Prisoners Dilemma

On April 25 2012 16:51 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On April 25 2012 07:43 lebowski wrote: I don't really understand the implied notion in many posts that what is ethical or not is - or should be - universal. What is good for the growth of one person is harmful for a different one, even if someone somehow managed scientifically to develop the perfect moral compass for the average man then it would boil down to everyone hating what the average man is (or a society of sheep) So when you accuse someone of immoral activity either you think you know the moral template the world needs because you figured it all out somehow or you have just accepted ethical rules and not created them for yourself (usually involves people influenced by their immediate environment and never actually putting some thought into it, including the obvious religious leap of faith) Now, despite the possibility of getting capslock bombed REMIND ME NOT TO TURN MY BACK ON YOU or something like that l would like to point out that the girl that chose "steal" in that vid could have tons of valid reasons not to care about the fact that she would appear deceitful on Youtubes/TV. She could be a firm believer of the usefulness of spreading trust and honesty in the world and still decide that it's overall more +EV for her as a person to do what she did. She also could be a shortsighted fuck that doesn't understand that what she did will probably hurt her more in the long run. Who the hell knows, we are not her and I am trying really hard to find the reason people point their moral fingers at her in either case. Do you want society to consist of nothing but simpletons who don't even consider being dishonest for their own sake even in TV games who encourage you to do so in order to win? Or do you want smart people that only make the same decisions that you do? That is about as nightmarish as a society that would consist only of predators. what an idiotic post sorry but what the fuck did you just say, there is a universal morality... killing another human being for fun is wrong no matter when or where, making deals with people and lying with the intention of taking money from them is immoral here and everywhere else in the world. Lol so your defense is "do you want everybody to think the same that sucks"... yeah it would suck to live in a word where people think theft and deciet is fucking wrong lol

meh. No that's not my defense. I don't know if I should even bother with replying. Just because it's the internet it doesn't mean that you should bark insults left and right. Your attitude is not better than a fundamentalist christian's and it seems improbable to me that anything I could write would be able to even influence it. GL with your "truth", I'm not gonna bother with searching societies that laughed at your "universal" morality throughout history. Even if there where none, your little dogma's universality is just not based on anything. For someone who has put so much emphasis on his atheism you sure haven't even scratched on the surface of the consequences of a non existing god. Metaphysical concepts are affecting you in ways that you don't even understand. I'd recommend the genealogy of morality from F. Nietzsche.
ps. You are not as smart or as much of a pioneer as you think you are, a little humility would help with the Moses syndrom

On April 25 2012 18:24 locoo wrote: I understand your points of view Ket/Baal, but if you think like that (games are actually real life and the same rules apply always) I just can't see how you can reconcile your thoughts with playing poker for a living. edit: and give it up already with the analogies, deceiving on a game about deception will never be on the same boat as deliberate mass murder, theft, murder, etc. Get real.

this

cant believe you turkeys have been arguing about this for 200 posts now.

Well there's where we disagree, I don't see this game as being different from real life. It happens in real life and is a part of real life. In any prisoners dilemma situation, of which there are many that come up irl, i believe a good person always picks the cooperative choice. I'm not gonna change my mind on that and it looks like neither is the other side so there's really no point arguing further yeah, all the main arguments for both sides have been laid out. To me it's unfortunate that not everyone sees it my way, but upon reflection I guess I don't want to be involved in the business of trying to force my values on others so I'm done posting itt.

tell that it was not real to the fat bold man who chose split lol.

How come the blonde is clearly guilty after taking his money if its just a game and its not real life. aparently if there is a camera rolling morality goes out of the window. As ket said its a very clear prisoners dilema which is a test of character and you can rationalize it however you want, but you failed that test of character.

Also as ket i dont think there is much left to say i think you should really consider re-thinking about this again, its quite important.


Oh and on the "its just like poker" again ill explain why you are wrong, in poker we are two people who willingly play a game where we are trying to outwit each other for profit, as if we make a bet on any sport or activity, this situation is totally different.

btw this is well documented topic. I don't know if Ket or Baal or Capaneo have read about this before this topic, but my opinion was already made a long time ago because i heard about this a lot at school...

Here's some good article about it. Since it seems what matters to you guys isn't actual arguments, but the person posting it, maybe PHD assistant professors can convince you.

http://pileusblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/the-ethics-of-the-prisoners-dilemma/

TLDR: "If your efforts, combined with the really existing efforts of everyone else, make you better off (taking opportunity costs into account) relative to a situation in which no one undertakes effort, then you have a moral duty to make those efforts". Here first idea that can come to your mind is the environnement, but it applies to prisonner's dillema.

Making the effort of not doing the most optimal play (hence making less money), makes you better off given that everyone would do the same, hence you have moral duty to do it.

This DOES NOT apply to poker!!! If you are a great poker player, not making the correct decisions does not make you better off, since if everyone played poker stupidly, nobody wins (Poker is actually reverse prisonner's dillema... if people all make the worse play, nobody wins, only the house. In prisonner dillema, if everyone makes the best play, nobody wins, only the house).

here's a response to Naz, which i think has the smartest arguments of the "other side".

On April 25 2012 18:14 Nazgul wrote: In terms of hurting another person I would say winning money in poker, which directly loses another person money, hurts a lot more than losing money you never had to begin with. For me growing up with board games, poker, and being a fan of survivor I understand that lying about pacts and agreements, is a big part of a lot of strategy games. It's not the same as secretly picking money from the monopoly pile and saying you didn't do it. Lying is a big part of many games out there, including poker.

The difference is when you loose in poker, you feel the other person won it in a legit way, you don't feel cheated. I lost money in pokers a million times and i am pretty sure it doesn't hurt as much as when i got scammed. being scammed makes you feel betrayed. its way worst to be scammed by a friend for 100$ than to loose 200$ at the table. The bald guy surely felt scammed and betrayed very hard by the girl. Also, you have to keep in mind when you loose money in poker, its generally ammounts of money you can handle loosing. I know there are exceptions, but you generally you won't loose life changing ammounts in a single hand, unless you are the most degenerate gambler ever. If you do loose life changing ammounts in poker, its your fault, not other players's. it is commonly accepted you shouldn't gamble for life changing ammounts. However, what this guy lost (50K) (or did not win if you prefer...) was probably life changing for him.

On April 25 2012 18:14 Nazgul wrote: I think that agreeing to a flip has nothing to do with poker. It's an agreement outside of poker and has nothing to do with playing a game. There is nothing in poker about flipping, agreeing to a flip, and any kind of scenario like it. The ethics of such a situation are entirely based on real life fundaments and have nothing to do with the actual setting of poker. In this game everyone understands the other person may be lying. The existence of this TV show depends on people lying and tricking each other, so everyone knows it's a real possibility. For me, a better comparison would be bluffing in poker. Betting money is meant to show your opponent you have a hand. Bluffing means you pretend to have a hand when you don't and through that you can win a pot against a better hand. Essentially you are lying to your opponent about what you have.

I agree with you flipping doesn't have much to do with poker. its a different game. However i am not sure why you think flipping's ethics is based on real life fundaments (which is true), but not the game of the tv show. yes rules of the show does not stop you from stealing, but its not because the rules allows something that it is always ethical to do it. In poker there is no rule against slow rolling.

Now you could argue it is ethically fine to steal, but you should not use the game show's rules to try prove something is ethically correct.

Bluffing in poker is a bad anology which is explained above.

On April 25 2012 21:05 Baalim wrote: tell that it was not real to the fat bold man who chose split lol. How come the blonde is clearly guilty after taking his money if its just a game and its not real life. aparently if there is a camera rolling morality goes out of the window. As ket said its a very clear prisoners dilema which is a test of character and you can rationalize it however you want, but you failed that test of character. Also as ket i dont think there is much left to say i think you should really consider re-thinking about this again, its quite important. Oh and on the "its just like poker" again ill explain why you are wrong, in poker we are two people who willingly are deceiving and lying to each other in the real life to take the other guys money , this situation is totally different.

o i c

And I'm done too, was fun and gg's

Derailing the thread a bit
Baal if the ultimate moral compass exists answer to this:
You are given a gun and you are told you have to shoot the person next to you, a stranger or 1000 people will die. Whats your "moral" play here? Obviously gave the most extreme example but there are many situations in life where 2 or more parties will suffer psychally and/or emotionally from a choice you have to make. Universal moral is an utopia, its something you believe in to make your life easier

On April 26 2012 16:08 Spitfiree wrote: Derailing the thread a bit Baal if the ultimate moral compass exists answer to this: You are given a gun and you are told you have to shoot the person next to you, a stranger or 1000 people will die. Whats your "moral" play here? Obviously gave the most extreme example but there are many situations in life where 2 or more parties will suffer psychally and/or emotionally from a choice you have to make. Universal moral is an utopia, its something you believe in to make your life easier

1000 for my life, i would probably kill myself and save the 1,000 but what i do doesnt equate what is right, i am a falible human being too

That wasnt even a good example, there are many tough moral dilemms but only because there are it doesnt mean morality is opinion based, killing is wrong, and this is wrong, just like a very complex math problem that cant be solved to date doesnt mean that 2+2 stops being 4.

My main problem here is the spot where A says he will choose steal no matter what and B has to make a decision. Until you have been in the situation and chosen split to me everything is just speculation. Would i as B choose split? I honestly don't know.

I would like to repeat that there is no one perfect answer here. Riding the ultimate high horse may seem lucrative indeed. By acting as if there is only one clear choice you consequently put your opposition in bad light. A much healthier attitude is to try and understand why someone behaves the way he does. If anything this thread has provided some insight to who you are as people.

I, for one, do not want or need to be told how to act and what to think and i believe the notion deserves some respect.

this thread reminds me I need to be reading Shakespeare

oh and snap fkn call saving 1 friend vs 20 strangers as I'm quality vs quantity

On April 25 2012 21:05 Baalim wrote: tell that it was not real to the fat bold man who chose split lol. How come the blonde is clearly guilty after taking his money if its just a game and its not real life. aparently if there is a camera rolling morality goes out of the window. As ket said its a very clear prisoners dilema which is a test of character and you can rationalize it however you want, but you failed that test of character. Also as ket i dont think there is much left to say i think you should really consider re-thinking about this again, its quite important. Oh and on the "its just like poker" again ill explain why you are wrong, in poker we are two people who willingly play a game where we are trying to outwit each other for profit, as if we make a bet on any sport or activity, this situation is totally different.

I think locoo is the one who's got it right in the end: with your view (that all games showcase the values of someone irl, aka it's a test) you cannot logically reconcile your profession with that belief. Your only argument is a flawed one: just because you see this game as a game of skill doesn't mean that it is so for everyone. And by this I mean that you may be using skills/knowledge amassed over time of studying this game, but the other player might not be - he doesn't have to be. He can just walk in a casino, being bored, and wanting to try this game. Or download the software. You know this, you know that many people play it even though they don't have any skills. They are also not trying to play better, or to compete with you. In your argument you comfortably assume that it is always a competition that is agreed upon and that everyone joins a game with his set of skills and with the intention of outsmarting others. But this isn't chess, or StarCraft - it is not purely a strategy game simply because strategy can be used. This is a game where as long as you have the money to post your blinds, you are welcomed and have the right to play, no matter what is going on in your mind at that time.

Just to stir things up a little bit, assuming you always believed this way, it would mean that you have always been happier playing people who know what they were doing, since you genuinely outsmarted people who were doing their best as well to outsmart you, than people who didn't. But is this really the case? Who, in fact, are you generally happier playing against, someone you will be proud of outwitting if you win, or someone who has no idea what he's doing? Which do most poker players - and I should emphasize smart poker players - actively seek out? People who made poker their profession? They had to build a bankroll, and a bankroll certainly doesn't build very fast if all they ever do is make sure their opponents are pretty smart. The answer is right here as to why your argument is not a valid one, and unless a game is purely strategic it cannot work.

Poker is a game of greed before it is one of strategy. Simply take an honest look at how devastated people are when they lose in poker compared to losing at a pure strategy game. The others get upset, sure, but they never reach that level of despair that so many gamblers have experienced, and I'm not just talking about degenerates who have ruined their lives, I'm talking about people crying even though they have not lost anything, and in fact often even have won money, life-changing money. They are devastated they didn't win more, because it's a game of greed. If you compare tournament poker and StarCraft for example, and take the scenario of a finals, you know that the one who finishes runner-up in the StarCraft tournament is more upset about being outwitted than the runner-up at a final table of the large poker tournament is. The latter is more concerned with the money almost every time, while the SC player is probably already going over his strategical mistakes in that final game that cost him the first place, and feeling upset he was outplayed. The money is secondary almost every time here, if we remove the unlikely scenarios where the money would be a matter of life and death or near it.

On April 20 2012 15:12 pluzich wrote: Show nested quote + On April 20 2012 03:31 capaneo wrote:   On April 20 2012 02:26 pluzich wrote: there are people who understand game theory and there are people who don't. Here I see three people who don't - that is the players and capaneo. There are people who have a life and there are losers like you. Just sit down in your underwear in front of your computer and Google and Wikipedia random shit in a hope to try to sound like an expert on every topic while knowing that you have no idea what those things actually are. Game theory? Who da fuck are you to comment about game theory? What have you ever done in your depressing life that makes you think you are an expert on anything? Do something, get some credibility, before you dare to judge other people's knowledge on stuff that you just read about 10min ago? But I know that you will go and spend the rest of your dismal sad life with your pathetic imaginary online friends who are as human as HAL in the Kubrick movie. But probably you have no idea what Im talking about and you are now too embarrassed to Google that one. Now we know that besides having no knowledge in Game Theory and being the thickest person on LP.net (from the shit you post in ROFL thread), you also have a very small penis. If someone posted "you don't understand Game Theory" I would not be mad at all, despite having a game-theory related paper published. And you get mad as if you are fucking John Nash.

Just FYI I am still waiting on the name and publication of the paper you have published. Can you please tell me?

holy shit wall of text. im sure there' some quality post to be read.. but i shall pass this one

There are two big differences with poker;

- Bluffing is only lying if you think a raise represents a good hand. If you before the game agree that raising represents a good hand, it would be a lot more immoral to bluff. however, instead most beginners are explained that a raise does *not* necessarily represent a good hand.

- in poker *everybody* expects to deceive and be deceived, in this game it's not as clear cut. for example, you could argue that while poker is fun to play even while deceiving each other, the golden balls game is no fun at all, you just leave with nothing every time. So the golden balls game, at least some people are not going to be prepared for a game of deceive or be deceived, whereas in poker, everybody expects to get bluffed.

On April 26 2012 19:50 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On April 25 2012 21:05 Baalim wrote: tell that it was not real to the fat bold man who chose split lol. How come the blonde is clearly guilty after taking his money if its just a game and its not real life. aparently if there is a camera rolling morality goes out of the window. As ket said its a very clear prisoners dilema which is a test of character and you can rationalize it however you want, but you failed that test of character. Also as ket i dont think there is much left to say i think you should really consider re-thinking about this again, its quite important. Oh and on the "its just like poker" again ill explain why you are wrong, in poker we are two people who willingly play a game where we are trying to outwit each other for profit, as if we make a bet on any sport or activity, this situation is totally different. I think locoo is the one who's got it right in the end: with your view (that all games showcase the values of someone irl, aka it's a test) you cannot logically reconcile your profession with that belief. Your only argument is a flawed one: just because you see this game as a game of skill doesn't mean that it is so for everyone. And by this I mean that you may be using skills/knowledge amassed over time of studying this game, but the other player might not be - he doesn't have to be. He can just walk in a casino, being bored, and wanting to try this game. Or download the software. You know this, you know that many people play it even though they don't have any skills. They are also not trying to play better, or to compete with you. In your argument you comfortably assume that it is always a competition that is agreed upon and that everyone joins a game with his set of skills and with the intention of outsmarting others. But this isn't chess, or StarCraft - it is not purely a strategy game simply because strategy can be used. This is a game where as long as you have the money to post your blinds, you are welcomed and have the right to play, no matter what is going on in your mind at that time. Just to stir things up a little bit, assuming you always believed this way, it would mean that you have always been happier playing people who know what they were doing, since you genuinely outsmarted people who were doing their best as well to outsmart you, than people who didn't. But is this really the case? Who, in fact, are you generally happier playing against, someone you will be proud of outwitting if you win, or someone who has no idea what he's doing? Which do most poker players - and I should emphasize smart poker players - actively seek out? People who made poker their profession? They had to build a bankroll, and a bankroll certainly doesn't build very fast if all they ever do is make sure their opponents are pretty smart. The answer is right here as to why your argument is not a valid one, and unless a game is purely strategic it cannot work. Poker is a game of greed before it is one of strategy. Simply take an honest look at how devastated people are when they lose in poker compared to losing at a pure strategy game. The others get upset, sure, but they never reach that level of despair that so many gamblers have experienced, and I'm not just talking about degenerates who have ruined their lives, I'm talking about people crying even though they have not lost anything, and in fact often even have won money, life-changing money. They are devastated they didn't win more, because it's a game of greed. If you compare tournament poker and StarCraft for example, and take the scenario of a finals, you know that the one who finishes runner-up in the StarCraft tournament is more upset about being outwitted than the runner-up at a final table of the large poker tournament is. The latter is more concerned with the money almost every time, while the SC player is probably already going over his strategical mistakes in that final game that cost him the first place, and feeling upset he was outplayed. The money is secondary almost every time here, if we remove the unlikely scenarios where the money would be a matter of life and death or near it.

god damn

u and baal should have a talk show

I hope loco has a philosophy blog or something, would be interesting to read.

On April 25 2012 06:58 Ket wrote: That is infact why we have most laws, so we can punish and deter people from acting solely in their own interest to maximise personal EV in an environment where most people are acting both in their interest and that of the group (what's best for everyone). If there were no consequences, would you mug anyone who looks defenceless on the street like old ladies? The EV of doing that is pretty high for the effort so why not maximise EV? If you saw someone mugging an old lady would you be like "nice one bro way to maximise EV there, wp!" or would you want that person removed from society? This game is a simulation of real life where there are no consequences to mugging an old lady (besides showing you'll sell you integrity for pretty cheap on national tv), and it's disturbing that people think it's standard to not do the right thing that everyone should do, and take advantage of those that do, just because there's no consequence and it's "just a game".

I am assuming that a reasonable person would find the idea of mugging an old lady repulsive because he'd hate to live in a society that treats the elderly like that, same goes for killing random strangers for fun etc. There is a huge difference between a law and a moral obligation.
If you blame someone for stealing from an old lady it should be for his short sightedness, because every time someone does anything, it is what he (by his own standards and experiences) perceives as the most +EV. You are doing what you consider the most +EV move by not stealing the old lady. As a side note, those who find the most pleasure in pointing moral fingers (not saying it's you) are usually those who need cheap psychological tricks to boost their own sense of power, because people of sharp intellectual honesty know full well that -in it's core- altruistic behavior is not what it seems.

Your idea of group +EV maximization as the moral choice is flawed for the same reason that the proposition of a universal morality is flawed; a morality suggested as suitable for every person is a
morality that ignores every person's crucial characteristics required for his well being. There are many examples of the altruistic behavior ending up being harmful for society, or where killing could be hugely +EV for the group etc. People make laws and change them on these depending on necessity or other factors; to go ahead and call any human construct like morality "universal" is as religious as believing in the ten commandments.

If rules like the 10 commandments feel "common sense" or "instinctively good" it's not because we have a secret compass for what's truly moral -something one can understand easily by all the diff shit people did throughout history and different cultural environments. It's because we grew up in this civilization.For people who (genuinely) base decisions/judgement on "what feels right" (again not directed @Ket), this quote from Nietzsche is awesome and applies well:
The inspiration born of a feeling is the grandchild of a judgment – and often of a false judgment! – and in any event not a child of your own! To trust one’s feelings—means to give more obedience to one’s grandfather and grandmother and their grandparents than to the gods which are in us: our reason and our experience

I think one thing that might confuse people here is that the reward for stealing over splitting when our opponent goes split is 2x what it would be if we chose steal. That doesn't necessarily have to be the case.

For example, the game show could just award each person $500,000 if they both choose split, but award only one person $500,020 if that person chooses steal while the other splits, while the one who splits gets nothing.

In that scenario, according to game theory, its still best to choose steal cuz u can get that extra $20. Choosing steal still strategically dominates choosing split. I don't think anyone's faith in game theory goes that far though.

Or:

If you both steal you both get shot to death.
If you both split you both live.
If you steal while your opponent splits, you get $20 and he gets shot to death.

Again, still game-theory correct to steal, but I would hope some sort of morality sets in at this point.

On May 02 2012 15:54 NMcNasty wrote: I think one thing that might confuse people here is that the reward for stealing over splitting when our opponent goes split is 2x what it would be if we chose steal. That doesn't necessarily have to be the case. For example, the game show could just award each person $500,000 if they both choose split, but award only one person $500,020 if that person chooses steal while the other splits, while the one who splits gets nothing. In that scenario, according to game theory, its still best to choose steal cuz u can get that extra $20. Choosing steal still strategically dominates choosing split. I don't think anyone's faith in game theory goes that far though. Or: If you both steal you both get shot to death. If you both split you both live. If you steal while your opponent splits, you get $20 and he gets shot to death. Again, still game-theory correct to steal, but I would hope some sort of morality sets in at this point.

20$ isn't even worth the acting or the negative comments on you tube/TV man =)

On April 26 2012 19:50 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On April 25 2012 21:05 Baalim wrote: tell that it was not real to the fat bold man who chose split lol. How come the blonde is clearly guilty after taking his money if its just a game and its not real life. aparently if there is a camera rolling morality goes out of the window. As ket said its a very clear prisoners dilema which is a test of character and you can rationalize it however you want, but you failed that test of character. Also as ket i dont think there is much left to say i think you should really consider re-thinking about this again, its quite important. Oh and on the "its just like poker" again ill explain why you are wrong, in poker we are two people who willingly play a game where we are trying to outwit each other for profit, as if we make a bet on any sport or activity, this situation is totally different. I think locoo is the one who's got it right in the end: with your view (that all games showcase the values of someone irl, aka it's a test) you cannot logically reconcile your profession with that belief. Your only argument is a flawed one: just because you see this game as a game of skill doesn't mean that it is so for everyone. And by this I mean that you may be using skills/knowledge amassed over time of studying this game, but the other player might not be - he doesn't have to be. He can just walk in a casino, being bored, and wanting to try this game. Or download the software. You know this, you know that many people play it even though they don't have any skills. They are also not trying to play better, or to compete with you. In your argument you comfortably assume that it is always a competition that is agreed upon and that everyone joins a game with his set of skills and with the intention of outsmarting others. But this isn't chess, or StarCraft - it is not purely a strategy game simply because strategy can be used. This is a game where as long as you have the money to post your blinds, you are welcomed and have the right to play, no matter what is going on in your mind at that time. Just to stir things up a little bit, assuming you always believed this way, it would mean that you have always been happier playing people who know what they were doing, since you genuinely outsmarted people who were doing their best as well to outsmart you, than people who didn't. But is this really the case? Who, in fact, are you generally happier playing against, someone you will be proud of outwitting if you win, or someone who has no idea what he's doing? Which do most poker players - and I should emphasize smart poker players - actively seek out? People who made poker their profession? They had to build a bankroll, and a bankroll certainly doesn't build very fast if all they ever do is make sure their opponents are pretty smart. The answer is right here as to why your argument is not a valid one, and unless a game is purely strategic it cannot work. Poker is a game of greed before it is one of strategy. Simply take an honest look at how devastated people are when they lose in poker compared to losing at a pure strategy game. The others get upset, sure, but they never reach that level of despair that so many gamblers have experienced, and I'm not just talking about degenerates who have ruined their lives, I'm talking about people crying even though they have not lost anything, and in fact often even have won money, life-changing money. They are devastated they didn't win more, because it's a game of greed. If you compare tournament poker and StarCraft for example, and take the scenario of a finals, you know that the one who finishes runner-up in the StarCraft tournament is more upset about being outwitted than the runner-up at a final table of the large poker tournament is. The latter is more concerned with the money almost every time, while the SC player is probably already going over his strategical mistakes in that final game that cost him the first place, and feeling upset he was outplayed. The money is secondary almost every time here, if we remove the unlikely scenarios where the money would be a matter of life and death or near it.

Didnt expect this from you, i have refuted that argument at leat 3 times now, poker is not like this game because in poker at all times i am being honest and we both know that we are trying to outwit each other for profit, i would always stick to a verbal agreement in poker even if i am able to angle shoot, bluffing is not "lying", as making a feint in basketball isnt lying either, on that game its a lie, its breaking a direct verbal agreement for profit, that is oportunity theft in my eyes.

I do enjoy more playing competent opponets, same reason why i play few highstakes tables rather than mass tabling lower stakes, i enjoy the challenge but i do consider money as well, reason why i dont move up higher, so yeah i enjoy way more playing competent opponents (as any real poker player does), however its my job and making a profit its also important the big difference is that i dont make any immoral act.

Ive seen many people cry in defeat in many sports so many times, since there is a lot of money in poker involved its only natural that there are more emotions there than there normaly is, how does that make it inmoral in any way, if somebody bets 10k in a sports event they are going to be in tornado of emotions, their decision could be stupid or wise, but not inmoral.