Sunglass Debate

[king_tanner 84]

A quote from Daniel's blog:"Hiding your eyes is an advantage. By disallowing sunglasses, that advantage is taken away from every player involved creating a level playing field."Should we ban hats? I can lower my hat over my eyes so you can't see my eyes. How about hoods? Can I not put my hands over my eyes? I think the whole thing is overkill. I don't think the marked cards thing is a good excuse either. Unless I have a vision problem I can see marked cards just as well as someone wearing sunglasses.I don't wear sunglasses at the table, I just think it is a waste of time campaigning against them.

[drewlovesomaha 0]

I haven't worn sunglasses since the 1st month I learned to play and I only did it then to help block the fluorescent lights.....oh yeah and to be able to see the invisible ink on the back of each card I marked when I had my buddy turn on a black light - funny that no one ever suspected.Come on, get over the sunglasses deal Daniel and Doyle!!! No decent player needs to wear them, and I think 90 percent of all players would agree the ones who do are a joke, but when you see the 1st day of WSOP Main Event and the insane costumes people wear (not even counting Hellmuth) what is the big deal about sunglasses...............has there been a big issue where a high stakes player was using them to cheat???There also is no advantage to wearing them and it may be a disadvantage just like wearing headphones at the table sometimes causes players to miss verbal action - I have seen many instances where a player wearing sunglasses gives off strong tells thru posture, the way they throw their chips in the pot,etcHellmuth for one example gives off a ton of info by his hand position- many times grabbing his arms almost hugging himself when he feels vulnerable in a pot. Raymer also had a major tell in relation to his fossil glasses......................Somebody find Daniel a nice Oriental girl or two - he seems too stressed out - unable to break 80 or cash in any tourneys - LOL

[SlapStick 0]

I don't think the marked cards thing is a good excuse either. Unless I have a vision problem I can see marked cards just as well as someone wearing sunglasses.

This is not true and is the whole point for banning them. Certain sunglasses can see the marks better.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

...I only did it then to help block the fluorescent lights...

Um, yeah. OK.

[squidboy 0]

I'm a big DN fan but i have to disagree with this. first off there is some much control in casinos that it wouldn't be possible to have marked cards. second i think he is just trying to manipulate the system to get better reads by coming up with excuses not to wear them. and third you might as well ban bats too. iwas watching the last episode of HSP last night and there was a hand Doyle was in and he had his head down so much you couldn't see his eyes. so there is something else to bitch about. DN need to get over it. PS i dont wear sunglasses anyway. i think its just a stupid topic

[FCP Bob 1,312]

. first off there is some much control in casinos that it wouldn't be possible to have marked cards.

There won't be marked cards in small games that we play in but marked cards are a very real risk in any big game. The cards are put into play usually by a dealer or floor person who is in on the cheating.I think one of the main points that Daniel is making and one that is being missed is that all the sunglass wearing and hoodie hiding looks horrible on TV to the average viewer.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

100%. Everytime poker comes up in a social setting and someone says "oh, mike plays a lot of poker", someone's first question is "so do you wear sunglasses when you play?" and laughs. It. Looks. Retarded. It makes poker players as a group look retarded.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

So now we're going to legislate looking retarded for the good of the game? Seriously?Shut up and play. If someone in sunglasses and a hoodie tilts you off your game, that's your problem. I mean, Devilfish looks and acts like such an immature douchebag where would you even start trying to make that guy NOT look retarded and generally bad for the game? Are we going to take David Williams' Toothpick and just jab it in his eyeball? If someone wants to try and portray an image or affect some sort of persona that makes them look ridiculous that is their right to look like a fool. To somehow try and legislate it away is just as ridiculous.

[nutzbuster 7]

Don't be an ass

[myenemy 0]

So now we're going to legislate looking retarded for the good of the game? Seriously?Shut up and play. If someone in sunglasses and a hoodie tilts you off your game, that's your problem. I mean, Devilfish looks and acts like such an immature douchebag where would you even start trying to make that guy NOT look retarded and generally bad for the game? Are we going to take David Williams' Toothpick and just jab it in his eyeball? If someone wants to try and portray an image or affect some sort of persona that makes them look ridiculous that is their right to look like a fool. To somehow try and legislate it away is just as ridiculous.

I think 'legislate' is a bit of a strong word. (Stop arguing in the political forums...) This is similar to the NFL fining players for not tucking their jersey. The TDA or a particular casino (or whomever) wants, among other benefits (i.e. cheating), the poker community to project a certain image and it is as much their right to do that as it is yours to not play. When it comes to the big cash games, frankly, I think if the high limit players dont want people wearing sunglasses, the Bellagio is going to do, as they should if it protects their product in the eyes of its customers.

[Balloon guy 158]

I have to wear sunglasses because my future is so bright.

[nutzbuster 7]

I think 'legislate' is a bit of a strong word. (Stop arguing in the political forums...) This is similar to the NFL fining players for not tucking their jersey. The TDA or a particular casino (or whomever) wants, among other benefits (i.e. cheating), the poker community to project a certain image and it is as much their right to do that as it is yours to not play. When it comes to the big cash games, frankly, I think if the high limit players dont want people wearing sunglasses, the Bellagio is going to do, as they should if it protects their product in the eyes of its customers.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

It seems to me that it would be difficult to argue, on the one hand, that banning sunglasses levels the playing field; and on the other hand, that poker is a game of skill (re: UIGEA) because it is not a level playing field -- more skillful players will always win over the long term.Seems to me that less-confident players wear shades specifically because they feel it levels the playing field against extremely good readers ... like, say, Daniel.

I think one of the main points that Daniel is making and one that is being missed is that all the sunglass wearing and hoodie hiding looks horrible on TV to the average viewer.

I can see that argument, but I don't think TV production values ought to be the rationale behind changing the rules of the game.

[SweetDee 0]

There won't be marked cards in small games that we play in but marked cards are a very real risk in any big game. The cards are put into play usually by a dealer or floor person who is in on the cheating.I think one of the main points that Daniel is making and one that is being missed is that all the sunglass wearing and hoodie hiding looks horrible on TV to the average viewer.

I see alot of average people wearing sunglasses when the sun isn't out. I don't think average people really care, as a matter of fact if an official poll were taken and one of the choices was "Who cares?", "Who careS?" would win by a landslide.

[BaseJester 1]

It seems to me that it would be difficult to argue, on the one hand, that banning sunglasses levels the playing field; and on the other hand, that poker is a game of skill (re: UIGEA) because it is not a level playing field -- more skillful players will always win over the long term.

This doesn't make any sense to me. A level playing field doesn't mean that the competitors have an equal chance of success. It's not as if sunglasses are the only difference between a successful player and an unsuccessful player.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

This doesn't make any sense to me. A level playing field doesn't mean that the competitors have an equal chance of success. It's not as if sunglasses are the only difference between a successful player and an unsuccessful player.

No, of course not, and I realized after the fact that I could have worded that post better. I wish politics didn't come into play here, but "level playing field" has more than one definition, and "equal chance of success" is exactly what some people would say the definition is. [it's a loaded example, but I'm using it without prejudice ... segregated school districts argued that if they had one black school for every white school, that met the legal requirement of "equal." The Supreme Court ruled that numerically equal was not the same as materially equal, and that the inequality was so great that segregation was irretrievably broken and had to be done away with.] Some people would say that "level playing field" means equal treatment under the rules. Others would say that's not enough to create a level playing field, that significant gaps in ability between participants must be addressed too. [Which is why there are plenty of books and training tools out there -- to fill those gaps.] As a nation, we go back and forth between both definitions depending on circumstances, and this is an ambiguous circumstance. Is a field that includes both Phil Ivey and a bunch of fish really level at all?My main point was the latter part of my post. Pros can say that sunglasses give wearers an advantage and that they want a level playing field by banning them. But I think it's an equally legitimate claim for wearers (who are usually not top pros) to say that pros have significant advantages over them* and that they are the ones trying to level the playing field.*(an argument that pros themselves use in defending poker as a game of skill)I'm not staking out a hard and fast position on this. I don't play at the level where sunglasses would be anything but hilariously pretentious (or possibly a sign that one of the players has dropped acid). I'm just pointing out the alternative argument because I'm not sure that a rule change (as opposed to a culture/fashion change) is the way to go.Someday I will compose an entire post without a single long dash, ellipsis, bracketed sentence, or parenthetical statement. [Today isn't the day, though.]

[myenemy 0]

I can see that argument, but I don't think TV production values ought to be the rationale behind changing the rules of the game.

This is not a change of rules to the game in any way. There are game rules and casino rules (laws?), you cant spit in someones face but a flush still beats a straight. I know its a matter of semantics but I think calling this a "rule change" goes further to blowing this out of proportion.

No, of course not, and I realized after the fact that I could have worded that post better. I wish politics didn't come into play here, but "level playing field" has more than one definition, and "equal chance of success" is exactly what some people would say the definition is. [it's a loaded example, but I'm using it without prejudice ... segregated school districts argued that if they had one black school for every white school, that met the legal requirement of "equal." The Supreme Court ruled that numerically equal was not the same as materially equal, and that the inequality was so great that segregation was irretrievably broken and had to be done away with.] Some people would say that "level playing field" means equal treatment under the rules. Others would say that's not enough to create a level playing field, that significant gaps in ability between participants must be addressed too. [Which is why there are plenty of books and training tools out there -- to fill those gaps.] As a nation, we go back and forth between both definitions depending on circumstances, and this is an ambiguous circumstance. Is a field that includes both Phil Ivey and a bunch of fish really level at all?My main point was the latter part of my post. Pros can say that sunglasses give wearers an advantage and that they want a level playing field by banning them. But I think it's an equally legitimate claim for wearers (who are usually not top pros) to say that pros have significant advantages over them* and that they are the ones trying to level the playing field.*(an argument that pros themselves use in defending poker as a game of skill)I'm not staking out a hard and fast position on this. I don't play at the level where sunglasses would be anything but hilariously pretentious (or possibly a sign that one of the players has dropped acid). I'm just pointing out the alternative argument because I'm not sure that a rule change (as opposed to a culture/fashion change) is the way to go.

I cant tell you how much I disagree with everything you said here. Theyre not leveling the playing field so that everyone has an equal chance of success, what would be the point of playing poker? They're trying to prevent people from cheating. There's a small but important difference... The 'Poker is a skill game' argument that players make to the government has no bearing on people wearing sunglasses to potentially cheat. And PS this is really close to belonging in the political forum.

[thret 0]

A quote from Daniel's blog:"Hiding your eyes is an advantage. By disallowing sunglasses, that advantage is taken away from every player involved creating a level playing field."Should we ban hats? I can lower my hat over my eyes so you can't see my eyes. How about hoods? Can I not put my hands over my eyes? I think the whole thing is overkill. I don't think the marked cards thing is a good excuse either. Unless I have a vision problem I can see marked cards just as well as someone wearing sunglasses.

It is hypocritical for Daniel to ask for sunglasses to be banned when he frequently wears a baseball cap. Anytime someone in a cap inclines their head all of their features are hidden. I can also hide my eyes simply by closing them, I suppose that is an advantage? And the fact is that there is already a level playing field, if he thinks sunglasses are an advantage he ought to be wearing them. As should anyone else who thinks the same. Choosing to give up a perceived edge out of vanity is just stupid.What does he mean by marked cards exactly? The fingernail marks people sometimes leave? If your cards are marked alert the dealer after the hand, and keep them covered during the hand. It isn't that complicated. If he means some fancy TV-style ink I imagine contacts would be just as effective. But honestly I can't see that ever happening in a big Casino game.I have no problem with any (or all) attire being banned for TV tables, either final tables or on a show. Whatever is good for TV is good for everybody. In fact I see no reason why the players at a TV final table shouldn't be dressed by the 'costume designers' or whatever they call themselves. It is a little sad how some people choose to dress for TV.

[SlapStick 0]

SOME SUNGLASSES CAN SEE SMUDGES AND DIRT THAT THE NAKED EYE CANNOT. PEOPLE CAN USE INK AND OTHER METHODS TO MARK THE CARDS AND CHEAT.

[fighter 4]

SOME SUNGLASSES CAN SEE SMUDGES AND DIRT THAT THE NAKED EYE CANNOT. PEOPLE CAN USE INK AND OTHER METHODS TO MARK THE CARDS AND CHEAT.

Video for people who don't get it.

Unlike contact lens , you can just stare at someones cards and not raise suspicion. Think about every time you wear sunglasses at the beach.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Video for people who don't get it.

Unlike contact lens , you can just stare at someones cards and not raise suspicion. Think about every time you wear sunglasses at the beach.

I believe people often wear sunglasses at the beach because it is often sunny when people go to the beach.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Clearly we understand it is possible to use sunglasses as an aid to cheating. I just think that the notion of banning them for "leveling the playing field" or masking tells or (worst of all) for the image of the game's players is completely ridiculous and disingenuous.

[SlapStick 0]

Clearly we understand it is possible to use sunglasses as an aid to cheating. I just think that the notion of banning them for "leveling the playing field" or masking tells or (worst of all) for the image of the game's players is completely ridiculous and disingenuous.

What I wrote in caps is the point behind banning sun glasses. It was sparked by a HSP discussion in which the main point was cheating. If you want to fan boy DN and hope for a response while arguing with each other over irrelevant points to the matter you should rant in...... a forum...where DN might be.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

What I wrote in caps is the point behind banning sun glasses. It was sparked by a HSP discussion in which the main point was cheating. If you want to fan boy DN and hope for a response while arguing with each other over irrelevant points to the matter you should rant in...... a forum...where DN might be.

Dude, read the ****ing thread. You may have been referencing a specific HSP discussion (not certain how we would have known that without reading your mind) but the discussion in this thread has involved items other than cheating. That sort of makes it relevant to the conversation into which you have interjected yourself.I don't even know where you are coming from with the "fan boy" comment/accusation.

[SlapStick 0]

I don't even know where you are coming from with the "fan boy" comment/accusation.

Well there was only two possible reasons in my mind for all your posts in this thread; you're a fanboy or retarded.