you don’t need to be an ancient Chinese general in order to apply Sun Tzu’s philosophy of war to contemporary business.
And what’s the principal thing that poker players can learn from lawyers?
When it comes to strategy, I’m not sure lawyers have much to teach poker players. And the reason is that poker players have done such an excellent job of analyzing their game. The literature on poker is not only extensive, but, more important, it’s been validated in practice. Unlike law, poker is a game of repetition. Certain situations are repeated over and over—and since you can play 30 hands an hour or as many as 300 hands in one extended sitting, it is truly possible to experiment with various ploys and techniques. In that sense poker is more like science, or at least social science, than law is. Lawyers are really intellectual borrowers or copycats, who devour all sorts of ideas from other disciplines. We learn lots from economists, psychologists, even physicists—but it is usually a one-way process.
Still, if I had to provide one lesson to card players (on behalf of lawyers), it would be this: It’s not what you win, it’s what you keep. Diversify your investments and make sure that your financial manager is bonded and insured. Then, if you go broke you will always have someone to sue.
Who’s the best lawyer you’ve ever known? Who’s the best poker player?
The best lawyer I’ve ever known is Gerry Spence. Not only is he a genius, but he is also an inspiration to young (and not so young) lawyers who want to use their skills for the benefit of ordinary people. Gerry’s best piece of advice is to show the jury that you trust them, so that they will return your trust. He calls it “the golden mirror.” The best lawyer I’ve ever seen in trial is Chicago’s Eugene Pincham. He’s not as famous as Gerry Spence, but he is gifted as well. Gene Pincham has also devoted much of his career to assisting the needy, although, like Gerry Spence, he’s also managed to make a good living. Both Gerry and Gene are semi-retired from practice. I’m sure there are younger lawyers ready to take up the challenge.
I haven’t met any of the great poker players, but the best of the analysts would have to include, in my opinion, Doyle Brunson (though he is stylistically challenged) and David Sklansky. When it comes to poker literature (that is, not how-to books), the best writer is James McManus, with A. Alvarez and Anthony Holden in the running as well.
In your Lesson 13, “Patience,” you quote McManus: “Lying in wait is what good poker players do best.” It sounds as if patience is one of the most important qualities a poker player or a lawyer could have. If you had to name two others for both professions, what would they be?
The essential qualities for good lawyers and card players would have to include attentiveness and self-control. Attentiveness allows you to see patterns in your adversaries’ conduct, while self-control allows you to adapt your own behavior to fit the situation. In both cases you want to be able to accurately evaluate the opposition while preventing them from figuring out your own intentions. In poker, of course, you want to know whether your opponent is bluffing or betting for value (while holding good cards), while at the same time keeping them guessing about the strength of your own hand. In legal negotiation, for example, you need to figure out whether a “drop dead” offer is really the last word, or if there is in fact something more in reserve—and in contrast you want opposing counsel to believe that your final offer is truly final. In order to accomplish any of these goals, you must be super attentive, noticing anything that might be revealing about the other side. And at the same time, you must be in complete control of your own conduct, sometimes concealing your intentions and sometimes revealing them—but always for a purpose.
Great lawyers and card players add a third quality—storytelling. In poker, that’s usually called “representing a hand.” So you don’t bluff just by making massive bets (which would eventually become transparent) but rather by playing as though you are holding specific cards. Thus if you are betting as though you are drawing to a flush, you will fold if the cards on the table seem to bust your drawing hand. That will pay off handsomely later, because it will make you look like a tight player who only bets for value. That’s a story worth sticking to.
Lawyer storytelling is different, to be sure, because the stories must be true (contrary to popular opinion and all the lawyer jokes in the world). The art lies in making them coherent and engaging. Thus rather than present a series of simple facts, the great lawyers weave them into a compelling narrative that leads to a single answer. The similarity to poker lies in recognizing that a complete story is more persuasive than the sum of its individual facts.
Why poker now? Why has TV suddenly discovered poker? Is this just a craze that will pass in a couple of years, or, given poker’s longstanding hold on the American psyche, is it something that will continue to grow?
Poker is played by over 60 million Americans, and has been for years, so there is nothing new about the poker “craze.” Until recently, however, nobody had figured out a way to televise it. In that sense, poker was sort of like soccer—extremely popular among participants but invisible in the mass media. It’s hard to say how long poker tournaments will stay on television, but the game is only getting more popular, with millions now playing online.
|
