as soon as I watched this show for the first time my idea was to do exactly that, it is the best solution for the dilemma
but I was gonna actually pick steal
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
I think everyone on this site would be a bit confused, and think like this (Hmm, go with 50% chance of taking half, or 50% chance of taking everything.....)
lol
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Apr 20 2012 04:12. Posts 5365
steal is optimal if people go split 50% of the time or greater. your +ev to steal here because more than half the time you get all the money
steal is still optimal if people go split less than 50% of the time, because then you can't go split because you'll lose it all most of time. Gotta steal every time.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
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.
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
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.
You sound like a fun person. How's that life thingy working out for you?
I think capaneo's point isn't "which option you should pick", it is: say you're gonna steal, it leaves the other guy no choice
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
1
morph1 Sierra Leone. Apr 20 2012 13:35. Posts 2352
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.
Been a lurker for a long time, good friend of mine showed me the ROLF thread one day and been hooked ever since, I am casual poker/SC2/HoN player. Your basic Degen and I just have to say all the flaming and fighting over the last few days has been very entertaining. Thanks for the ROLFS
On April 20 2012 12:35 morph1 wrote:
Nash equilibrium
damn this one was good
omg lol, what a witch lol
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us and as we let our own lights shine we unconsciously give other people permision to do the same
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.
I can give you a kiss if that makes you feel better? + Show Spoiler +
Edit: I am not mad or anything. I actually wrote that as a joke. When you say random sentences like your first and second post. What kind of response you are looking for? Like what do you expect me to say about what you posted which has NOTHING to do with the flow of the conversation? I think I gave you the exact replies that you would want to hear when you make posts like that, didn't I?
If you want to explain the game theory and say something about it with some level of detail to make a point. I would really appreciate that. Other wise just keep on posting random one liners which makes no sense and i will do the same when i have time to have a laugh at making stupid comments. Its a freaking Poker Forum anyways. What kind of a loser would come here with the goal to learn anything anyways?
I also never said I know anything about game theory. And I don't know anything about game theory. I have took classes that talked about it but I never claim to know game theory.
PS:What is the name of the paper and publication that you have published about game theory? Please tell me I want to look it up.
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
On April 20 2012 11:47 player999 wrote:
I think capaneo's point isn't "which option you should pick", it is: say you're gonna steal, it leaves the other guy no choice
This is what I mean. And why I thought this was very well played.
If you start FIRST and say I grantee you I will STEAL but I will split afterwards the other guy have no choice. He can pick steal and look like a fool and 100% loose. Or he can split and loose the money and has a chance of lets say 10%-15% of actually splitting the money as promised.
Who ever comes out saying Im going to 100% grantee STEAL and i will split with you afterwards basically have so much leverage over the other person that the 2nd guy is forced into only one rational decision. 10% chance of taking the afterwards-split deal the 0% of the money by choosing Steal its by no means a rational decision.
Wouldn't work in the prisoners case obv. Because you can not share jail sentence or death penalty or whatever. But in many cases, like this one, it is a very nice play.
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
On April 20 2012 11:47 player999 wrote:
I think capaneo's point isn't "which option you should pick", it is: say you're gonna steal, it leaves the other guy no choice
This is what I mean. And why I thought this was very well played.
If you start FIRST and say I grantee you I will STEAL but I will split afterwards the other guy have no choice. He can pick steal and look like a fool and 100% loose. Or he can split and loose the money and has a chance of lets say 10%-15% of actually splitting the money as promised.
Who ever comes out saying Im going to 100% grantee STEAL and i will split with you afterwards basically have so much leverage over the other person that the 2nd guy is forced into only one rational decision. 10% chance of taking the afterwards-split deal the 0% of the money by choosing Steal its by no means a rational decision.
Wouldn't work in the prisoners case obv. Because you can not share jail sentence or death penalty or whatever. But in many cases, like this one, it is a very nice play.
I would just take steal as well because I don't trust people on their word(when it comes to money anyway) and if I get nothing, neither does he+ there is the small chance he takes split like in this vid. But thats just me
how can u shove the river, he cant possibly call with worse -TalentedTom
On April 20 2012 11:47 player999 wrote:
I think capaneo's point isn't "which option you should pick", it is: say you're gonna steal, it leaves the other guy no choice
This is what I mean. And why I thought this was very well played.
If you start FIRST and say I grantee you I will STEAL but I will split afterwards the other guy have no choice. He can pick steal and look like a fool and 100% loose. Or he can split and loose the money and has a chance of lets say 10%-15% of actually splitting the money as promised.
Who ever comes out saying Im going to 100% grantee STEAL and i will split with you afterwards basically have so much leverage over the other person that the 2nd guy is forced into only one rational decision. 10% chance of taking the afterwards-split deal the 0% of the money by choosing Steal its by no means a rational decision.
Wouldn't work in the prisoners case obv. Because you can not share jail sentence or death penalty or whatever. But in many cases, like this one, it is a very nice play.
I would just take steal as well because I don't trust people on their word(when it comes to money anyway) and if I get nothing, neither does he+ there is the small chance he takes split like in this vid. But thats just me
thats not really, the point, doesnt matter if u actually will steal or not, the point is you forced him to split
and actually, if the guy goes "WHAT? FUCK YOU!" mode and pick steal, he likely will feel bad after you take split after saying that and realize what you were doing (what the guy in the video did) and split with you afterwards because he knows now that you were always splitting
I'd still steal tho
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
My view: This is a 0 EV game if both players plays "correctly" BUT players have the option to do a pact where they both agree not to make the correct play so they can both get much higher EV than 0. If you agree to pact and swear to hold on to your word, and you don't actually do it to steal a lot of money from the other person, i think its just as bad as doing the same thing in real life in similar situations. To me, people who swore they are going to split while looking the other person in the eyes trying to look as honest as they can and actually stole are no better than scammers such as darkxprt. By breaking your word you are not outsmarting anyone, guys who split understands that its not the most +EV decision, but their own honor and dignity is more important than money.
this is a very different thing than poker (nothing wrong with lying in a poker game).
An example of a similar situation would be, you see scout (legendary fish) sit a high stake table and decide to sit there, and another pro does the same. Scout request to play heads up, and if none of you leaves, then hes going to leave and none of you will get money. Both of you don't want to get no profits, so the other pro tells you to let him play scout and hes going to give you half the profits. I'm sorry but if the pro does not hold on to his words, hes a scammer and should be ashammed.
Another "proof" that the poker player approach to this game is not really correct is, if ALL of LP played this game together, then LP's EV would be much lower than if a bunch of honest people played the game together. Even tho the decision of stealing is individually more +EV, it is "collectively" more -EV (if you steal there is a chance none get anything, if you split, there is no chance nobody gets anything), so when the majority of the players makes collective +EV decisions, the group benifitiate way more.
I'm sorry but if you watched the 100K video and you think that girl was not shady as fuck your values have gone wrong somewhere.
I agree with Floofy. And want to add something over the top.
In the first video when the dude tells you he is going to steal and then split with you afterwards.
There are three outcomes obv.
Lets say you choose steal and they other guy also chooses steal. Then you have no money AND you look like a jackass and the guy will yell at you why did you do sth so fucked up and everyone thinks you are an idiot.
If you choose split and the guy wins and splits the money (weather he steals and give you half after or just splits like in this case) its obv a win.
But lets say you split, he steals and after the show he tells you to fuck off. In this case, THE OTHER guy looks like a jackass. Everyone would feel bad for you and you are the victim here. So atleast you do feel good.
So you see when the first person talking says he is going to steal no matter what and split with you afterwards. Not only its +EV for you to always split money wise. Emotionally its also always +EV.
So you can not really loose.
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
U mad? You have to be pretty shallow to give a fuck how you look like after the game, for example this chick in the 2nd vid should look like a total bitch except she isnt she s a Boss, why would she care if she looks bad on tv if she manipulated someone into losing 6 figures ? You have no right to mix up emotions + rational decisions - both things are mutually incompatible. They r not there to amuse the public, they r there to cash money. So indeed you are absolutely wrong split is -EV both emotionally and profitwise no matter what. Thinking otherwise makes you really easily manipulated
Its not like anyone loses anything here, its a game - he left with exactly the same amount of money he came in with - the quality of his life will remain the same. She played the game better then he did and to the victor go the spoils, she owes him absolutely nothing to think that she took "his money" is ridiculous
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us and as we let our own lights shine we unconsciously give other people permision to do the same
WOW! Im surprised how much Nazgul and Talented Tom's moral compass is broken!
How can you guys possibly think that she didn't took "his" money and do something EXTREMELY wrong?
The money was there to split FOR BOTH OF THEM. They had an agreement and she LIED and manipulated the other person for her personal gain. How can you NOT see that as a problem?
If you and I find a treasure for 100k and we decide to split. And you trust me and put me in charge of selling it or sth. Then I screw you over your share. Can I say "your quality of life is the same as before, just move on!"
Same as survivor TV show. If you are going around liying and manipulating people you are a fucked up person.
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
if you choose split and the other chooses steal in my eyes you look like a naive jackass. not the other way around.
i agree that saying you are going to steal and being adamant about it is the way to go. you have to force your opponent into going split. whether you give him half or not is up to you, but it is pretty much wrong to do anything else
NewbSaibot: 18 TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Because FUCK YOU, Daut
On April 21 2012 11:48 capaneo wrote:
WOW! Im surprised how much Nazgul and Talented Tom's moral compass is broken!
How can you guys possibly think that she didn't took "his" money and do something EXTREMELY wrong?
The money was there to split FOR BOTH OF THEM. They had an agreement and she LIED and manipulated the other person for her personal gain. How can you NOT see that as a problem?
If you and I find a treasure for 100k and we decide to split. And you trust me and put me in charge of selling it or sth. Then I screw you over your share. Can I say "your quality of life is the same as before, just move on!"
Same as survivor TV show. If you are going around lying and manipulating people you are a fucked up person.
Your analogy is flawed, because the money on this show is not guaranteed whereas finding treasure is 100% guaranteed - the EV of a split on this show (even on that 100k one) is not 50k could be closer to 25-30k - whereas the EV of splitting actual treasure of exactly 50/50 (100% of the treasure is realized, whereas on this show often times no one gets anything) , she cant be sure that hes going to fk her, this guy is not her friend, she isn't backstabbing anyone. After watching a few episodes of this show on you tube, there are A LOT of of people with honest faces who take it all. Just because he had a sincere appearance does not mean we should trust him, we don't know whats going on in his mind
I think a lot of you are confusing a game show with real life and making it too personal - the purpose of most games is to win. When you are on a game show your primary goal should be to win, otherwise your just wasting time. That's almost like saying I should stop playing this fish heads up because hes down too much money, it's completely irrational thinking. She will likely never have a financial opportunity like this ever again, she took fool advantage of it. I'd have 100% no problem sleeping at night after this (in fact I'd sleep better knowing that I made the highest EV descion)
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us and as we let our own lights shine we unconsciously give other people permision to do the same
This is a british show right? I was just wondering, if a person makes a promise to give the other guy half of the money afterwards (like that guy who basically told the other guy that he was 100% on choosing steal) and picks steal and the other guy picks split. Is that verbal contract between them a 'real contract' by british laws? You could obviously use the video from the show as proof of the verbal contract?
p.s. sry for bad grammar.
All war is based on deception - Sun Tzu
1
NMcNasty United States. Apr 21 2012 13:33. Posts 2041
Yeah its interesting and somewhat paradoxical that the smarter the two players in a game are, the less their combined EV would be.
For any game or system that is adding a variable amount of value to the participants, two geniuses should be able to exploit that system better than two idiots.
1
NMcNasty United States. Apr 21 2012 13:40. Posts 2041
On April 21 2012 12:30 HotChip wrote:
This is a british show right? I was just wondering, if a person makes a promise to give the other guy half of the money afterwards (like that guy who basically told the other guy that he was 100% on choosing steal) and picks steal and the other guy picks split. Is that verbal contract between them a 'real contract' by british laws? You could obviously use the video from the show as proof of the verbal contract?
Joke is on the bitch cuz the guy is suing for millions.
On April 21 2012 12:33 NMcNasty wrote:
Yeah its interesting and somewhat paradoxical that the smarter the two players in a game are, the less their combined EV would be.
For any game or system that is adding a variable amount of value to the participants, two geniuses should be able to exploit that system better than two idiots.
its not paradoxal that the more shady the people are in a cooperative game, the lower their EV will be.
This game is NOT poker. Its a game designed so that if both people try to play it from a individual point of view, their EV is 0. Therefore, the only way to make money from it is to make a pact between players. i can't understand how u guys don't see breaking the pact is not shady as hell.
Breaking the pact might not be "illegal", but that doesn't make it right.
This reminds me of an experiment people did where they organized a "game" where people played prisonners and some other people played jail guards. Jail guards were allowed to do awfull things to prisonners, and they actually did it. It was legal whitin the game, but it doesn't make it right, just like its "legal" to betray people for 50K in that game, but i don't see how you guys can ever consider it to be right.
A similar situation is, i remember playing werewolf where the game started on the day where nobody had any info but we were forced to lynch anyways. Sometimes i made pacts with players not to lynch each others on first day to increase both our win rates (just like u can pact in that show to increase both players's EV). If other guy betrayed me i would feel its pretty shady, even tho he didn,t break any game rules or laws.
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.
you seem like one of the biggest losers/weird kid on this site bro. (from what i've seen in the rofl thread etc.) so get real
On April 21 2012 14:46 casinocasino wrote:
anyone who would ever play floofy in this game would extract 100% max value every time.
But two floofys would make more than two LP game theory specialists, how does that make sense?
But then you have to trust people and co operate.
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
On April 21 2012 11:48 capaneo wrote:
WOW! Im surprised how much Nazgul and Talented Tom's moral compass is broken!
How can you guys possibly think that she didn't took "his" money and do something EXTREMELY wrong?
The money was there to split FOR BOTH OF THEM. They had an agreement and she LIED and manipulated the other person for her personal gain. How can you NOT see that as a problem?
If you and I find a treasure for 100k and we decide to split. And you trust me and put me in charge of selling it or sth. Then I screw you over your share. Can I say "your quality of life is the same as before, just move on!"
Same as survivor TV show. If you are going around lying and manipulating people you are a fucked up person.
Your analogy is flawed, because the money on this show is not guaranteed whereas finding treasure is 100% guaranteed - the EV of a split on this show (even on that 100k one) is not 50k could be closer to 25-30k - whereas the EV of splitting actual treasure of exactly 50/50 (100% of the treasure is realized, whereas on this show often times no one gets anything) , she cant be sure that hes going to fk her, this guy is not her friend, she isn't backstabbing anyone. After watching a few episodes of this show on you tube, there are A LOT of of people with honest faces who take it all. Just because he had a sincere appearance does not mean we should trust him, we don't know whats going on in his mind
I think a lot of you are confusing a game show with real life and making it too personal - the purpose of most games is to win. When you are on a game show your primary goal should be to win, otherwise your just wasting time. That's almost like saying I should stop playing this fish heads up because hes down too much money, it's completely irrational thinking. She will likely never have a financial opportunity like this ever again, she took fool advantage of it. I'd have 100% no problem sleeping at night after this (in fact I'd sleep better knowing that I made the highest EV descion)
I understand everything you say. But I think you are falling from the other side of the bridge. I know its a game show. But even a stupid game show (specially on national TV) is STILL part of real life!
The so called "real life" its an aggregated result of all these small events. If she was my business partner doing this on a TV game show. I would immediately break up any tie to that person (financially or others). Because that kind of person will screw you in "real life" and would say: "this is just business and not real life".
I used to play Risk or other stupid games with people at high school and stuff. There were people who would cheat to win the Risk game. And those were also the people who would cheat at school. Those were the people who would rat you out for their benefit. And those were the people who would also steal food and stupid shit from peoples bags. Every little event IS part of real life.
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
Capaneo, my perspective towards strangers is definatley different from yours. I have 100% no problem fking around with people I don't know, but always treat those I know very well (friend, business partner, etc..) For example, if I had to make a descion to save a car with 1 person that I know, friend family etc.. versus a bus of 20 strangers - its a 100% no brainer SNAP save the friend. I would lose sleep at night / be haunted at losing someone I know and having the power to stop it,the 20 random people have no where near the value. I think moving up in life at a strangers expense is 100% fine, but betraying those you know is very bad and unacceptable. In this case I would gladly 100% split the loot with a bunch of friends, but when it comes to strangers, I'd make the highest personal EV descion
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us and as we let our own lights shine we unconsciously give other people permision to do the same
right I agree its +EV to treat everyone well, just using an extreme example to illustrate a simple point (maybe i should stop doing that lol)
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us and as we let our own lights shine we unconsciously give other people permision to do the same
On April 21 2012 16:29 traxamillion wrote:
don't private message me capaneo you weirdo
Reason I PMed you is that I didn't want to detail the thread. If you want to be a baby about it go ahead. I know you don't like me. You have already expressed your opinion, now fuck off my thread.
PS: I'm sorry that I molested you in my PM.
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
On April 21 2012 16:40 TalentedTom wrote:
Capaneo, my perspective towards strangers is definatley different from yours. I have 100% no problem fking around with people I don't know, but always treat those I know very well (friend, business partner, etc..) For example, if I had to make a descion to save a car with 1 person that I know, friend family etc.. versus a bus of 20 strangers - its a 100% no brainer SNAP save the friend. I would lose sleep at night / be haunted at losing someone I know and having the power to stop it,the 20 random people have no where near the value. I think moving up in life at a strangers expense is 100% fine, but betraying those you know is very bad and unacceptable. In this case I would gladly 100% split the loot with a bunch of friends, but when it comes to strangers, I'd make the highest personal EV descion
This makes sense. tbh I have never thought about it this way. So I see your point now.
But IMO it would be very hard for others as your friend to think you will put them in a different category. And always watching their back to see if from your perspective, are they still in the friend zone with you, or they you are about to screw them over for your personal gain.
My view is that I tread everyone the same and nicely and honestly, friends or stranger. So I am nice to every person out there trying to make as much friends as I can. But there are bad people in the world. And if you do sth bad to me, or you mess up somehow, I will remember it and I will come for you 10x worse. might not be right away, might be 2-5 years down the line. But you will pay a price sometime. And usually the price is very high.
And the fact that Im nice to others, help in this matter too. Because people trust me, so when I say someone is an asshole or a sketchy guy, everyone knows I have a REALLY good reason, and they treat him as such.
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
On April 21 2012 12:30 HotChip wrote:
This is a british show right? I was just wondering, if a person makes a promise to give the other guy half of the money afterwards (like that guy who basically told the other guy that he was 100% on choosing steal) and picks steal and the other guy picks split. Is that verbal contract between them a 'real contract' by british laws? You could obviously use the video from the show as proof of the verbal contract?
Joke is on the bitch cuz the guy is suing for millions.
You trolling or are u serious ?
How is an oral contract something you could be sued over :/
Seems like bs to me
Also capaneo honestly? The definition of the word "friend" is different for every person and its limits are different as well, if you have doubts about some "friend " of yours that would stick it to you for his personal gain but you r still hanging out with the guy it doesnt make him a "friend". It makes him the asshole you like to hang out with. Real friendships are formed over really long periods of time so its not the best way to argument your point .... Just admit it already, you are wrong :/
World is harsh, yes nobody cares about strangers and yes TT would gladly sacrafice your, mine and 18 other guys from this forum lifes for his friend's life and thats understandable. Such trust and faith in other persons is the thing that makes us form relationships on the first place
And yeah its +EV to treat every unknown person well. On another note i find anyone that treats strangers bad a complete idiot, since he could be poking a kitten or he could be poking the freaking godzilla that way. However this game show is a whole other discussion
P.S. I 100% bet you dont treat everyone the same way capaneo thats bullshit its impossible to achieve this and its not worth it either
On April 21 2012 17:01 MiPwnYa wrote:
Treating everybody well (esp ppl you dont know) and caring for them can actually improve your happiness level a great deal.
thats bs too imo .. im like that and my happiness level doesnt really change based on that + you cant really "care" for a stranger, that would put you on the extreme side of "good" where if you r not surrounded with persons that care for you you could get psychologically fucked and swing through the edges
you probably dont understand what im talking about, but i dont feel like writing more about it
Last edit: 21/04/2012 20:48
1
NMcNasty United States. Apr 21 2012 20:58. Posts 2041
On April 21 2012 12:30 HotChip wrote:
This is a british show right? I was just wondering, if a person makes a promise to give the other guy half of the money afterwards (like that guy who basically told the other guy that he was 100% on choosing steal) and picks steal and the other guy picks split. Is that verbal contract between them a 'real contract' by british laws? You could obviously use the video from the show as proof of the verbal contract?
Joke is on the bitch cuz the guy is suing for millions.
You trolling or are u serious ?
How is an oral contract something you could be sued over :/
Seems like bs to me
If the oral contract is legally binding I don't see why you wouldn't be able to sue for breach of contract. What I wrote isn't actually happening though.
On April 21 2012 16:40 TalentedTom wrote:
Capaneo, my perspective towards strangers is definatley different from yours. I have 100% no problem fking around with people I don't know, but always treat those I know very well (friend, business partner, etc..) For example, if I had to make a descion to save a car with 1 person that I know, friend family etc.. versus a bus of 20 strangers - its a 100% no brainer SNAP save the friend. I would lose sleep at night / be haunted at losing someone I know and having the power to stop it,the 20 random people have no where near the value. I think moving up in life at a strangers expense is 100% fine, but betraying those you know is very bad and unacceptable. In this case I would gladly 100% split the loot with a bunch of friends, but when it comes to strangers, I'd make the highest personal EV descion
This makes sense. tbh I have never thought about it this way. So I see your point now.
But IMO it would be very hard for others as your friend to think you will put them in a different category. And always watching their back to see if from your perspective, are they still in the friend zone with you, or they you are about to screw them over for your personal gain.
My view is that I tread everyone the same and nicely and honestly, friends or stranger. So I am nice to every person out there trying to make as much friends as I can. But there are bad people in the world. And if you do sth bad to me, or you mess up somehow, I will remember it and I will come for you 10x worse. might not be right away, might be 2-5 years down the line. But you will pay a price sometime. And usually the price is very high.
And the fact that Im nice to others, help in this matter too. Because people trust me, so when I say someone is an asshole or a sketchy guy, everyone knows I have a REALLY good reason, and they treat him as such.
I don't think that's very healthy. If someone does bad to me I try to either forget about it or instantly take my revenge otherwise you don't move on and are constantly bugged.
As for saving 1 friend over 20 strangers I think that is pretty interesting and I'm not sure how I would react, guess I'm glad it's an impossible scenario but I would have to factor a lot of things for example: are there children among the strangers? pregnat ladies? for some reason I like old people but I probably would let 100000's of them die for 1 child, since they already had their time to enjoy or fuck up life.
I don't think I see myself saving 1 friend over 10 people as a super easy decision, it's only a no brainer friend vs one stranger.
the 20 strangers vs 1 friend thing is interesting. what spitfiree was getting at (I think), that someone who is overly concerned with or empathic towards every random stranger situation coming to a point of being crippled is very true. I've thought for a while that there should be some kind of word for people who have an extreme sense of empathy, because such a condition can paralyze an individual in certain ways, especially in any kind of competitive environment (AKA the whole fucking world and everything that happens in it). IMO it is as much of a problematic condition as psychopathy (total lack of empathy) is.
I would probably insta choose the 20 strangers (barring mitigating factors such as the strangers are a bunch of politicians or something ;D) and suffer the personal consequences of it :/
On April 21 2012 12:33 NMcNasty wrote:
Yeah its interesting and somewhat paradoxical that the smarter the two players in a game are, the less their combined EV would be.
For any game or system that is adding a variable amount of value to the participants, two geniuses should be able to exploit that system better than two idiots.
just browsing thru the thread I wanted to point out that the situation isn't exactly uncommon and certainly isn'tr restricted to this particular game, for instance the whole economy works this way on a business vs business level. its like the biggest reason that cartels and other types of monopolization and collusion in business happens. What I mean by this is that if every firm in the market is making the most clearly +EV decision for themselves by allocating capital towards cost-saving new infrastructure, the overall return on investment % for businesses in that market will drop, and collectively these firm's decisions are actually -EV in this way
@Locoo, I follow the Israelis: Never to forget, never to forgive.
@Spitfiree: It doesn't take any effort to treat others fair. Just don't lie and don't screw people over. Why do you think that takes effort?
In the game I would choose split if I say I would choose split, I would steal and split later if I say so. (wouldn't split on the show like the dude). And if someone like that girl screw me over. She probably needed the money badly. 100K is not really life changing money anyways. The fact you are screwing your reputation on National TV for 100k means you are very desperate person.
Having said that I would NOT forgive or forget what she did. Even 10 years down the line. I am not going to go after her. But if our path happens to cross each other even if she is down in the worse condition. I would still go after her 10x and it would be lotta fun.
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
I have to agree with TT's and Daut point of view. It's a game and you are playing by the rules, the sad part is that you can't be sure that the other guy isn't trying to screw you over so you must look after yourself. If you were playing with someone you knew won't screw you over then sure but you can never be 100% trusting.
That said I'm the type of guy who would always try and split the money so everybodys happy, like if the other guy choose split I would 100% give half the money to him/her after the show unless I need it badly.
bitte bitte bitte bitte bitte bitte
1
NewbSaibot United States. Apr 21 2012 22:18. Posts 4952
I'm confused, how did they both end up choosing split after all that nonsense? And what was the point of hustling him if he was going to choose split anyway? Because if he pisses the bald dude off and he chooses steal, then he actually becomes the victor does he not? All he did was increase the odds at which the bald guy chooses steal so that they both get fucked.
On April 21 2012 21:18 NewbSaibot wrote:
I'm confused, how did they both end up choosing split after all that nonsense? And what was the point of hustling him if he was going to choose split anyway? Because if he pisses the bald dude off and he chooses steal, then he actually becomes the victor does he not? All he did was increase the odds at which the bald guy chooses steal so that they both get fucked.
If he convinces the dude that he's going to steal then there is no EV in choosing steal.
On April 21 2012 16:40 TalentedTom wrote:
Capaneo, my perspective towards strangers is definatley different from yours. I have 100% no problem fking around with people I don't know, but always treat those I know very well (friend, business partner, etc..) For example, if I had to make a descion to save a car with 1 person that I know, friend family etc.. versus a bus of 20 strangers - its a 100% no brainer SNAP save the friend. I would lose sleep at night / be haunted at losing someone I know and having the power to stop it,the 20 random people have no where near the value. I think moving up in life at a strangers expense is 100% fine, but betraying those you know is very bad and unacceptable. In this case I would gladly 100% split the loot with a bunch of friends, but when it comes to strangers, I'd make the highest personal EV descion
This makes sense. tbh I have never thought about it this way. So I see your point now.
But IMO it would be very hard for others as your friend to think you will put them in a different category. And always watching their back to see if from your perspective, are they still in the friend zone with you, or they you are about to screw them over for your personal gain.
My view is that I tread everyone the same and nicely and honestly, friends or stranger. So I am nice to every person out there trying to make as much friends as I can. But there are bad people in the world. And if you do sth bad to me, or you mess up somehow, I will remember it and I will come for you 10x worse. might not be right away, might be 2-5 years down the line. But you will pay a price sometime. And usually the price is very high.
And the fact that Im nice to others, help in this matter too. Because people trust me, so when I say someone is an asshole or a sketchy guy, everyone knows I have a REALLY good reason, and they treat him as such.
for some reason I like old people but I probably would let 100000's of them die for 1 child, since they already had their time to enjoy or fuck up life.
i dont know who you consider old but from evolutionary perspective kids are far more easier to replace ie less valueable
On April 21 2012 20:59 locoo wrote:
I have to agree with TT's and Daut point of view. It's a game and you are playing by the rules, the sad part is that you can't be sure that the other guy isn't trying to screw you over so you must look after yourself. If you were playing with someone you knew won't screw you over then sure but you can never be 100% trusting.
That said I'm the type of guy who would always try and split the money so everybodys happy, like if the other guy choose split I would 100% give half the money to him/her after the show unless I need it badly.
You can not screw people over with the justification that "this is just a game", or these are different class of people since I don't know them personally.
Im going to make a very extreme and over the top example:
German soldiers working in concentration camps were also treating the matter as "a job". As if it is not part of their real life. Many of them had family, kids and no personal problem with Jews. So to justify their actions they would say "I just have orders from above". Then they would go to their family pretending that it is only a job and has nothing to do with their lives. And the truth of the matter is that they are 100% logically correct.
So by your standards none of those guys are responsible for their actions during service (before WWII rules of the military "game" says that you have to obey ALL orders)
Question is not only if they are "correct", but are they also "right"
I understand Toms point about friends and non-friends. It is logical and correct. But i personally do not agree with his hypothesis. I just don't think it is right.
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
Well that was a pretty poor example and had absolutely nothing to do wih the game. Maybe if the jews could burn the soldier too with some kind of magic spell...
A much more accurate yet still pretty extreme example would be in the midst of war two inexperienced soldiers meet, guns pointing towards the other and ready to shoot, they could both just lower their weapons and they would both walk away alive but how can you know the other one is going to do the same as you?
the example is an extreme case of having different rules for different things and times in your life. You can not be torturing prisoners at work and then be a great friend and family person in your personal time.
You can not be a an evil person from 9 to 5, even if it is required from you as part of your job and a great dad at home.
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
The thing here is that you don't know which kind of person the other contestant is. And even if you know 100% that he is an honest person he could still screw you over if he doesn't believe you are. The only time where you could comfortably split would be with a very naive person who thinks people aren't shitty especially towards strangers and especially concerning money.
On April 22 2012 00:16 locoo wrote:
We are talking about a game from a TV show and you are bringing the holocaust to the debate, be reasonable both scenarios are nothing alike.
I was not talking about the game. I was talking about Tom's comment that he has different rules for different group of people.
And in my torture example I was actually talking about US soldiers torturing detainees. Which is a legal and common (used to be) practice in USA.
Answer this, would you think its OK to hang out with soldiers who water-boarded detainees?
According to Daut and Tom's logic which you agree with its perfectly OK. Different rules for when you are at work dealing with prisoners, specially under order from your commanders.
On April 22 2012 00:21 locoo wrote:
The thing here is that you don't know which kind of person the other contestant is. And even if you know 100% that he is an honest person he could still screw you over if he doesn't believe you are. The only time where you could comfortably split would be with a very naive person who thinks people aren't shitty especially towards strangers and especially concerning money.
According to this then you also don't know, the detainees might be AlQaida leaders and really bad people.
IMO some stuff are just wrong. No matter what the law says, no matter who the other person is and what games you are playing or what the situation is. Back stabbing and water boarding are both in that same category.
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
On April 21 2012 12:30 HotChip wrote:
This is a british show right? I was just wondering, if a person makes a promise to give the other guy half of the money afterwards (like that guy who basically told the other guy that he was 100% on choosing steal) and picks steal and the other guy picks split. Is that verbal contract between them a 'real contract' by british laws? You could obviously use the video from the show as proof of the verbal contract?
Joke is on the bitch cuz the guy is suing for millions.
You trolling or are u serious ?
How is an oral contract something you could be sued over :/
Seems like bs to me
Also capaneo honestly? The definition of the word "friend" is different for every person and its limits are different as well, if you have doubts about some "friend " of yours that would stick it to you for his personal gain but you r still hanging out with the guy it doesnt make him a "friend". It makes him the asshole you like to hang out with. Real friendships are formed over really long periods of time so its not the best way to argument your point .... Just admit it already, you are wrong :/
World is harsh, yes nobody cares about strangers and yes TT would gladly sacrafice your, mine and 18 other guys from this forum lifes for his friend's life and thats understandable. Such trust and faith in other persons is the thing that makes us form relationships on the first place
And yeah its +EV to treat every unknown person well. On another note i find anyone that treats strangers bad a complete idiot, since he could be poking a kitten or he could be poking the freaking godzilla that way. However this game show is a whole other discussion
P.S. I 100% bet you dont treat everyone the same way capaneo thats bullshit its impossible to achieve this and its not worth it either
On April 21 2012 17:01 MiPwnYa wrote:
Treating everybody well (esp ppl you dont know) and caring for them can actually improve your happiness level a great deal.
thats bs too imo .. im like that and my happiness level doesnt really change based on that + you cant really "care" for a stranger, that would put you on the extreme side of "good" where if you r not surrounded with persons that care for you you could get psychologically fucked and swing through the edges
you probably dont understand what im talking about, but i dont feel like writing more about it
i dont think thats bs, ofc u cant just be a nice guy and let ppl exploit you, but Im quite sure one is happier when he treats people with respect and empathy. That probably doesnt apply to competitive environments tho
On April 22 2012 00:16 locoo wrote:
We are talking about a game from a TV show and you are bringing the holocaust to the debate, be reasonable both scenarios are nothing alike.
I was not talking about the game. I was talking about Tom's comment that he has different rules for different group of people.
And in my torture example I was actually talking about US soldiers torturing detainees. Which is a legal and common (used to be) practice in USA.
Answer this, would you think its OK to hang out with soldiers who water-boarded detainees?
According to Daut and Tom's logic which you agree with its perfectly OK. Different rules for when you are at work dealing with prisoners, specially under order from your commanders.
On April 22 2012 00:21 locoo wrote:
The thing here is that you don't know which kind of person the other contestant is. And even if you know 100% that he is an honest person he could still screw you over if he doesn't believe you are. The only time where you could comfortably split would be with a very naive person who thinks people aren't shitty especially towards strangers and especially concerning money.
According to this then you also don't know, the detainees might be AlQaida leaders and really bad people.
IMO some stuff are just wrong. No matter what the law says, no matter who the other person is and what games you are playing or what the situation is. Back stabbing and water boarding are both in that same category.
I wasn't talking about what TT said, just the game. Personally I go with treat others how you would like to be treated, but I'm pretty sure not even half the world or even 1/3rd believes or follows that rule, and also fwiw I consider myself to be pretty naive and exploitable.
Other guy stole: tbh you didn't really loose anything here by splitting.... instead of looking like a jackass with no honor in front of thousands of people on TV, you look like more of an honorable person that keeps his word. You would not have won money anyways. Anyways i rather have one happy person than 2 unhappy persons.
Other guy splitted: Here it all comes down to your moral values. If money is so important to you that you're fine with betraying someone and breaking your words/honor in front of a lot of people on TV, well go ahead, but i know i would feel horribly bad of doing something like this, especially once i saw other person picked split.
I think the problem here is you guys are confusing 2 things: Lying in a game where the game is about lying, such as werewolf, and doing a pact with another player in a game to increase both of your EVs, but breaking your word and not respect the pact to steal the other person's EV. Its the same as if i told someone "hey lets share profits in the tourney to reduce our variance" and i actually don't pay him back if i win saying "its just a game trolololo, never trust poker players, you got bluffed!". In both case you do a pact to increase both players's EV (or reduce variance in the case of the poker game) and you don't respect your pact to increase your own EV even more.
Problem Floofy is that in both cases you are just reacting, he has all the power, you can't let that happen in the first place, if he comes up with "I'll steal no matter what" and you aren't 100% sure he will give you 50% after the show you come back with I will steal too and fuck you, your choice to fuck everything up, not mine.
I like to think of new people coming in to threads such as this one, reading the first page, skipping the middle pages and then reading the last (current) page. I love game shows...dum de dum...holocaust...what in the fu...
On April 22 2012 01:01 Floofy wrote:
There is 2 possible cases.
Other guy stole: tbh you didn't really loose anything here by splitting.... instead of looking like a jackass with no honor in front of thousands of people on TV, you look like more of an honorable person that keeps his word. You would not have won money anyways. Anyways i rather have one happy person than 2 unhappy persons.
Other guy splitted: Here it all comes down to your moral values. If money is so important to you that you're fine with betraying someone and breaking your words/honor in front of a lot of people on TV, well go ahead, but i know i would feel horribly bad of doing something like this, especially once i saw other person picked split.
I think the problem here is you guys are confusing 2 things: Lying in a game where the game is about lying, such as werewolf, and doing a pact with another player in a game to increase both of your EVs, but breaking your word and not respect the pact to steal the other person's EV. Its the same as if i told someone "hey lets share profits in the tourney to reduce our variance" and i actually don't pay him back if i win saying "its just a game trolololo, never trust poker players, you got bluffed!". In both case you do a pact to increase both players's EV (or reduce variance in the case of the poker game) and you don't respect your pact to increase your own EV even more.
I really don't understand this at all. Games like poker, survivor, mafia are all made for lying to each other. If you lie well and make promises and break them at the right time that is excellent strategical play. For this game I really don't see anything different. There's two balls and the goal is to manipulate your opponent into picking something you want him to pick. These are games that are meant to be played like that and you are confusing them with real life. If you are bluffing a fish and you tell him you have it, that's all part of poker. Your opponent isn't just going to take your word for it because he knows it is part of the game. There is level upon level upon level in situations like that and everyone understands that it is strategy. Even in a childrens game like risk you form pacts and backstab your partner at the right time. These are games and nobody should be applying any of that in real life.
Normally in games like these you aren't allowed to bring factors outside of the game into play. If you promise you will steal and split it (outside of the game) you are treading a very dangerous moral line in case you intend on keeping everything to yourself. For example in survivor you are absolutely not allowed to make promises from outside of the game such as "I'll buy you a house". Promising someone you will pick X or Y and lying about it, is entirely within the setting of the game, though.
there is a large difference between all of the games you mentionned and this one.
In other games, such as poker, risk, werewolf, etc, you don't have to make pacts to win the game. If anything, in these games, making a pact is actually usually against the rules (in poker its called collusion, in risk its usually forbidden on most sites, etc). If everyone plays on their own, whitout caring about others, the best player will win, which is fine.
This tv show is a completly different type of game, where if everyone plays "the best strategy" and plays in a selfish way, everyone loose. Its not "the best player will win", its nobody will win. Therefore the only way to make this a profitable game is to make a pact.
Also what you seem to forget is even if its called a game, people are playing it for life changing ammounts of money, so its not "just a game". Again, this reminds me so much of the experiment where scientist made a "game" of abusive jail guards, vs prisonners, and people playing the jail guards did awfull things because "hey its just a game". They had to stop the experiment because it was going way too far. Even if something is whitin the rules, its not always right, see what nazis did in ww2.
Also i think my poker example is good. If i go in a tournament, get to 10 000 chips, and then i see caleb at my table with 10 000 chips too and i offer him to share profits to reduce our variance, i don't see how its right to break my word.
Finally, i think the best way for you guys to understand is to imagine this is really happening to you and someone else who thinks in a similar way as you. If Nazgul and Talentedtom were to go on that show and the prize was 10 millions, would you both really pick steal? wouldn't you guys try to make a real pact instead of having 10M go to waste?
capaneo how is the hollocaust even close to any of this ?
I ll ignore the reasons which led to the hollocaust and just go straight to the point.
Killing millions of innocent people directly affects them ( well obviously ). While playing a game where you have both the options to steal or split to win money doesnt. Its literally EV0 in the worst case scenario you dont win a thing and you continue living the same way you did without making changes based on the game or you do win money and that changes some aspect of your life ( obv depending on the money you win you can either buy a bicycle or a car or start a small business w/e you get the point ). Now since you only have those 2 options where Split gives you -EV and steal gives you EV+ while you make everything possible for the other guy to lose including using deception. As far im concerned the chick that won the money donated them all to charitable organisations which makes her moraility level high as f*** ( obv that probably didnt happen but the main point is it doesnt matter ). Someone previously gave the fish example and ill go a bit deeper in it. Imagine you r playing a huge fish at 200nl he's lost 5-6 buy ins and is down to his last 200eu, now he writes in the chat that its his last money and he wont be able to pay his rent if he loses this. Will you stop playing him? Now most people would write back to the fish to stop playing coz its bad for him and thats fine, but if he continues to play will you stop ? I know its a bit of a different scenario, but it puts you in the direct same moral dilemma ( obv we take everything the fish wrote as an absolute truth about this case ).
Deception just plays a huge part of this game if you want to extract max value. Actually it probably makes you a bit shallow if you think that the chick looks bad on TV cause of the way she acted. She just made everything possible within the rules of the game to win thats all. If you are talking about morality then you have no right to judge her at all. As far as im concerned she donated the money to a non profit organisation or invested them in her kid's education. You cant base your opinion on someone on what you've seen from them on a game show thats ridiculous and far from moral
Normally in games like these you aren't allowed to bring factors outside of the game into play
This sums the fundamentals of the game.
And honestly anyone even mentioning the hollocaust as an example deserves a ban. That has absolutely nothing in common with the game show. Hollocaust is an aftermath of many things and just cause the soldiers were given orders which they treated as a job doesnt make it right in the bigger picture. Also most of those soldiers were forced to do the deeds they've done or they d end up the same way as their captives. Whole situation was played extremely "well" ( not well .. but well well ) psychologically by Hitler and ppl behind him. They pretty much exploited the human mind to bring out the worst of it. If he had done it for something good who knows where Germany would stand today.
+ Floofy dafuq Obviously the bigger the prize the better to make a pact however playing it like the guy in the 1st vid is probably best in that situation. Just because you are closer to winning 10 millions doesnt mean you've won them and it doesnt directly affect your life. Having a chance for something is far different from having it. Thoughts such as "So close, yet so far" are not written pointlessly if you get it... Maybe thats the biggest problem about the discussion we're having you dont make a difference between the chance of having something and actually having it
After years of capaneo and floofy posts i am still amazed at people taking the time to write detailed answers to their attempts at something more than what belongs in the trash. One fool can ask more questions than a hundred wise men can answer. If this is some inside joke i am not getting then i'm feeding the troll here.
Floofy and Capaneo start a random topic or join an existing one just to start throwing around random ideas and get a MONOLOGUE going. The shit they stir up is uncomprehendable. Constantly bringing in new variables, irrelevant babblings of an infant, making up shit, writing twenty line paragraphs of brain diarrhoea, etc.
History has shown us the two culprits are unable to learn and better themselves.
So fellow posters i urge you to think of this image before replying to the village clowns.
cariadon i'm sorry but me and capanao aren't "the weird ones", you guys are the weird ones for thinking this is ethically right to go for the steal option in this game. Just read youtubes comments for any of those videos where people steal, nearly everybody thinks people who steal are huge assholes that should burn in a fire. Most people actually agree with me and capaneo, it just seems like all those years of poker have played with you guys's moral values.
Go watch a poker video where some pro did an amazing bluff, look at the comments, and then go watch a golden balls video where someone "bluffed" someone for a lot of money, the comments are going to be completly different.
Tbh i know i am wasting my time with you cariadon but i think some people here can understand, hence my reply.
i think this is kinda the idea behind the show, watch people make super shady decisions. If stealing was ethically right then everyone would go for steal and the show would have little interest. Also its obvious a lot of the contestant (those who go for split, and those who go for steal but feels bad about it) agrees with me and capaneo. if they thought going for steal was ethically right, then they wouldn't hesitate to do it since its pretty obvious its the most +EV play.
james9994: make note dont play against floofy, ;(
Last edit: 23/04/2012 01:35
1
qwerty67890 New Zealand. Apr 23 2012 01:37. Posts 14026
woulda been so much funnier if the other guy tilt shoved steal into the guys bluff split
Most posters on LP agree that capaneo and floofy are huge natural born trollers. You have the severest of conditions and you don't even realise it. Most people would agree to that statement so it has to be true. I believe i am invincible when i speak on the majorities behalf. Like take for example religion, most people believe in that stuff ergo it must be the truth. I want to believe one day we can purge the messiahs preaching incoherent crap in the eternity of a permaban.
Ok so cariadon, if stealing in that game is clearly 100% ethically correct, then explain why so many people choose split. they hate money? you think they don't understand "steal" will get them more money? come on you are the troll here, its obvious the majority of people outside of this site thinks its not an ethical to do to pick the steal option. If people didn't consider their moral values they would all go for steal whitout a doubt.
Also, if you guys were right, then that show would be pointless since everyone would pick steal and it would be really boring.
Floofy your stupidity provides you with infinite ammunition of verbal bullets. There is more than one correct answer for this question - try and proccess that. Or better yet ignore everything and try shooting at me from a different angle.
What is ethical for one can at the same time be unethical for the other. There is no perfect answer for how to solve this problem. You can stop pretending to be R.Crowe in "A beautiful mind" now.
before watching all of the other videos I would have went with split everytime because I naturally believe people when they say they will split but after watching most of the other clips for that show I am now just like Fuck everyone and split every time.
1
AndrewSong United States. Apr 23 2012 04:55. Posts 2355
LOL guy played the game brilliantly and decided to be a little bitch. He obviously didn't have his bankroll stuck on full tilt. He did everything right besides picking split. It's dog eat dog world. Your in the game to kill. Gotta kill first or get ur bankroll stolen. Atleast when u pick steal he ain't going home with money. No1 fks me again ty howard
1
AndrewSong United States. Apr 23 2012 05:10. Posts 2355
My god what is wrong with the replies. To say that it's wrong to lie and steal in this game sounds pathetic as asking for money back after losing your case money in a poker game.
On April 23 2012 01:24 cariadon wrote:
What is ethical for one can at the same time be unethical for the other. There is no perfect answer for how to solve this problem. You can stop pretending to be R.Crowe in "A beautiful mind" now.
so now you are saying it is ethical for some people to do steal, and it is not ethical for some other people to steal, but yet when someone here on LP says its ethical you say SOLID POST and when someone say its unethical you call him the biggest idiot ever.
Yes some people's conscience will not them it is wrong to steal in that game (some contestant who stole clearly didn't seem to think what they did was wrong) but that doesn't mean it is right. In real life, there are countless examples of people who did horrible things and didn't even think it was wrong... I don't think having broken moral values justify doing wrong things. Anyways, for the most part people who stole clearly went against their own moral values and knew what they did was wrong, hence the whole point of the show. if society generally considered stealing is fine on that show then the whole show would be stupid as fuck. Just like Daut said in his first post.... since daut thinks it is ethically correct to steal, he quickly thought the whole show is stupid as fuck since then everyone would go steal every times (no reasons to go for split if steal is ethically correct).
james9994: make note dont play against floofy, ;(
1
AndrewSong United States. Apr 23 2012 12:53. Posts 2355
On April 23 2012 01:24 cariadon wrote:
What is ethical for one can at the same time be unethical for the other. There is no perfect answer for how to solve this problem. You can stop pretending to be R.Crowe in "A beautiful mind" now.
so now you are saying it is ethical for some people to do steal, and it is not ethical for some other people to steal, but yet when someone here on LP says its ethical you say SOLID POST and when someone say its unethical you call him the biggest idiot ever.
Yes some people's conscience will not them it is wrong to steal in that game (some contestant who stole clearly didn't seem to think what they did was wrong) but that doesn't mean it is right. In real life, there are countless examples of people who did horrible things and didn't even think it was wrong... I don't think having broken moral values justify doing wrong things. Anyways, for the most part people who stole clearly went against their own moral values and knew what they did was wrong, hence the whole point of the show. if society generally considered stealing is fine on that show then the whole show would be stupid as fuck. Just like Daut said in his first post.... since daut thinks it is ethically correct to steal, he quickly thought the whole show is stupid as fuck since then everyone would go steal every times (no reasons to go for split if steal is ethically correct).
Maybe you should take a step back and try looking from a wider point of view. The word STEAL is clogging your mind. If the options were switched to ONE and TWO instead of SPLIT and STEAL, the word steal would not even be discussed.
Sure this may be life changing money for the players but in the end it's clearly a game with a objective to outplay your competitor. You need him to pick option one or u lose and only ammunition you have is your tongue. The jackpot wasn't provided because the players were ethnical kings of society. Ultimately the players were here to entertain the viewers.
Andrew assuming your right, then why would anyone ever pick split? If there is nothing wrong with going for the steal option, then why the hell not go for it. and then, if everyone picks steal, whats the point of the show?
From my experience, the people who talk a little louder have these rules, principles, (kind of shit crap they've gotten from watching movies and shows, maybe enviornment when they were kids, programmed, now thinking "ahh thiz is me, my etics and codes lol I am such a gud awsum person". They also like to be really vocal about it, semi-touchy one might say, hinting at (uuu, I have such high moral, blabla, that'z what u fucking do, I'm a stupid mtr fkr). Ok, they don't really say that last part, but I'm pretty sure that's how they are portrayed by the silence around them when they make these stupid speeches. (The speeches in themselves aren't necessarily stupid, I'm just painting a subjective picture).
I think I semi-believed it when younger, then I found out those are the guys struggling, those are the guys with skeletons in the closet. The kinda guys who would cheat with your girl if they had the chance, the guys who'd steal 3000k laying around if they felt sure you'd never know. Or under the right circumstances, if they were talking with a crew in which they want recognition, even respect, and they could gain "status" or feel superior by putting you down in some way, they would, if they felt confident you wouldn't find out about it.
I've often gotten the impression by family, friends and retards that I seem to have a very high moral compass, but I don't go thinking about it, talking about it. When weird situations arise, you just go with it. And I'd try and win all the money in that gameshow 100% lol.
Oh, and here is a quote from something I found fairly amusing xD:
And if you do sth bad to me, or you mess up somehow, I will remember it and I will come for you 10x worse. might not be right away, might be 2-5 years down the line. But you will pay a price sometime. And usually the price is very high.
Here you're being a bit of a noob. This is wrong on so many levels.
Besides, on average people tell 40 lies the first 5 minute they talk to a stranger.
And last one:
Because people trust me, so when I say someone is an asshole or a sketchy guy, everyone knows I have a REALLY good reason, and they treat him as such.
Reading this makes me think there's a relative high chance this might all be a level. If it's not, you're being a noob here as well. Your moral compass seem to be around low Gold, but I'm not 100% sure, but a fairly good guesstimate from that post I've quoted you on I'd say.
(Hehe, when I saw so many people were posting, and the arguments and drama, I wanted to chip in as well xD)
Marius i'm not sure if you're talking to me, but no where i'm saying my moral values are perfect, i'm just trying to point out choosing the steal option isn't ethically correct, that is all. No where i say what i would do if i were to enter the show.
You've already decided this? What's ethically correct for you is the same for everyone else? Is it 100% objective, not even a 5% chance it can be subjective?
I think it's super fine and awesome to lie, tbh, lie a lot, it's a good and liberating feeling. After all, if you believe the lie, you're in on it =p
Ps, choosing the Steal option in this scenario was 100% correct, the other dude got outplayed and took split. She herself has to decide how that feels afterwards.
I'd do the same thing, and then I'd find out more about the guy, and depending on what I see fit, I'd maybe give him 14.000 pound or something around there, depends. If he's rich he gets nothing. That's just so I won't lose any sleep or feel bad about it. Kinda where I'm at. If she can take it all and not feel bad about it, the peopel who judge her, call her names, talk trash about her for doing so are people with far worse moral/etics than she has lol.
PPs, if he have sick kids and is in real trouble, my lie will feel more deceptive and malicious, and that's where I personally draw the line. I have to make sure it never comes to deception, or as something I see as malicious. Then I might give him half of it anyway, but only if the kids were really sick.
PPPs, (not sure if you can do that lol. Feeling ballzy). If the guy feels entitled to act crazy, threaten me, and goes nasty on me, I might not give him anything, since that's his more true colors. If he just gets sad and like, awhh man, I suck, or just cries. I'm much more inclined to give him. Although that's not that smart lol. But then again, I can be a dumb fuck too a lot of the time.
marius, if you admit you would give back a part of money in some cases, then you admit there is something ethically wrong with going for the steal option. You admit in some cases your conscience would be hurt and you would have to give some of it back.
If it was 100% ethically correct, then you wouldn't bother at all. In poker do you ever give back money to the people you win pots from? of course not, because in poker there is nothing wrong about it. Actually in any games where you truly does own the other player there is no reasons to share the prize with him, but in this game its different.
james9994: make note dont play against floofy, ;(
1
AndrewSong United States. Apr 23 2012 13:59. Posts 2355
On April 23 2012 12:08 Floofy wrote:
Andrew assuming your right, then why would anyone ever pick split? If there is nothing wrong with going for the steal option, then why the hell not go for it. and then, if everyone picks steal, whats the point of the show?
If everyone picked steal, the show would still be a success because it entertains the viewers. The host of the show would also be happy since he doesn't have to pay the jackpot. Reason why players are hesitant to pick steal is because the word "steal" deludes them from distinguishing game and reality.
I want to say that I wasn't being completely serious in my first post. I do believe it would've been scummy if he did pick steal and chose not to split the prize. However that's just my view since honor means a lot in my world. All in all, I think the guy in the video played the game right. He manipulated his enemy into picking the action he wanted. He was the winner and the heros have the option to be bounteous. He graciously chose to split the prize in return of honoring the "ethic code of society" and looking like a man to viewers who can't distinguish game and reality
On April 23 2012 12:59 Floofy wrote:
marius, if you admit you would give back a part of money in some cases, then you admit there is something ethically wrong with going for the steal option. You admit in some cases your conscience would be hurt and you would have to give some of it back.
If it was 100% ethically correct, then you wouldn't bother at all. In poker do you ever give back money to the people you win pots from? of course not, because in poker there is nothing wrong about it. Actually in any games where you truly does own the other player there is no reasons to share the prize with him, but in this game its different.
I also "admitted" in some cases I wouldn't, what's the point here? (I might even take extra glee and rofl inside if I see that the person I'm competing with turned out to be a total asshole).
In poker I've given money back several times lol, you're just putting words in my mouth at the top, and in the middle you're just rambling. Let's stay on focus =p
(I've payed back money to irl friends when I've cleaned them when they were semi drunk. And in HU a guy I took for 16bi, I gave him back one just for the lolz).
Maybe not said so eloquent, that if yours, or someone else's values are different, it doesn't matter as long as they follow their own moral compass. I explained briefly how I decide. If I was a more macho, extraverted kind of guy, I might have taken everything without giving a shit, or I might feel so bad that I give half and ask for forgiveness. It's not black or white.
After thinking awhile I could think of lots more scenario's in Poker as well. A russian stranger, I liked the guy, but he kept losing, after he's rebought for the 10th time, I told him he should call it a night, he just kept spewing and most of it was going to me. It was too much, I felt it was a good time to stop taking his money.
Even though you're a coldhearted bastard, and always "steal" people's money at the poker table, don't go putting your fucked up, skewed etics on to other people. You thief.
Its only in exceptionnal cases that you would give back to people in poker... and you are probably an exceptionnal person for doing it since i think the majority of us does not give money back to strangers in poker.
if i were to play that game and i thought my opponement was very likely to pick steal, i think my strategy would be to ask the other person that we both choose each other's balls. If he refuse, i tell him then im going to pick steal 100%. If he doesn't pick the ball i told him to pick, then i pick steal 100% again. This would force the other person to respect my deal.
in this scenario, 50% of the time i go home with nothing, 25% i get the whole prize, 25% i get half the prize.
This gives me about 0.375X EV of the prize money.
If instead i choose split everytime, i would need to convince the other person of picking split too at least 75% of the time to make as much money, which is not realistic....
Stop trolling. It´s insanely stupid not to pick steal. If it contradicts with your morals, fine, just give the other person half of the money afterwards then.
On April 23 2012 12:10 Mariuslol wrote:
Besides, on average people tell 40 lies the first 5 minute they talk to a stranger.
this is absolutely wrong and absurd
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
On April 23 2012 12:59 Floofy wrote:
marius, if you admit you would give back a part of money in some cases, then you admit there is something ethically wrong with going for the steal option. You admit in some cases your conscience would be hurt and you would have to give some of it back.
If it was 100% ethically correct, then you wouldn't bother at all. In poker do you ever give back money to the people you win pots from? of course not, because in poker there is nothing wrong about it. Actually in any games where you truly does own the other player there is no reasons to share the prize with him, but in this game its different.
hah, superlol of marius to say its ethically correct and say that he might feel bad in some cases
just like you would feel bad for killing someone, but wouldn't if you find out the guy is a raper or murderer or w/e, it still makes killing ethically incorrect, your judgement of which cases you feel bad or not is based on which person you wouldn't bother to do harm to
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
On April 23 2012 01:24 cariadon wrote:
What is ethical for one can at the same time be unethical for the other. There is no perfect answer for how to solve this problem. You can stop pretending to be R.Crowe in "A beautiful mind" now.
so now you are saying it is ethical for some people to do steal, and it is not ethical for some other people to steal, but yet when someone here on LP says its ethical you say SOLID POST and when someone say its unethical you call him the biggest idiot ever.
Andrewsongs posts got my praise for the ftp reference not for his choice in said game. You, Floofy, are an idiot because of what you say and how (poorly) you say it. Stop telling me what to think, I will make up my own mind. Nowhere have i stated stealing is the superior play. I'm ok with people who choose steal, i'm also ok with people who would never steal. If you (Floofy) still do not get my point you are either capaneo posting from Floofys account or just plain stupid.
On April 23 2012 01:24 cariadon wrote:
What is ethical for one can at the same time be unethical for the other. There is no perfect answer for how to solve this problem. You can stop pretending to be R.Crowe in "A beautiful mind" now.
so now you are saying it is ethical for some people to do steal, and it is not ethical for some other people to steal, but yet when someone here on LP says its ethical you say SOLID POST and when someone say its unethical you call him the biggest idiot ever.
Yes some people's conscience will not them it is wrong to steal in that game (some contestant who stole clearly didn't seem to think what they did was wrong) but that doesn't mean it is right. In real life, there are countless examples of people who did horrible things and didn't even think it was wrong... I don't think having broken moral values justify doing wrong things. Anyways, for the most part people who stole clearly went against their own moral values and knew what they did was wrong, hence the whole point of the show. if society generally considered stealing is fine on that show then the whole show would be stupid as fuck. Just like Daut said in his first post.... since daut thinks it is ethically correct to steal, he quickly thought the whole show is stupid as fuck since then everyone would go steal every times (no reasons to go for split if steal is ethically correct).
If i truly believe stealing in the tv show was perfectly fine am i wrong ? Are my moral values broken if i choose steal (it doesn't contradict my own moral values) ?
Consider this. If we were playing the game right now i would pick steal. If you pick split i get the money. If you pick steal your logic is flawed. (Justifying picking steal under any circumstances means it is a viable option.)
Let us assume you know i pick steal and you decide to pick steal aswell. What happens if i change my pick to split. See what i did there? You become the one who steals. I hope this helps you understand why there are multiple right answers to this problem. You can show everyone on tv you have high moral standards and are ethically correct. I walk away with a pile of money and have no regrets, be at peace. Game over !
It easy to say stealing is the +ev choice blablahblah behind the keyboard and having no connection to these stranger but I think some of you guys would change your mind once you start to see that these are actually real fucking people. If they told you that they needed the money for their kids cancer treatment and their life depended on this money would you still be able to steal? just something to think about.
1
qwerty67890 New Zealand. Apr 24 2012 05:27. Posts 14026
prisoners dilema 2
you have just been sentenced to go to prison and Floofy is your cellmate
On April 24 2012 02:55 aCa_ wrote:
It easy to say stealing is the +ev choice blablahblah behind the keyboard and having no connection to these stranger but I think some of you guys would change your mind once you start to see that these are actually real fucking people. If they told you that they needed the money for their kids cancer treatment and their life depended on this money would you still be able to steal? just something to think about.
not saying it would be easy, my point is that when you are disassociated with the person it is much easier to hurt them/not care like most of the people here posting here from another world away. And if the situation came about in real life their choice may change. Do you guys really think that these people that go onto these shows are all retarded as shit? I'm sure that they know the math and how choosing steal is the better choice however it may be harder to do that when the person you are about to hurt is right in front of you.
If they are hurt cause they lost in a game they are weakminded idiots( anyone would feel bad short-term but i doubt anyone would give a fuck long-term anyways ) . Obv if its an extreme case where they actually need the money badly i would still steal and donate a large % if they provide some sort of confirmation. And yes you would be astonished how stupid people are so i doubt they think about the math. Dont make the matter so dramatic. You are in a game to win money if you have trouble playing the game you shouldnt be there at all :/
On April 23 2012 12:10 Mariuslol wrote:
Besides, on average people tell 40 lies the first 5 minute they talk to a stranger.
this is absolutely wrong and absurd
It's an objective truth, if you see it differently that's just your subjective opinion of it, an utility xD
For instance "ohh, you like to read??" "Yeaah, I read a lot" <--- One lie... "What kind of stuff do you read" (Here we ship in what we think will put us in the best light).
Ahh okay cool, So what "blabla do you prefer" (Ahh I prefer, and "here we put in something a little more noble, cooler, more awesome, so that'll we'll come on better footing).
inconsistent with reason or common sense. Utterly opposed to truth or reason. Ridiculous implies that something is fit only to be laughed at, perhaps contemptuously. A ridiculous suggestion. Preposterous implies an extreme of foolishness.
I also noticed that I shortened it down to 5 minute, when I looked it up it was 15 minutes.
If 2 test subjects are put to talk, they only lie around 3-5 times in 10 minutes, but when it's random, stranger you meet at the hospital, out, date, it's A LOT MORE.
There is also a TEDTalk on the subject, and books with references that explains it. The lies can go from little white ones, to bigger one with falsehood in them.
On April 24 2012 02:55 aCa_ wrote:
It easy to say stealing is the +ev choice blablahblah behind the keyboard and having no connection to these stranger but I think some of you guys would change your mind once you start to see that these are actually real fucking people. If they told you that they needed the money for their kids cancer treatment and their life depended on this money would you still be able to steal? just something to think about.
this is a game show, not findafriend.com
"If they told you that they needed the money for their kids cancer treatment and their life depended on this money would you still be able to steal" seems like this person has more incentive to steal because they have less to lose, furthermore and more importantly, how do you know they are telling you the truth, seems like an awfully good lie to tell in a show like this
A similar argument could be made, "should I stop playing this fish heads up because he lost 50% of his roll, hes tilted and if he continues to play me he will lose his entire bankroll" If you knew that if this player lost his remaining bankroll he would not be able to pay this months rent, would you stop playing him? For me the answer is 100% hell no, this dumbass knew what he was getting into. What your suggesting is maybe we should get to know him and show him empathy. These are games, and the reason they are so fun is because they are against people and not computers. People are unpredictable and dynamic, that's where the fun comes from. The idea that anyone can screw you over at any moment is what makes this show / idea so appealing
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light not our darkness that most frightens us and as we let our own lights shine we unconsciously give other people permision to do the same
It seems that capaneo/floofy think that somehow both players are entitled already to the money or at least part of it. It's not even like poker where at least you put down your own money. As someone else said they haven't won anything yet so they can't lose anything, you aren't stealing anything FROM them, they still have to beat you to win the cash.
It doesn't matter what everyone would personally do in that situation and you can't know if the guys that won actually gave something back or not, but you can't expect them to or think that they are bad people just because they won it all fair and square. It seems most people here would donate some % if the other person really needed it, which in my eyes is very impressive and definetly not something most people would do.
Both players should be expected to get lied to by the other players, like in poker when they ask "what you had in that big pot?" and you reply "nuts" when in reality you had bullshit, is it dishonest while playing? How is that any different from this game?
TL;DR: No one is losing anything, it's a game there are winners and losers.
On April 23 2012 12:10 Mariuslol wrote:
Besides, on average people tell 40 lies the first 5 minute they talk to a stranger.
this is absolutely wrong and absurd
It's an objective truth, if you see it differently that's just your subjective opinion of it, an utility xD
For instance "ohh, you like to read??" "Yeaah, I read a lot" <--- One lie... "What kind of stuff do you read" (Here we ship in what we think will put us in the best light).
Ahh okay cool, So what "blabla do you prefer" (Ahh I prefer, and "here we put in something a little more noble, cooler, more awesome, so that'll we'll come on better footing).
And so it goes...
xD
that means 1 lie every 7.5 seconds, in average, people cant even SAY 1 THING every 7.5 seconds to a stranger for a full 5 minutes, let alone 1 lie every 7.5s ON AVERAGE.
that is ridiculous
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
some people tell 0 lies or say, 2 lies in the first 5m, so you're saying for each of those theres another one that fires 78-80 lies in 5m? 1 every 3.75 seconds? not only the have to be compulsive talkers, to say 1 thing that is passive of being qualified as a lie, they also have to be compulsive liers to have them all be lies
cant believe im arguing this
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
i know what absurd means, what you said is absurd, and even multiplying the timeframe by 3, it still is
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
On April 23 2012 12:10 Mariuslol wrote:
Besides, on average people tell 40 lies the first 5 minute they talk to a stranger.
this is absolutely wrong and absurd
It's an objective truth, if you see it differently that's just your subjective opinion of it, an utility xD
For instance "ohh, you like to read??" "Yeaah, I read a lot" <--- One lie... "What kind of stuff do you read" (Here we ship in what we think will put us in the best light).
Ahh okay cool, So what "blabla do you prefer" (Ahh I prefer, and "here we put in something a little more noble, cooler, more awesome, so that'll we'll come on better footing).
And so it goes...
xD
that means 1 lie every 7.5 seconds, in average, people cant even SAY 1 THING every 7.5 seconds to a stranger for a full 5 minutes, let alone 1 lie every 7.5s ON AVERAGE.
that is ridiculous
Scroll up and read my post lol, I already said I exagerrated and wrote 5 min instead of 15 to get a point across.
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
Most people r insecure about themselves its only natural that they would react offensive by lying to a person they've just met. When you get to know someone you ask a lot of questions some of which directly hit his ego, knowing what the other person expects and what the reality is a lie seems like the most suitable option for most so 15 lies @ 1st 5 mins doesnt really sound absurd. On avarage its probably true.It makes perfect sense and its pretty much an instinct. Its all an aftermath of retarded society beliefs and its kinda sad too
P.S. getting to know someone doesnt necessarily mean you've gone out w them somewhere, it could mean the taxi driver on the way home asking u about something or the waitress asking you something random while you choose from the menu etc.
sure, we lie a lot, we lie a lot to strangers on first few minutes
but 40 fucking lies on AVERAGE, I mean, I can see someone lying 40 times in 15m but that is the worst case scenario, not the FUCKING AVERAGE
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
some people are shy, they cant even say 10 things, let alone 40 things, in 15m, to a stranger
and if you go ahead and check how much of then are lies, even if its 70%, it shows how absurd 40l/15m is
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
On April 24 2012 18:12 Spitfiree wrote:
P.S. getting to know someone doesnt necessarily mean you've gone out w them somewhere, it could mean the taxi driver on the way home asking u about something or the waitress asking you something random while you choose from the menu etc.
just look at this, does the taxi driver asks, on AVERAGE, 40 things? and are ALL the answers lies??
if you say 40 lies to waitresses in 15m, on average, you are a psychopath
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
didnt read the whole thread but im amazed by how many people fail to see what this dilemma is really about.
Everybody with a half functional brain knows what the optimal strategy to maximize money is, but this is a problem about morality.
I would add a rule, you cannot give the money back... otherwise you can circunvent the problem with "ill steal and give half of it back".
----------------
To my answer if i feel the other person is honest i would split and feel god damn good about it, i much rather return home with an empty wallet than an empty soul..
"Oh its a gameshow" like it was somehow not real, the money is real the situation is real, its as close as the real dilemma as it gets.
Dont make the mistake thinking its like poker, its not a voluntary game of wits where the winner takes the money, this is a moral dilema and so many of you are failing as human beings i am honestly dissapointed of some of you.
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Apr 24 2012 23:02. Posts 5365
steal the money then donate it to charity for the lulz.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
By your own reasoning you should first educate every fish you play against then before you take his money.
bitte bitte bitte bitte bitte bitte
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Apr 24 2012 23:20. Posts 5365
i would feel better stealing in this game than i do playing poker. I'm sure there are people in poker who are degens and gambling their future away, which i take money from. I feel like i have as much responsibility as the degen since i have more control over his future than they have over theirs.
In this game, all the contestants seem to be people that will be fine if they don't get the money they didn't have in the first place.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
As with many many things in life, this is a standard case of co-operative game theory. The dominating strategy might start with picking steal and trying to get the other guy to go split. But pretty soon everyone will follow this strategy and an equilibrium is reached where the net payout per individual is 0.
Instead if everyone makes a global pact to work together and act both in their own interest and that of the group, and pick split 100%, then a second equilibrium is possible where the net payout per individual is way better than 0. Clearly as the payout for everyone is higher in the second case (ignoring the fact the money had to come from somewhere, for now), following the second strategy is the correct way that everyone should live life.
This can be summarised by the well known maxim "do unto others as you would have them do to you", aka the Golden Rule.
My answer to this game is that I would pick split 100% of the time, and people that don't are scumbags. Plain and simple. Analogies to poker or other games like survivor are erroneous (looks like i might have to explain why in a future post if I can be bothered, since from looking at the replies a lot of ppl just don't get it), and saying "it's just a game" is a very weak excuse indeed.
On April 24 2012 22:20 locoo wrote:
By your own reasoning you should first educate every fish you play against then before you take his money.
locoo this is so different.
Poker is a game of skill where the best player will win in the long run. If you play, you have to accept you might face better players and loose money. If you outplay another player, that player won't feel betrayed by you, he will just feel outplayed.
This tv show, if both players does the optimal solo play they will both get 0$ for sure, hence they are forced to make a pact to both deviate from optimal play so the EV is no longer 0. If you loose because the other person wasn't able to honor the pact, it doesn't mean you got outplayed, it means you got betrayed/scammed. Being betrayed/scammed doesn't mean your an idiot because anyways even if you went for steal you wouldn't have had any more money.
Anyways i think i'm totally unable to explain this to you guys, i guess Ket/Baal are much better at explaining this than i am (not only this, but for some reasons i'm pretty sure you guys give them more credit. they can say the same thing in different words and you will treat them differently).
On April 24 2012 22:20 locoo wrote:
By your own reasoning you should first educate every fish you play against then before you take his money.
locoo this is so different.
Poker is a game of skill where the best player will win in the long run. If you play, you have to accept you might face better players and loose money. If you outplay another player, that player won't feel betrayed by you, he will just feel outplayed.
This tv show, if both players does the optimal solo play they will both get 0$ for sure, hence they are forced to make a pact to both deviate from optimal play so the EV is no longer 0. If you loose because the other person wasn't able to honor the pact, it doesn't mean you got outplayed, it means you got betrayed/scammed. Being betrayed/scammed doesn't mean your an idiot because anyways even if you went for steal you wouldn't have had any more money.
Anyways i think i'm totally unable to explain this to you guys, i guess Ket/Baal are much better at explaining this than i am (not only this, but for some reasons i'm pretty sure you guys give them more credit. they can say the same thing in different words and you will treat them differently).
About poker, I agree with you when pros play each other, but what about when a fish joins, oblivious that there's actually people earning money from playing poker and thinking it's just a game of luck. He IS getting scammed, yet no one here would do anything to at least let him know that he WILL lose money if he plays.
I agree with Baal's post. The whole point that I think it is insane is what Tom and Daut are saying. You can not just act sooooooooo differently in a game show and pretend that is not the person you are.
Imagine you met a new a guy who is the nice dad to his kids a loyal husband and a great trustee with his friends. Would you trust that guy and be his new friend? probably yes.
If I told you that he is in charge of water boarding prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, would you still trust that person and treat him as your good friend? If you say yes, his job has nothing to do with his personality, you are either an idiot. Or you are lying to yourself. Those guys don't exist. He is a disaster to be happening.
So if you say "I'm a backstabbing and manipulating others in games to get to the game prize in cash but I would never do outside of games" You are either a disaster to be happening or you are just lying to yourself.
People who trust the other person and split in this game they do not do it because they don't want half of the money. They do it because that is the type of person they are in real life and are willing to share with others for greater happiness. People who steal don't have that characteristic. Which goes a loooooong way when you want to trust people.
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
I just read most of the replies in the thread. I agree 100% with 100% of floofy's posts. capaneo got some good points too. wont mention names but a few of the other replies itt make me a little sick
I like how you guys make absurd conclusions without having even one good argument.Whatever im done, guess i will have to live with being a scumbag for the rest of my life. In fact i literally didnt see even one good argument throughout the whole 8 pages, obv after having to give the hollocaust as an example makes any argument kinda weak
player I meant the 15lies @ 5mins is probably accurate
On April 24 2012 22:20 locoo wrote:
By your own reasoning you should first educate every fish you play against then before you take his money.
No, in poker we both know we are trying to outwit each other in other to win money, the other is blatant lying "ill split" and you dont.
A correct analogy would be agreeing to a flip in poker and you folding your 23o when he shoves, you are effectivly lying about an agreement for profit.
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Apr 25 2012 04:03. Posts 5365
that's a pretty good analogy baal. one thing i've noticed makes the analogy feel much more different than it is. And that is that among poker players it's accepted that people will always flip. There are not many people who back out of a flip and they would feel like a scumbag- or at least an outcast because no one agrees with their morality. in the tv show people are almost expected to backstab each other. i guess what i'm saying is that people will follow morality if it seems ok to the majority of other people, when in fact it is not.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Fuck off, so you have no problem with beating someone at the table out of their kids college money where unknown to them you have an insane edge over them but picking the higher EV choice at a fucking game show is morally repulsive?
The only play is to pick steal, if they chose to split you can give them their half after the show.
ty Baal and Ket, I was starting to think my opinion had to be wrong because it was shared by Floofy and capaneo, now I feel better
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
On April 25 2012 01:44 Spitfiree wrote:
player I meant the 15lies @ 5mins is probably accurate
his correction was 40 lies/15min, but any of those are not accurate at all
if you agree with them, its because you're thinking "yeah maybe I do lie that much sometimes to strangers" but "maybe sometimes" isnt enough to make it the average, by making it the average you mean that sometimes you lie 80/100 times in 15 minutes, to make up for the times you dont, and even if you fit this ridic amount, the average person doesnt, remember that some people barely lie (or barely talk at all) for the first minutes with strangers, so there would have to be a lot of ppl saying 1 lie every 5 seconds for a whole 15min to make up for those ppl
I dont wanna discuss this anymore, its so absurd it makes me sick, wtf
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
On April 25 2012 03:04 EvilSky wrote:
The only play is to pick steal, if they chose to split you can give them their half after the show.
choosing steal with the intention of giving half after is pretty irrational
if they pick split, you get 50% either way, if they pick steal, you get 0% by picking steal but can get 50% if you pick split and they have that same intention of giving half after
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
even if you do, you still have to say 40 things that can be lies, so you have to talk A LOT, and do that to every single stranger you meet
and even if you do all that, now you have to think that everyone else does too
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
You guys just don't understand, when you start with your opening lie, the conversation is built on that lie, so that makes your next sentence, body language, pitch of voice lying all through the next few sentences, and it keeps building up.
LOL, at being "sick" and disapointed in here. So cool when people all subtle come in with the most massive of insults, making them personal to boot. NOW I AM DISAPPOINT.
Most people in here, who were saying it'z alright to steal, were having a dialogue, sharing their opinion, their belief on the matter.
Then you have all these shitfaces come in and throw personal insults and whatnot, like that'd somehow make their belief superior lol, that shit ain't cool.
*hrmpfhh*
Ps, shouldn't call ppl shitface, don't really mean it, just a little emotional xD
another point I just thought, a conversation is made of 2 people, so if the average person lies 40 times in 15min, the average conversation (made of 2 people) contains 80 lies in 15 minutes, or, if you divide the time spent talking equally, each lie 40 times in 7.5 minutes
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
at 4:20 minutes of the video you just fucking posted, the bitch says: "strangers lie THREE times within the first 10 minutes of meeting each other"
the video you just posted
fuck you, seriously
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
^ You're a bit douchebag lol, I already confirmed 2 pages ago that I got the numbers wrong. And it was to get a point across that we lie a lot lol.
Let me go back and quote it for the 2nd time, since you're going crazy with the insults lol.
If 2 test subjects are put to talk, they only lie around 3-5 times in 10 minutes, but when it's random, stranger you meet at the hospital, out, date, it's a lot more. There is also a TEDTalk on the subject, and books with references that explains it.
I guess you'll still keep miss-quoting me, taking things out of context and continue being a noob =p
+ The same talk says on average we get lied to 10 - 200 times a day, still a huge number. And in my world where lies are a good thing, it's probably 3 times as much as a normal person, maybe. So either way, none of it deserves being flamed by a "grouchy retard" (this is just my subjective opinion, and not truth, since I get emotional when people go out of their way to be mean to me). So gogo, appologize, and I'll appologize for calling you a noob, and we can continue trying to have dialogue's instead of people wanting to feel they've "won" an argument.
On April 25 2012 04:11 player999 wrote:
even if you do, you still have to say 40 things that can be lies, so you have to talk A LOT, and do that to every single stranger you meet
and even if you do all that, now you have to think that everyone else does too
Already confirmed I got the numbers wrong 2 pages ago, ur being a dick here
On April 25 2012 04:15 player999 wrote:
another point I just thought, a conversation is made of 2 people, so if the average person lies 40 times in 15min, the average conversation (made of 2 people) contains 80 lies in 15 minutes, or, if you divide the time spent talking equally, each lie 40 times in 7.5 minutes
Already confirmed 2 pages ago I exagerrated, you're being a penis here as well
On April 25 2012 04:23 player999 wrote:
at 4:20 minutes of the video you just fucking posted, the bitch says: "strangers lie THREE times within the first 10 minutes of meeting each other"
You guys just don't understand, when you start with your opening lie, the conversation is built on that lie, so that makes your next sentence, body language, pitch of voice lying all through the next few sentences, and it keeps building up.
LOL, at being "sick" and disapointed in here. So cool when people all subtle come in with the most massive of insults, making them personal to boot. NOW I AM DISAPPOINT.
Most people in here, who were saying it'z alright to steal, were having a dialogue, sharing their opinion, their belief on the matter.
Then you have all these shitfaces come in and throw personal insults and whatnot, like that'd somehow make their belief superior lol, that shit ain't cool.
*hrmpfhh*
Ps, shouldn't call ppl shitface, don't really mean it, just a little emotional xD
i didnt mention who that comment was directed at, and it def wasnt people trying to have a dialogue. which by the way doesn't sound like you right here. 'a little emotional'? youre basically foaming at the mouth mate. u mad bro?
I didn't have you in mind when writing that lol, I think.
Maybe I was a little mad, but only at the Brasilian guy. Not even mad at Floofy, since I respect people who take the time to write their opinion, and read mine (even though we disagree and have different beliefs). But people who just want to stand up, pull down their pants, sprout some diarrhea and let that be their talking is a bit meh.
Ps, Kinda annoying reading your comment when brushing my teeth. The excess foam made me feel a little stupid lol.
Also cool you call me bro, I always blend really well with chinese people. When I play live poker I always start dialogue with the chinese or japanese people first xD
On April 25 2012 06:17 Nazgul wrote:
Marius/player please stop.
/Okay
I did feel I went a little overboard. But felt I wasn't making any headway being nice, so took the gloves off for 3 posts, but then I put them right back on again afterwards. Won't do it again, promise!
On April 25 2012 03:04 EvilSky wrote:
Fuck off, so you have no problem with beating someone at the table out of their kids college money where unknown to them you have an insane edge over them but picking the higher EV choice at a fucking game show is morally repulsive?
The only play is to pick steal, if they chose to split you can give them their half after the show.
Yup poker and this gameshow (simulation of prisoners dilemma) are fundamentally different. In poker there is no possible way for everyone to be a winner or everyone to be a loser. It's a zero sum competition where someone has to lose for you to gain and vice versa. There is no "better outcome for all" possible by working cooperatively with all other players. It's understood that it's a competition of this nature by all participants that choose they want to play, and that everyone will be playing for themselves.
In this gameshow the highest EV for the population as a whole is for everyone to cooperate and pick split, but everyone has to do it. As soon as some people start stealing they are making a choice that if everyone made, no one would have anything and everyone would be worse off. They're not doing their part in the cooperation that makes the game better for everyone to try and maximise personal gain. They're promoting a shift to the first equilibrium where the population will pick steal all trying to maximise personal EV only, and everyone will be worse off. It should be natural for the group to ostracise these people, as the group as a whole is literally better off without them.
As Baal said, picking steal is much more analogous to scamming and cheating than playing poker by the rules. A scammer/cheater is maximising his personal gain at the expense of the other player, but if everyone tries to scam and cheat that'd be a terrible environment to live in and you wouldn't be able to do any business with anyone, and everyone is worse off. If no-one tries to scam and cheat then everyone is better off than in the prior scenario. As the second scenario is more desirable, most people uphold the value that you should not scam/cheat while rightly ostracising those that do.
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 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.
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
Reasoning behind actions plays the biggest role in here. As lebowski stated the ultimate moral compass doesnt exist and it probably never will. What if the girl stole the money so she could donate them to organisation researching cure for cancer? Would that make it immoral ? Except each one of you subconsciously believes her reasoning is firmly egoistical coz its mainstream. Truth is there is no right action here. You dont believe me ? Look at the past 8 pages. It's not that people who would pick "steal" are scumbags as Ket stated nor is the other half stupid for not optimizing their edge. The topic makes good discussion, however making extreme conslusions just cause of the choice on the topic is ridiculous.
And the example with the old lady is super incorrect - by stealing her purse you are violating her human rights. Obviously optimizing the edge in everything going @ such extreme actions would make the world chaotic, thats why rules were made in the first place. When i think about it i cant really see a good common example with the game. Its an isolated case and one of the interesting parts in it is if the person would stick with the normal everyday decisions he would make in his life or change that only cause its allowed by the game. This however doesnt make stealing immoral at least not in all cases. There are so many variables for each case its impossible to tell which is right or wrong by simply observing the game w/o knowing each person in it. One of them will 100% use the money better than the other and deserves them more thats why i dislike split.
On April 25 2012 04:15 player999 wrote:
another point I just thought, a conversation is made of 2 people, so if the average person lies 40 times in 15min, the average conversation (made of 2 people) contains 80 lies in 15 minutes, or, if you divide the time spent talking equally, each lie 40 times in 7.5 minutes
Already confirmed 2 pages ago I exagerrated, you're being a penis here as well
you confirmed you had the "40 in 5min" wrong and changed to "40 in 15min", which was still wrong and absurd, as you confirmed with the video, so why are you mad at me for calling you out?
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
On April 25 2012 05:07 Mariuslol wrote:
So either way, none of it deserves being flamed by a "grouchy retard" (this is just my subjective opinion, and not truth, since I get emotional when people go out of their way to be mean to me).
nope, I dont go out of my way to be mean, I go out of my way to prove ppl who are obviously wrong, that they are wrong, and I did so, dont get butthurt
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
On April 25 2012 08:53 Spitfiree wrote:
Reasoning behind actions plays the biggest role in here. As lebowski stated the ultimate moral compass doesnt exist and it probably never will. What if the girl stole the money so she could donate them to organisation researching cure for cancer? Would that make it immoral ? Except each one of you subconsciously believes her reasoning is firmly egoistical coz its mainstream. Truth is there is no right action here. You dont believe me ? Look at the past 8 pages. It's not that people who would pick "steal" are scumbags as Ket stated nor is the other half stupid for not optimizing their edge. The topic makes good discussion, however making extreme conslusions just cause of the choice on the topic is ridiculous.
And the example with the old lady is super incorrect - by stealing her purse you are violating her human rights. Obviously optimizing the edge in everything going @ such extreme actions would make the world chaotic, thats why rules were made in the first place. When i think about it i cant really see a good common example with the game. Its an isolated case and one of the interesting parts in it is if the person would stick with the normal everyday decisions he would make in his life or change that only cause its allowed by the game. This however doesnt make stealing immoral at least not in all cases. There are so many variables for each case its impossible to tell which is right or wrong by simply observing the game w/o knowing each person in it. One of them will 100% use the money better than the other and deserves them more thats why i dislike split.
Anyhow its been a good discussion
tru that I do just assume stealers are scumbagging it up and being selfish, and id guess 99% of the time this is true. im not saying stealing an old ladys purse is comparable to picking the steal ball, just using it as an example for why you need people following rules and working as a community, but you already understand that cause you just said it yourself.
As for who uses the money better than the other, how can anyone have the authority to decide who's going to need the money more or use the money better? You may not consider 50/50 split to be the ideal outcome but is there a better one if you had to choose one size fits all?
I agree it's interesting the difference between everyday decisions and what's allowed by the game, and how that changes what you can consider ethical. This is just my take but someone who seems a good person in every day life but shamelessly steals for more personal gain in the game makes me think they're only upholding the traditionally accepted rules of society because they can't conveniently get away with not doing so in every day life and not because they have their own moral compass and try to do what's right cause it's the right thing to do. Now that this game comes along where they're allowed to make the choice they want to make, their true self is revealed. I mean yeah it's possible one person wants to steal to donate to charity or something but do you really think that's common?
On April 25 2012 03:04 EvilSky wrote:
Fuck off, so you have no problem with beating someone at the table out of their kids college money where unknown to them you have an insane edge over them but picking the higher EV choice at a fucking game show is morally repulsive?
The only play is to pick steal, if they chose to split you can give them their half after the show.
Yup poker and this gameshow (simulation of prisoners dilemma) are fundamentally different. In poker there is no possible way for everyone to be a winner or everyone to be a loser. It's a zero sum competition where someone has to lose for you to gain and vice versa. There is no "better outcome for all" possible by working cooperatively with all other players. It's understood that it's a competition of this nature by all participants that choose they want to play, and that everyone will be playing for themselves.
In this gameshow the highest EV for the population as a whole is for everyone to cooperate and pick split, but everyone has to do it. As soon as some people start stealing they are making a choice that if everyone made, no one would have anything and everyone would be worse off. They're not doing their part in the cooperation that makes the game better for everyone to try and maximise personal gain. They're promoting a shift to the first equilibrium where the population will pick steal all trying to maximise personal EV only, and everyone will be worse off. It should be natural for the group to ostracise these people, as the group as a whole is literally better off without them.
As Baal said, picking steal is much more analogous to scamming and cheating than playing poker by the rules. A scammer/cheater is maximising his personal gain at the expense of the other player, but if everyone tries to scam and cheat that'd be a terrible environment to live in and you wouldn't be able to do any business with anyone, and everyone is worse off. If no-one tries to scam and cheat then everyone is better off than in the prior scenario. As the second scenario is more desirable, most people uphold the value that you should not scam/cheat while rightly ostracising those that do.
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".
They made it seem like a simulation of real life and then turned it into a game. It is not real life, it's a game. That game has its own rules. If picking steal was considered the same as mugging an old lady, then this show would not exist, and steal as an option would not exist. Steal is a legitimate option in the game, and the whole idea of the show is people talking to each other without knowing what the other person is going to do. They took a real life situation people feel emotional about and created a game around it. That game is not real life by any means. It is a changed variant of the real life variation, but it remains a game with its own rules and settings which are completely different from real life. They created a setting in which neither side knows what to think. They created a setting where you are allowed to pick steal or split. It is entirely within the moral setting of the game to pick steal.
You watch survivor right? You should know how many participants confuse survivor with real life in terms of promises, and consequently, lying. Despite what those people think, you enter survivor with its own set of rules. It may appear to look like real life because you are interacting for weeks with people, but it's not. It remains a game with its own rules and settings.
And again, I'm not saying I would pick steal at all. I don't understand how people can say you must pick steal, either. That said there is really nothing morally wrong with doing so.
We pretty much have the same opinion except from 2 diff perspectives. Its a really really deep topic and my head hurts when i have to go through the variables. I do disagree that a person reveals their true self that way - what they do is they reveal their ego. Its a condition every man suffers from so its kinda hypocritical for anyone to judge them that way.
Btw it seems that there is pre-action before they have to choose split or steal? What do they do before they are given the options to choose ? If they are given time to get to know each other that does change things a lot
Nazgul we've been over this. Its indeed a game and within the morality of the game split is absolutely the best, however if we choose to ignore our everyday beliefs just cause we r in a game for personal gain where they shouldnt matter doesnt that make us weak and pathetic ?
Lal this is fun. Very solid arguments for both options could be given
Its probably a mathematical question where if is 50% of the time EV for humanity is optimized and 50% of the time its lost is better than a split everytime. However there would be cases where both persons are dumbfucks and would spend the money on booze and hookers
On April 25 2012 08:53 Spitfiree wrote:
What if the girl stole the money so she could donate them to organisation researching cure for cancer? Would that make it immoral ?
by this logic mugging old ladies is morally correct too, since for all you know the mugger donated it to cancer research
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
On April 24 2012 22:20 locoo wrote:
By your own reasoning you should first educate every fish you play against then before you take his money.
No, in poker we both know we are trying to outwit each other in other to win money, the other is blatant lying "ill split" and you dont.
A correct analogy would be agreeing to a flip in poker and you folding your 23o when he shoves, you are effectivly lying about an agreement for profit.
What about a fish that doesn't know poker is a game of skill?
And I agree that is of course scummy ONLY IF you wouldn't expect to be lied at this game, but I would expect EVERY player at this game to know they are gonna to be lied to, that's the whole point of this game, if there were no lies this game would be pointless and wouldn't exist.
they might not know that there is skill, but they know its a game where other ppl will try to take their money
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
Ket you are missing a BIG factor in this whole debate when you say: "In this gameshow the highest EV for the population as a whole is for everyone to cooperate and pick split, but everyone has to do it."
This is wrong, because as you realize if everyone did that this gameshow wouldn't exist, and no one would profit. As it is right now at least some people are profiting and who knows if the losers are also profiting a bit.
And to people who took it personally, relax, Ket and Baal aren't calling you scumbags, are saying that the people who picked steal and don't share the bounty after acknowledging the other player was being honest are, something which most of us agree with.
On April 25 2012 08:53 Spitfiree wrote:
What if the girl stole the money so she could donate them to organisation researching cure for cancer? Would that make it immoral ?
by this logic mugging old ladies is morally correct too, since for all you know the mugger donated it to cancer research
?! no the logic behind this has nothing in common
that flip agreement seems to be spot on @ first glance, but its not as you take poker as a profession and folding the 23o would be unprofessional for you aka your opinion is biased by your principles... dont think they take the game as a profession there
Last edit: 25/04/2012 11:35
1
NMcNasty United States. Apr 25 2012 11:46. Posts 2041
On April 25 2012 09:56 Spitfiree wrote:
Btw it seems that there is pre-action before they have to choose split or steal? What do they do before they are given the options to choose ?
The pre-action is a fundamental part of the game. Regardless of whether you pick steal or split, I think everyone would agree that its correct strategy to attempt to convince your opponent to choose split. The question seems to be whether creating a pact with your opponent in order to up the chance they split and then breaking it is considered immoral. If there was no talking at all, I don't think anyone would have a moral problem with someone picking steal.
At some level, I feel breaking certain pacts has to be considered immoral whether its in a game setting or not. Examples:
"I swear by the life of my children I will pick split"
"I swear to god and all the is holy I will pick split" (for a religious person)
"I enact... *insert sacred tribal blood oath here*"
On April 25 2012 09:56 Spitfiree wrote:
Btw it seems that there is pre-action before they have to choose split or steal? What do they do before they are given the options to choose ?
The pre-action is a fundamental part of the game. Regardless of whether you pick steal or split, I think everyone would agree that its correct strategy to attempt to convince your opponent to choose split. The question seems to be whether creating a pact with your opponent in order to up the chance they split and then breaking it is considered immoral. If there was no talking at all, I don't think anyone would have a moral problem with someone picking steal.
At some level, I feel breaking certain pacts has to be considered immoral whether its in a game setting or not. Examples:
"I swear by the life of my children I will pick split"
"I swear to god and all the is holy I will pick split" (for a religious person)
"I enact... *insert sacred tribal blood oath here*"
That's funny cause that too happens in survivor as a lie. Or, what if someone promises you their vote, and you ask do you swear by the life of your children, are they supposed to answer no? They may as well not play the game at all then.
No i didnt mean the talking part. The girl on the right in the last video said " we've been through so much together " which means there s something happening even before the talk, that they somehow know each other before that ... what do they go through in the game before they talk about splitting or stealing
1
NMcNasty United States. Apr 25 2012 11:50. Posts 2041
On April 25 2012 10:17 locoo wrote:
[QUOTE]On April 25 2012 02:02 Baalim wrote:
[QUOTE]On April 24 2012 22:20 locoo wrote:
if there were no lies this game would be pointless and wouldn't exist.
but neither correct individual strategy or one's personal ethics should depend on whether the game will continue to exist or not.
1
NMcNasty United States. Apr 25 2012 11:54. Posts 2041
On April 25 2012 09:56 Spitfiree wrote:
Btw it seems that there is pre-action before they have to choose split or steal? What do they do before they are given the options to choose ?
The pre-action is a fundamental part of the game. Regardless of whether you pick steal or split, I think everyone would agree that its correct strategy to attempt to convince your opponent to choose split. The question seems to be whether creating a pact with your opponent in order to up the chance they split and then breaking it is considered immoral. If there was no talking at all, I don't think anyone would have a moral problem with someone picking steal.
At some level, I feel breaking certain pacts has to be considered immoral whether its in a game setting or not. Examples:
"I swear by the life of my children I will pick split"
"I swear to god and all the is holy I will pick split" (for a religious person)
"I enact... *insert sacred tribal blood oath here*"
That's funny cause that too happens in survivor as a lie.
That's surprising, and perhaps even somewhat immoral by the producers to even let it happen.
On April 25 2012 04:15 player999 wrote:
another point I just thought, a conversation is made of 2 people, so if the average person lies 40 times in 15min, the average conversation (made of 2 people) contains 80 lies in 15 minutes, or, if you divide the time spent talking equally, each lie 40 times in 7.5 minutes
Already confirmed 2 pages ago I exagerrated, you're being a penis here as well
you confirmed you had the "40 in 5min" wrong and changed to "40 in 15min", which was still wrong and absurd, as you confirmed with the video, so why are you mad at me for calling you out?
I have a really good reply for thiz, but I'll keep my promise to NAzgul
On April 25 2012 10:17 locoo wrote:
[QUOTE]On April 25 2012 02:02 Baalim wrote:
[QUOTE]On April 24 2012 22:20 locoo wrote:
if there were no lies this game would be pointless and wouldn't exist.
but neither correct individual strategy or one's personal ethics should depend on whether the game will continue to exist or not.
I agree, and this is what we are discussing, if the game is build around lying being OK for it to exist, then lying in the game is perfectly fine. There are tons of games in which lying and deceiving is encouraged within the game or there would be no game at all. Baal and Ket are talking about the best possible outcome for everyone, it isn't in everyones best interest for this game to dissapear, it gives away free money.
Speaking of which the analogy about this game and mugging an old lady is absolutely terrible, it was already established that no one is actually LOSING anything, whereas the old lady is absolutely losing her purse.
The analogy about flipping is also bad, as people aren't expecting you to lie about flipping but expect you to lie in game. I've been lied about flipping and felt the guy was a scum, and been lied in game and also felt bad if I wasn't expecting that particular guy to lie to me, but I guess whatever it's just part of the game.
On April 25 2012 11:15 iRiis wrote:
Why do they always check both balls?
Just in case the show fucks up and gives them two splitballs or two stealballs.
...but I see you point, obv the first ball you look at should be the ball you want to pick around 50% of the time so I don´t know why everyone looks at both balls tbh.
All war is based on deception - Sun Tzu
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Apr 25 2012 12:45. Posts 5365
hmm i just think that poker is more immoral than this game show. It's completely uncontroversial that online poker can be somewhat life ruining for some people because of their addictions, which are uncontrolable and unforseeable to addicts that get into poker. no one willingly chooses that life.
This game show is not life ruining at all no matter the outcome. my logic in what is good/bad is based off how +/-lifeEV something done to another is. Convince me otherwise?
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
1
NMcNasty United States. Apr 25 2012 12:51. Posts 2041
I don't think the game is making a comment on whether lying is OK or not, and that ambiguity is part of the appeal. It lets the contestants and audience decide. If it were "just a game" it wouldn't stir up emotions from the audience as much, and would lose some of its entertainment value.
Yea that's exactly it, for some of us it's implied that lying should be ok in game because otherwise the game wouldn't exist, ignoring the fact that some people will lie anyway even if it is morally wrong.
It's interesting because in poker you don't necesarily HAVE to lie, it's your own choice and you can always just reply with "sorry can't say", but it's generally accepted ok to just plain lie. To tell you the truth at first I was naive and just told the truth everytime in poker or just said "i don't want to say", until I realized people lied all the time and it was generally accepted as an ok behaviour on the table.
Floofy says X
LP who disagrees: LOLOLOL YOU IDIOT I HOPE FOR YOUR SAKE YOUR TROLLING THAT IS SO STUPID LLOLLLL
LP that agrees: (i think hes right but i won't talk about it... shhhh)
Ket says X (maybe in a more thought out way, but still same idea)
LP who disagrees: "actually reads the posts and reply semi-logical things, almost change their mind realizing they are so wrong"
LP that agrees: well yea i been wanting to say this! so brillant! how did nobody else think of this before!
I don't have any problem respecting people I disagree with, I think ket is quite awesome, although I think his views on this topic is way off, and I disagree with locoo, nazgul and them. Not that it matters who believes what. I'd still fight for what I think, without the affirmations of people with a lot of influence recognition. Since I decided to put my foot in the water here lol.
On April 25 2012 15:00 Floofy wrote:
I think i should probably change my nickname.
Floofy says X
LP who disagrees: LOLOLOL YOU IDIOT I HOPE FOR YOUR SAKE YOUR TROLLING THAT IS SO STUPID LLOLLLL
LP that agrees: (i think hes right but i won't talk about it... shhhh)
Ket says X (maybe in a more thought out way, but still same idea)
LP who disagrees: "actually reads the posts and reply semi-logical things, almost change their mind realizing they are so wrong"
LP that agrees: well yea i been wanting to say this! so brillant! how did nobody else think of this before!
-_-
its because this matter is very subjective, there are no facts to confirm one side or another, so opinions is all we have, and some people have more credibility than others, and it doesn't help when the one on your side is capaneo
Browsing through your hand histories makes me wonder that you might not be aware these games are possibly play money. Have you ever tried to cash out? - Kapol
On April 25 2012 03:04 EvilSky wrote:
Fuck off, so you have no problem with beating someone at the table out of their kids college money where unknown to them you have an insane edge over them but picking the higher EV choice at a fucking game show is morally repulsive?
The only play is to pick steal, if they chose to split you can give them their half after the show.
read before posting, once again its not the same, you are both players openly trying to take each others money, there is no mutal agreement to share the money, poker is not a good analogy, making a deal to flip and not flipping is the correct analogy (Lying on a deal for profit)
You guys just don't understand, when you start with your opening lie, the conversation is built on that lie, so that makes your next sentence, body language, pitch of voice lying all through the next few sentences, and it keeps building up.
LOL, at being "sick" and disapointed in here. So cool when people all subtle come in with the most massive of insults, making them personal to boot. NOW I AM DISAPPOINT.
Most people in here, who were saying it'z alright to steal, were having a dialogue, sharing their opinion, their belief on the matter.
Then you have all these shitfaces come in and throw personal insults and whatnot, like that'd somehow make their belief superior lol, that shit ain't cool.
*hrmpfhh*
Ps, shouldn't call ppl shitface, don't really mean it, just a little emotional xD
It is you morno, you guys are advocating theft and its disguting that you think its only a matter of opinion, you simply have no integrity.
Good to know Ke tand I are shitfaces for telling the truth
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
On April 25 2012 03:04 EvilSky wrote:
Fuck off, so you have no problem with beating someone at the table out of their kids college money where unknown to them you have an insane edge over them but picking the higher EV choice at a fucking game show is morally repulsive?
The only play is to pick steal, if they chose to split you can give them their half after the show.
Yup poker and this gameshow (simulation of prisoners dilemma) are fundamentally different. In poker there is no possible way for everyone to be a winner or everyone to be a loser. It's a zero sum competition where someone has to lose for you to gain and vice versa. There is no "better outcome for all" possible by working cooperatively with all other players. It's understood that it's a competition of this nature by all participants that choose they want to play, and that everyone will be playing for themselves.
In this gameshow the highest EV for the population as a whole is for everyone to cooperate and pick split, but everyone has to do it. As soon as some people start stealing they are making a choice that if everyone made, no one would have anything and everyone would be worse off. They're not doing their part in the cooperation that makes the game better for everyone to try and maximise personal gain. They're promoting a shift to the first equilibrium where the population will pick steal all trying to maximise personal EV only, and everyone will be worse off. It should be natural for the group to ostracise these people, as the group as a whole is literally better off without them.
As Baal said, picking steal is much more analogous to scamming and cheating than playing poker by the rules. A scammer/cheater is maximising his personal gain at the expense of the other player, but if everyone tries to scam and cheat that'd be a terrible environment to live in and you wouldn't be able to do any business with anyone, and everyone is worse off. If no-one tries to scam and cheat then everyone is better off than in the prior scenario. As the second scenario is more desirable, most people uphold the value that you should not scam/cheat while rightly ostracising those that do.
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".
They made it seem like a simulation of real life and then turned it into a game. It is not real life, it's a game. That game has its own rules. If picking steal was considered the same as mugging an old lady, then this show would not exist, and steal as an option would not exist. Steal is a legitimate option in the game, and the whole idea of the show is people talking to each other without knowing what the other person is going to do. They took a real life situation people feel emotional about and created a game around it. That game is not real life by any means. It is a changed variant of the real life variation, but it remains a game with its own rules and settings which are completely different from real life. They created a setting in which neither side knows what to think. They created a setting where you are allowed to pick steal or split. It is entirely within the moral setting of the game to pick steal.
You watch survivor right? You should know how many participants confuse survivor with real life in terms of promises, and consequently, lying. Despite what those people think, you enter survivor with its own set of rules. It may appear to look like real life because you are interacting for weeks with people, but it's not. It remains a game with its own rules and settings.
And again, I'm not saying I would pick steal at all. I don't understand how people can say you must pick steal, either. That said there is really nothing morally wrong with doing so.
Elaborate how all this is not real, if you decide to steal you do not take the others persons money causing him great pain?, how in the hell is it not real only because there are cameras around it and stealing has no legal repercusions?
Tell me in wich way this is different than agreeing to a flip and then folding your 23o.
If there was a gameshow where they gave you 1 million dollars if you pressed a button killing somebody would it be ok to press it because according to you, game shows are not real.
Actually this game is more real than all of you would like to believe, its a micro-cosmos of life, you either chose greed and selfishness or you choose trusth and justice, obviously the 2nd choice far more difficult and with no pragmatic advantages... except having integrity.
Ket brought to my attention "The Liar Game", some silly manga about games of deceit, they play different games and the craftiest player will walk away with all the money leaving everybody else broke, there is this "naive" good hearted girl who sucks at the game and is constantly being saved by this hustler however all along the series she keeps saying "If everybody cooperates we can all walk out of this game without debt", obviously all of them laugh at her yet the "supervisors" of the game realize that somebody finally figured out the game.
Well to all of you picking steal, you havent figured out the purpose of the game or for that matter life.
all of you believe that its about rewarding the best liar while its all about conquering that desire within you to succumb to your greed, its a game that test whether or not can remain honest and an upright individual.
all of you believe that its about rewarding the best liar while its all about conquering that desire within you to succumb to your greed, its a game that test whether or not can remain honest and an upright individual.
There is lack in peoples thought process when it comes to morality and ethics. This game show existence and others of it's nature exist for purpose of showcasing all kind of immoral/unethical behaviors.
Life is a game also, and you can be EV+ if you lie also. The Law allows citizens to do all kinds of unethical actions; which doesn't change that the action is still unethical. Same applies to this game.
Word is Bond.
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
On April 25 2012 03:04 EvilSky wrote:
Fuck off, so you have no problem with beating someone at the table out of their kids college money where unknown to them you have an insane edge over them but picking the higher EV choice at a fucking game show is morally repulsive?
The only play is to pick steal, if they chose to split you can give them their half after the show.
Yup poker and this gameshow (simulation of prisoners dilemma) are fundamentally different. In poker there is no possible way for everyone to be a winner or everyone to be a loser. It's a zero sum competition where someone has to lose for you to gain and vice versa. There is no "better outcome for all" possible by working cooperatively with all other players. It's understood that it's a competition of this nature by all participants that choose they want to play, and that everyone will be playing for themselves.
In this gameshow the highest EV for the population as a whole is for everyone to cooperate and pick split, but everyone has to do it. As soon as some people start stealing they are making a choice that if everyone made, no one would have anything and everyone would be worse off. They're not doing their part in the cooperation that makes the game better for everyone to try and maximise personal gain. They're promoting a shift to the first equilibrium where the population will pick steal all trying to maximise personal EV only, and everyone will be worse off. It should be natural for the group to ostracise these people, as the group as a whole is literally better off without them.
As Baal said, picking steal is much more analogous to scamming and cheating than playing poker by the rules. A scammer/cheater is maximising his personal gain at the expense of the other player, but if everyone tries to scam and cheat that'd be a terrible environment to live in and you wouldn't be able to do any business with anyone, and everyone is worse off. If no-one tries to scam and cheat then everyone is better off than in the prior scenario. As the second scenario is more desirable, most people uphold the value that you should not scam/cheat while rightly ostracising those that do.
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".
They made it seem like a simulation of real life and then turned it into a game. It is not real life, it's a game. That game has its own rules. If picking steal was considered the same as mugging an old lady, then this show would not exist, and steal as an option would not exist. Steal is a legitimate option in the game, and the whole idea of the show is people talking to each other without knowing what the other person is going to do. They took a real life situation people feel emotional about and created a game around it. That game is not real life by any means. It is a changed variant of the real life variation, but it remains a game with its own rules and settings which are completely different from real life. They created a setting in which neither side knows what to think. They created a setting where you are allowed to pick steal or split. It is entirely within the moral setting of the game to pick steal.
You watch survivor right? You should know how many participants confuse survivor with real life in terms of promises, and consequently, lying. Despite what those people think, you enter survivor with its own set of rules. It may appear to look like real life because you are interacting for weeks with people, but it's not. It remains a game with its own rules and settings.
And again, I'm not saying I would pick steal at all. I don't understand how people can say you must pick steal, either. That said there is really nothing morally wrong with doing so.
Elaborate how all this is not real, if you decide to steal you do not take the others persons money causing him great pain?, how in the hell is it not real only because there are cameras around it and stealing has no legal repercusions?
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.
Tell me in wich way this is different than agreeing to a flip and then folding your 23o.
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.
If there was a gameshow where they gave you 1 million dollars if you pressed a button killing somebody would it be ok to press it because according to you, game shows are not real.
As I said lying is a commonly accepted part of many strategy games including poker. This doesn't mean that you go and lie about things that have nothing to do with the game. However if you bluff and you say "I got it" you are consciously lying and everyone understands there isn't a moral issue going on. For me, lying in games where everyone understands it is part of strategy, is completely acceptable. It's commonly accepted by everyone who enters the game, too.
Actually this game is more real than all of you would like to believe, its a micro-cosmos of life, you either chose greed and selfishness or you choose trusth and justice, obviously the 2nd choice far more difficult and with no pragmatic advantages... except having integrity.
This just sounds like some random US senator with a hate for poker.
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.
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
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
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.
NewbSaibot: 18 TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Because FUCK YOU, Daut
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.
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.
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.
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.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
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?
In US everyone is happy as long as all the prices are rising. Unless its crude oil - Marc Faber
1
AndrewSong United States. May 02 2012 02:14. Posts 2355
holy shit wall of text. im sure there' some quality post to be read.. but i shall pass this one
- 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 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
1
palak United States. May 02 2012 08:23. Posts 4601
I hope loco has a philosophy blog or something, would be interesting to read.
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
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
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
1
NMcNasty United States. May 02 2012 16:54. Posts 2041
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 =)
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
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.
Contact Users: 855 Active, 2 Logged in - Time: 12:00
United States. Apr 20 2012 03:03. Posts 4080
. They also like to be really vocal about it, semi-touchy one might say, hinting at (uuu, I have such high moral, blabla, that'z what u fucking do, I'm a stupid mtr fkr). Ok, they don't really say that last part, but I'm pretty sure that's how they are portrayed by the silence around them when they make these stupid speeches. (The speeches in themselves aren't necessarily stupid, I'm just painting a subjective picture).
,
,
,
,