Why not play the game with opposing teams versing each other. This allows the game to retain its spirit of cooperation while simultaneously creating a competitive insentive to play.

i am also going to want to play out some variations. hmm, maybe that could be an opening event for an austin participatory projects group. actually in college a friend and i did pretty well designing a parecon version of monopoly, but i lost the notes we had. maybe i can remember some of those ideas too. similar concepts: nobody wins unless everybody wins, and we tried to incentivize, for the individual, the provision of social goods for all players.

<blockquote>The main criticism the game has received is that it doesn't seem to have enough incentives to play, particularly if you want to get new people. I'm not sure if I agree. I can see one possibility where you have a number of people playing, and then they ALL win some prize (e.g., beer, pizza, cupcakes) if they all win, say, seven out of nine rounds played. If so, then everyone gets the prize. If not, not. If that sounds extreme, remember that we already have a common representation of people in a game working for a shared goal -- a team in a team sport striving to win a game or championship. Same thing with Solidarity Poker.</blockquote>

hmm, this makes me think of certain card games, like blackjack, where each player takes on the dealer, or "the house" (which we might rename "the man," or "the system." then we can boo and hiss and make snide comments at whoever is dealing.) in our version we could do this as well but instead of as individuals against the house maybe the rest of the table could compete cooperatively against the house (or the house's cards at least). that way you'd still be cooperating but against a visible, external foe that you could unite against to beat. maybe that would be more of an incentive.

-marcus

Marcus,

Thanks for your reply. To address some of what you mention above:

I've helped facilitate some hands of Solidarity Poker -- mostly during meetings of CAPES. The game seems to go over pretty well, I think. If anything, it has led to a lot of thought-provoking discussion about poker, gaming, participatory planning, economics, political economy, metaphors, life. Not bad for a simple card game, eh?

The main criticism the game has received is that it doesn't seem to have enough incentives to play, particularly if you want to get new people. I'm not sure if I agree. I can see one possibility where you have a number of people playing, and then they ALL win some prize (e.g., beer, pizza, cupcakes) if they all win, say, seven out of nine rounds played. If so, then everyone gets the prize. If not, not. If that sounds extreme, remember that we already have a common representation of people in a game working for a shared goal -- a team in a team sport striving to win a game or championship. Same thing with Solidarity Poker.

Another criticism the game has received is that there's no incentive to try to make the "best" hand possible. I think this is beside the point. The point isn't to try to make a "better" hand; the point is to make _any_ hand. And that depends on the cards you're dealt, and the plan you try to make. Kind of like in participatory planning:You submit an initial plan based on an initial set of given information (namely, the cards you yourself are dealt), then you revise that plan or not based on additional information (you see some more cards) with the goal of every economic "actor" achieving their respective plan, regardless whether one plan is "better" or not (and better how?). Same thing with Solidarity Poker.

I don't think I would use chips, or any "rivalrous good" (as economists term it), in solidarity poker -- just like you wouldn't use money in a participatory economy or in participatory planning. The problem with having chips is that, since it is rivalrous (only one person or team can have a chip at any one time), it's easy to build a competitive system around that. In fact, I designed solidarity poker as a game explicitly without any chips so that there isn't any rivarly among players, and where victory comes by cooperating with one another rather than trying to outdo one another -- or at least that's the hope. Same thing with participatory economics.

One idea that came up last week in one game was to have a game variation rule limiting the use of other people's cards. If, say, you have a group of five people playing a hand of Solidarity Poker, you can only use the cards from any two of the other players in a given hand. This might be a possible variation -- much like you have variations of how to play competitive poker (e.g., Texas Hold'em, Omaha, Seven-Card Stud). I'm content though to leave things with as few rules as possible; I spend way too much of my spare time fighting over rules -- particuarly those from the U.S. Congress and the Federal Communications Commission. :-)

I am hoping to organize a meeting here in Chicago with the goal of setting up some Solidarity Poker poker night, to experiment further, figure out what works and doesn't work, and so on. I'll be sure to post details here. Maybe this can catch on.

Thanks.

-- Mitchell

Have you guys played this out to see if it works well? I am curious if having everyone's cards available to all would make it too easy or the hands too valuable, though i guess if the objective is different it doesn't matter so much. Or if basing your hand off of what others have makes it too intangible-- since at the end people just say whether they have achieved their hand or not it would seem like you don't have the suspense of seeing actual hands of cards laid down and people having or not having a certain hand. You could still have a cooperative goal but that might work better.

Maybe people should actually have to trade out cards after each go-round (after the initial deal, the flop, the turn; if betting after each round of betting). Either by discarding cards to the person on their left, or, what would be even more equitable, people could set their discards down (face up) and then people, in reverse order of who was winning, would choose replacements one by one. This would represent that consumption choices are tangible and often unshared, but that we can remedy the tendency of those with more assets (a bigger pile of chips) and power (a better hand) to disproportionally gain from a market transaction.

Let's assume 3 players, with betting (penny, nickel, dime of course). That would look like this. Each is dealt 5 cards. Each bets on their initial hand. After the first round of betting is complete, each puts two or three face up to discard. The person who had the lowest ranked hand the previous turn (or the first time, the lowest ranked randomly drawn card) gets to choose which replacement cards from those on the table he or she will pick. Then the second person chooses, then the last person who won the previous round takes whatever is left. If that proved too advantageous for the person choosing first, another possibility is, in the same order, the players take one card at a time until there are none left.

Then they look at their hands and do another round of betting. Then they discard one or two cards (this could also vary; for example for the first discard the rule could be to discard up to three cards, and in round two discard up to two. However, allowing a player with a good hand who only needs to discard one card, to do so, means that he is therefore also contributing less to the communal pool of pickup cards from which others benefit, and of course we don't believe in rewarding people based on the assets or bargaining power they randomly receive, so that may be a good reason to require at least two discards after the first round of betting. This would especially matter if you only had a couple of players.)

Anyway, another round of picking up, then they bet on their hand again, and then show.

Another possibility to this game would be dealing everyone six cards in order to put more in the communal pool, then before people show their 5-card hand they discard the extra (face down, not to be used again) or in their last pickup they simply pick up only until they have five cards.

The overall objective would be to win, and that is competitive, but since you play multiple hands, things would tend to even out and nobody would be forced out of the game. Also if you were low on chips maybe you could get some reimbursement by playing and doing some other task, such as fetching beer for people when they ran out. That would represent pay for effort and sacrifice. Not sure how someone could play harder or longer, since it takes everyone.

You could have a cooperative goal, however. Maybe the goal would be to have everyone get above a certain value of hand, so unless everyone got above a 3-of-a-kind, for example, nobody would win. That would provide disincentive to get a super-great hand if doing so would keep others from reaching a certain level of attainment. Or the dealer could announce a common goal before she deals that everyone would have to achieve to win. This would basically be straight or flush or 3 of a kind i think. For straight or flush, people would have to watch and think about what others are going for so they could help out (or maybe get out so they don't endanger the groups chance of winning. maybe.)

just some ideas. the only way to know if any of this would work is to start playing!