Bigger Deal

The stone bonking unbeatable nuts

By Grub Smith

I recently profiled the playwright Patrick Marber for a Sunday paper. The idea was to give a well-deserved puff to the West End opening of his play Dealer’s Choice. A pretty simple assignment for a hack you’d imagine, especially one interested in poker, but it didn’t go quite as I had planned.

The trouble was, I had a slight history with Marber. Not only did he once chat up a girl I was in love with, but he had also viciously blanked me at a drinks party. As luck would have it, I had written about these petty, almost blameless slights in another magazine the week before I met him for the interview. So when I turned up, tape recorder in hand, I was wondering if he’d read my words and been nettled.

Well, if he had, he gave no sign of it. He was friendly and talkative, immediately coming over to shake me by the hand. But my paranoia wouldn’t allow me to relax. In his scripts, he has shown himself to be a master dissector of human weaknesses, an author who seems to enjoy putting his characters through misery, a twister of the knife. Who was to say that all his charm now wasn’t simply the warm up for a sudden act of vengeance. What would it turn into? A sneer? A walk out? A crushing personal attack?

Enslaved to my absurd ego, I spent the hour asking timid, inoffensive questions. The result was a "nice" article. It didn’t get spiked or anything, but it left me feeling unfulfilled. There were other things I had really wanted to ask. And not just about whether he had pulled my ex-girlfriend.

No, I wanted to ask about the poker in his play. Because, even though it’s the best one ever written about the game, (as you’d expect from a man who has for years played with Anthony Holden), it still contains some utterly ridiculous hands. They’re not absurd in the way Casino Royale was, when a flush and two full houses lost to a straight flush, and they avoid the showy dramatics of The Cincinnati Kid, where another straight flush gets made on the river. But they are still riddled with implausibilities.

The first error is a small one, but it sounds a warning of things to come. Recalling a hand in which he held pocket aces to a flop of QQA, the character Mugsy declares, "I’ve flopped the stone bonking unbeatable Rock of Gibraltar Bank of England nuts!" As his name suggests, Mugsy is a bit of an idiot, but as he plays for thousands of pounds in a session, he should at least be good enough to know that the nuts in this situation would be pocket queens.

The next hand is rather more seriously flawed. With some small betting to drive out the weak and cautious, we are four handed when a flop gets dealt. It comes Js 7s 10d. Mugsy raises and gets rid of two players, but is promptly reraised by the pro at the table, a man called Ash. Debating the call, Mugsy starts thinking out loud, and the only hole cards he is worried about are the 89 of spades. It is evident to one and all that he has flopped the straight himself, but with no flush draw. He eventually calls, then moves all in for his remaining chips on the turn, the 4d. Ash calls and reveals his cards. At which point Mugsy looks at them and howls, "I don’t believe it, I do not believe it. Eight nine of spades!" As Ash prepares to deal the river, Mugsy yells, "No spade, no spade! DO NOT DEAL A FUCKING SPADE!" When it comes the ten of clubs, he is relieved and the other players calmly tell them to carve up the split pot.

So far, so reasonable. Except Ash now says, "I think I have a full house. Tens on jacks." He does, and he scoops the pot. Well, I’m sorry, but there is no way in God’s green creation that five experienced poker players could mistake hole cards of J10 off for a suited 89, even if they were pissed and blindfolded. It just doesn’t make sense.

All of which brings us to the third hand under my microscope. By this stage in the play there are only four players left. They all call a small pre-flop raise of £10 and we see a family flop consisting of a queen, a four and an unspecified card in mixed suits. One character bets the pot - £40 - at which point Carl, a sick gambler who has squandered money on everything from slot machines to blackjack, folds his cards. It subsequently turns out that he has mucked a set of fours, a fold so tight you’d be amazed if Dan Harrington did it, let alone an addict who loves chasing the action. It’s simply not credible.

I wondered what Ross Boatman, who stars in the play, had said about these flaws in rehearsals. I wondered if Marber had considered changing them. I also wanted to know whether it’s possible for a playwright to conjure up the drama we all feel at the baize without resorting to fantasy hand match-ups, gunfights, or tells from the way someone eats Oreo cookies.

But I didn’t. Because I’m an idiot. So if you happen to go along to the play (it’s well worth it, my caveats aside), and you bump into Patrick Marber, please do ask him.

Somebody should.

Posted by Grub Smith on December 29th, 2007 in Celebrities, Poker.
Comments: 19

Play Poker

Play Poker Against Grub Smith - sign up now to play in the monthly tournament with all Bigger Deal's writers

Comments

Comment from P.Wright
Time: December 31, 2007, 2:50 am

Dear Grub

1. Forgive me, but I’m afraid I’ve hardly read a word you’ve ever written - except for an excellent piece you wrote some years ago in The Observer Sports Mag (I think, about the World Series?) and your recent piece on Dealer’s Choice in the Sunday Times.

2. I do recall having a nice cup of tea with a nice young woman many years ago. The cup of tea was sort of arranged by a mutual friend of ours at the time but I don’t recall having any knowledge of your ‘association’ with the nice cup of tea lady. However, I will freely admit that had I had the ‘knowledge’ I would still have had the cup of tea. I don’t think this makes me a cad, merely a man who used to like a nice cup of tea.

3. I have absolutely no recollection of ‘viciously blanking’ you at a drinks party. Having met you only once before (briefly) at some point in the mid 1990’s perhaps - forgive me - my ‘blank’ look was one of non recognition?

4. Mugsy is well aware that he doesn’t have the absolute nuts. But in a short handed game of Hold ‘em he can be fairly confident that for him to have AA and Stephen to have QQ in the hole would be most unlikely. He is exaggerating for ‘comic effect’. I think it’s in his ‘character’ to do so.
For your information, Stephen has a suited QK.

5. But you saw the play? Did you not observe how many cards each player held in this hand? To refresh your memory it was four. Might this not have indicated something to you? I mean, it’s got to be a clue, hasn’t it? I’m shocked that such a keen poker scribe as yourself could’ve missed it? Or was your professional judgement distracted/clouded/murked with paranoid imaginings of cocktail party blankings and ancient furtive fumblings in North London tea shops?

You might by now be reaching for a big slice of Humble Pie. Or who knows, the tumbler of scotch and the revolver?

Yep, they’re not playing Hold’em. They are playing Omaha. Ash has four cards: 8s 9s and an unspecified 10 and J.

I trust that this hand now ‘makes sense’.

Slag me off - if you must, as you evidently have - for innocently taking tea with your beloved but at least give me credit for something; I do know the difference between two and four cards.

6. Of course Carl would fold his trip 4’s! He’s only just managed to lure Mugsy back into the game (in order to keep the game alive and thus give Ash a shot at winning Stephen’s money). He doesn’t want or need to get involved - least of all win, he just wants to keep the game going to help his accomplice. This is the plot of the play.

There is, I admit, a slightly dodgy element to this hand. But it is not that Carl folds, it is that both Carl and Mugsy manage to flop sets. A convenient coincidence I accept - but it’s not unheard of I’m sure you’ll agree.

Thank you for your support for this production.
And for your most generous words about the play itself.

I hope that I’ve dealt with your various long and short term concerns here.

And I very much hope that your kind support for ‘Dealer’s Choice’ will continue.

I’m sorry that your piece in The Sunday Times left you feeling ‘unfulfilled’. I hope you are now filled.

Best -

P.Wright

Comment from Grub Smith
Time: December 31, 2007, 4:55 pm

Dear Play,

The humble pie is warming nicely in the oven, but while I wait for it to be served, let me tackle your points…

1. I’m afraid I have never written for the Observer Sports Magazine, so this blog and the Sunday Times piece represent all that you have read of my work. Given that most of it has appeared in tawdry lad’s mags, I commend you for this. However, if you ever experience any crippling sexual problems - and God forbid - I can heartily recommend my manual “Real Sex” (HarperCollins. £9.99, hurry hurry hurry while stocks last.)

2. These days, you may have only a vague recollection of the situation with the “nice cup of tea lady”, but at the time my “association” with her would have been fresh in your memory. The week before you took her out for tea, we had spoken for about half an hour in Suz’s back garden about women, love, broken hearts, etc. As we had both stepped out with a lovely girl called LM (you at Oxford, I think? Me very briefly in London), we had some common ground on the subject. But you could not fail to have noticed how cut up I was about the nice cup of tea person. I was practically a walking country music song about it.

However, I’ve never accused you of being a “cad”, so don’t feel you have to polish your duelling pistols any time soon.

3. The blanking was professionally done. Again, it occurred in the same month that we met, so you probably did recognise me. I came over and said hello, and you replied, right away, “Excuse me, I’m going to talk to someone else.”

It was a brilliant time-saver on your part, and I can only applaud your chutzpah. But I can’t say it endeared you to me.

4. Comic effect. Ok. Good one.

5. I can only hang my head in shame. I didn’t catch that they were playing Omaha. Having misread many a hand in my time, I can see how the confusion might happen in a game, even among experienced players.

I concede that Mugsy (a poker nickname I should evidently think of adopting) might not notice that he is also vulnerable to the extra outs offered by the jacks and tens on the river.

6. Carl’s object is to ensure that Ash gets all the money. However, in this hand, Ash has ALREADY FOLDED in front of him, so why would he not want to scoop a big pot, and simply pay Ash with his winnings? It’s a bonkers decision.

Incidentally, if two players were “accomplices”, they would be far better advised to raise a lot and offer each other protection than simply “get out of the way”. Your naivety about methods of cheating speaks volumes for your probity as a poker player.

Let me add, once again, for anyone enjoying this minor spat between a hack David and an Oscar-nominated Goliath, that Dealer’s Choice is a very good night out.

I look forward to the film version. I’m sure the author will find an artistic way to beef up the lesbian content.

Best

G. Smith

Comment from steve neerkin
Time: January 2, 2008, 11:09 am

Oh Smith, you’ve done it again!!!! What a world class wally…way to take on a literary Goliath only to be found to be armed with nothing more than a stick of celery….you are the George Bush of the poker journalism world. You should try to be more more professional and follow the example of the great poker columnist/food critic/underground government agent S.R. She could teach you a lot.

Comment from Gillian
Time: January 3, 2008, 1:29 pm

Great literary punch up. Keep it up, boys.

Comment from P.Wright
Time: January 3, 2008, 5:13 pm

Dear Grub

I’m very sorry to disappoint the fun loving Gillian but I must now offer the hand of cyberfriendship.

Your humility, wit and charm has beguiled me. You are clearly a most excellent fellow (your support for the play being entirely coincidental here).

I cannot apologize enough for the ancient ‘blanking’ incident. Your memory is much better than mine. I honestly don’t remember the dread blanking nor I hate to admit the terrible sadness in the garden when you poured out your heart about the tea lady. I can only deduce that the blanking and the taking of the tea with the beloved lady were related and that I must have felt guilty. Apologies.

In fact, it is now becoming clear to me that YOU inspired my second play ‘closer’ which has a few things to say about men and their jealousies.

So…please…dear dear cyberpal…don’t think of yourself as ‘Hack David’ anymore for you, sweet Grub, are my inspiration, dammit - my muse. Your misery and my shame and the beloved tea lady are embedded in the DNA of that play. The fact that I can’t remember any of it is neither here nor there. It happened, it shaped me. You made me. I thank you.

Now…regarding Carl folding that hand…you make a fair point but I’m afraid you’re wrong again dear chap. Stephen and Ash are the big winners on this night. Stephen won’t play 3 handed as Carl well knows so the imperative is to keep the idiot Mugsy in the game in order for Ash to have a crack at where the big dough is - ie. in front of Stephen. Carl doesn’t have much money left, he’s given £500 of his winnings to Mugsy. Between Stephen and Ash they have the grand Mugsy lost AND the unspecified amounts Sweeney and Frankie lost - which could be as much as 3 grand - 4 in total.
Yes, Carl with his trip 4’s could win a nice pot and give it to Ash after the game but he can’t win the lot. The game has only just resumed, he decides (rightly) to cut Mugsy some slack. Thank God he does, eh? Cos if he didn’t there’d be no play.

If Gillian - or anyone - is still reading this tedious nonsense I congratulate them.

Oh God, is Gillian the tea lady?

Comment from Vicky Coren
Time: January 4, 2008, 4:02 pm

I’m mainly joining in to say how much I am LOVING this exchange and I think it should be staged immediately in the NT Studio. Grub, I love you and everything but have you gone mental?! Remembering quite how much money P.Wright was taking off me around the time the play was being created, I can tell you that “naivete” was never one of the cards in his poker hand, even if it was 11-card Omaha. He was infuriatingly slow to make mistakes at the table, let alone when sitting at the typewriter with editing time available. How amazing it was, in a time when we only ever saw poker in the saloon scene of the odd Western, or Dan’s sporadic home game on Roseanne, always riddled with baffling mistakes, to see a play by someone who properly understood the game and its rules. Now it comes round again in an age when poker’s on TV all the time, so there’s no miracle purely in witnessing accuracy. But the Trafalgar Studios version still gave me that beautiful refreshing sense of rare-truth I had the first time round - this time not in terms of proper poker hands in a world of straight-flushes-beating-quads, but (since televised poker is all high stakes and trophies, tropical locations and whizzy cameras) in terms of the misery, jealousy, pain and humiliation which will always be a part of the game however much the modern culture tries to gloss over it with pictures of 19-year-olds in the Ferraris they bought with FPPs. It’s just such a TRUE play, and such a bizarre target to pick if you’re worrying about poker falsehood. The globe is crawling with players and “poker journalists” who found the game five minutes ago and are now trying to kid everybody (or, more frighteningly, themselves) that they know what it’s about, it seems terribly counter-intuitive to pick such a rare example of The Real Thing and hold it up as inaccurate. What next, Shut Up And Deal?!
Nb. Patrick, I think the piece you’re thinking of in the Obs Sports Magazine about the World Series was by either Andrew Anthony or Tim Adams. I wrote that mag a feature about the WSOP once, but I doubt you meant that one .

Comment from Jpeg
Time: January 4, 2008, 4:18 pm

I think your shovel must be blunt by now Grub!

Comment from Grub Smith
Time: January 4, 2008, 6:54 pm

Tedious? I’m finding it all quite exhilerating.

Nevertheless, I have to agree with P. Wright that it is probably time for the curtain to come down on this particular argument. Mainly because every time I make a criticism of the poker in his play, he immediately and persuasively proves that I am wrong. Utterly wrong.

It’s all very disheartening.

Just to tie up all the loose ends of the story, I can tell you that…

a) the nice cup of tea girl ended up marrying very well, and now lives in a large, agreeable country house in Wales. She owns over a thousand sheep;

b) the hit play Dealer’s Choice is on at the Trafalgar Studios in London’s glittering West End until April, I think;

c) my new year resolution is to become the sort of journalist who actually checks his facts before putting finger to keyboard. Like most resolutions, this probably won’t last beyond February. But until then, watch out Woodward and Bernstein…

Comment from Vicky Coren
Time: January 4, 2008, 7:54 pm

There, I think that’s a very nice ending, very gracious. Happy new year x

Comment from Richard Whitehouse
Time: January 4, 2008, 8:48 pm

Dear, dear, boys. One word from Victoria and you turn to jelly. I was looking forward to pistols at dawn on Hampstead Heath. Or at any time and anywhere. Alas.

I guess I have to go and see this bloody play now.
Again.

Comment from Anthony Holden
Time: January 5, 2008, 3:15 pm

The play is well worth seeing again, Richard - I’ve seen it twice this time around, at the Chocolate Factory and the Trafalgar Studios, and am planning to take my sons plus wives again in the next month or so… If this debate really is closed, thanks to all concerned for providing us with such terrific entertainment. It will be hard to beat as biggerdeal.com’s Blog of the Year ! May the flops be with you all in ‘08 - A.H.

Comment from Simon Young
Time: January 6, 2008, 1:49 pm

LOL. I had to chuckle at this, but have some sympathy with Grub as poker journalism is dangerous at the best of times.

Glad you’re all friends again.

Happy New Year!

Comment from cindy
Time: January 9, 2008, 9:51 am

Sorry, but I’m finding the ending of this exchange very sad indeed. Feels like I’ve just discovered Beatrice ended up running a dry cleaning business in Bologna. Guys, please ramp it up on the achy-breaky heart inspirers. Tea ladies and sheep ladies don’t cut it.

Comment from Nick T
Time: January 11, 2008, 5:29 pm

A thoroughly enjoyable set-to, well done chaps. I just saw the play last night and thought it was fantastic, particularly Stephen wotsit as Mugsy who was a revelation. However, I am now confused over a point of accuracy (not that of course it matters, as V Coren so eloquently pointed out). You say that Stephen won’t play 3-handed so they need to keep Mugsy in the hand, but surely he won’t play 4-handed either, hence the focus of the first act of Frankie and Mugsy persuading Sweeny to play. So does he only play 5-handed or heads-up?

We need to know.

Comment from Annette_15 fan
Time: January 15, 2008, 10:32 am

Well the whole exchange has brightened up my morning and this is certainly one of the best blogs around.

Comment from Dave Woodcock
Time: January 15, 2008, 11:47 am

I have, through having my head stuck in Big Deal and then Bigger Deal for the last month or so, just discovered this excellent site and this excellent blog.

Ha ha - Marber, you are - as the yoof might say - Da Man. Grub, thanks for an entertaining original blog and Tony H - thanks for the books - they are enriching a miserable Yorkshire winter no end.

- Dave

Comment from Anthony Holden
Time: January 15, 2008, 5:51 pm

Thanks, Dave - hope to see you in our monthly tournament - ‘The Tuesday Night Game’ - tonight. How To Play is set out by Richard Whitehouse in his new blog at the top of the site. all v best, A.H.

Comment from Dave Woodcock
Time: January 15, 2008, 7:32 pm

Anthony- thanks for the invite was just reading about the Tuesday Night Game. Would geniuely love to get involved one day but cannot tonight. Need to get my head around this relatively new (to me) online Poker. All the best everyone. I’ll keep checking the site - it’s wonderful.

Comment from Tomker
Time: February 29, 2008, 4:11 pm

Well, Nice palypaly’n all that. Hope you dont get gripped by the nuts Grub. Go back to T.V and writing. I’ve seen the play and found it, well, pretty much like the bickering ( ) Dont waste the money. Get back to what you do best. Tom