I hate poker. - Page 2

On December 28 2006 11:19 bigbb33 wrote: Work a fucking $8 hour (canadian) job doing hard labour for 10 hour shifts with a dumbfuck boss who has authority over you and you'll stop the 'woe is me' crying pretty quick. Poker is an opportunity to earn money without having to kiss someone's ass or be limited (or helped) by anyone else. And welcome to capitalism: everything costs someone something else. When you buy bread from the bakery, the baker is taking people's money. The people are getting bread in return. When people go to a movie, they pay money in return to see a movie. When someone plays poker and loses, they pay money in return for the opportunity to win money and the experience of playing poker. There is no free lunch in a capitalistic system, and poker is the most capitalistic. You live or die by your own abilities, not locked into an 'equal to everyone else' communist system where one person's abilities and effort are either unrewarded or unpunished in relation to their effectiveness. I have no more guilt taking someone's money than I would if I ran a bakery or a movie theatre.

i agree, the idea is to make profit off a product, the only thing i used to question was what product it was that we as poker players offered; entertainment value.

On December 28 2006 11:21 kantoiki wrote: Show nested quote + On December 28 2006 11:19 bigbb33 wrote: Work a fucking $8 hour (canadian) job doing hard labour for 10 hour shifts with a dumbfuck boss who has authority over you and you'll stop the 'woe is me' crying pretty quick. Poker is an opportunity to earn money without having to kiss someone's ass or be limited (or helped) by anyone else. And welcome to capitalism: everything costs someone something else. When you buy bread from the bakery, the baker is taking people's money. The people are getting bread in return. When people go to a movie, they pay money in return to see a movie. When someone plays poker and loses, they pay money in return for the opportunity to win money and the experience of playing poker. There is no free lunch in a capitalistic system, and poker is the most capitalistic. You live or die by your own abilities, not locked into an 'equal to everyone else' communist system where one person's abilities and effort are either unrewarded or unpunished in relation to their effectiveness. I have no more guilt taking someone's money than I would if I ran a bakery or a movie theatre. i agree, the idea is to make profit off a product, the only thing i used to question was what product it was that we as poker players offered; entertainment value.

I used to tell myself that but I dont think I provide people with entertainment. They arent on to have fun, they are sick.

I remember when I took all the money from a guy, he was playing with all his money (like 600$) at nl600, he was telling me about how much he needed the money, and I told him that its really stupid to play with all your money at the same table, but he didn't understand why. And after a while of playing I pick up a flushdraw on the flop and hit my flush on the river, and I pushed all in, like 300$ into 600$ or something like that, and hes like "I have the straight, do you have a flush" and I dont say anything, but then he says, please tell me, and im like, no I dont have the flush call me, and the stupid moron called me and lossed all his money tt.

i was unaware that eri had opened a second account

On December 28 2006 11:30 PoorUser wrote: i was unaware that eri had opened a second account

Na I'm old timer starcraft.

On December 28 2006 11:26 Maynard! wrote: Show nested quote + On December 28 2006 11:21 kantoiki wrote:   On December 28 2006 11:19 bigbb33 wrote: Work a fucking $8 hour (canadian) job doing hard labour for 10 hour shifts with a dumbfuck boss who has authority over you and you'll stop the 'woe is me' crying pretty quick. Poker is an opportunity to earn money without having to kiss someone's ass or be limited (or helped) by anyone else. And welcome to capitalism: everything costs someone something else. When you buy bread from the bakery, the baker is taking people's money. The people are getting bread in return. When people go to a movie, they pay money in return to see a movie. When someone plays poker and loses, they pay money in return for the opportunity to win money and the experience of playing poker. There is no free lunch in a capitalistic system, and poker is the most capitalistic. You live or die by your own abilities, not locked into an 'equal to everyone else' communist system where one person's abilities and effort are either unrewarded or unpunished in relation to their effectiveness. I have no more guilt taking someone's money than I would if I ran a bakery or a movie theatre. i agree, the idea is to make profit off a product, the only thing i used to question was what product it was that we as poker players offered; entertainment value. I used to tell myself that but I dont think I provide people with entertainment. They arent on to have fun, they are sick.

They turn their computer on, open the program and start to "play". To me this indicates that they chose to play, and in playing like everyone else they also risk losing but they are happy to take this risk because the enjoyment of winning is entertaining for them. Add to that their liking of the game, or wanting to play a few hands because they just watched a donkament on tv i think its a fair call to say that they are being provided with a service that they would otherwise not have if we weren't playing.

On December 28 2006 11:35 kantoiki wrote: Show nested quote + On December 28 2006 11:26 Maynard! wrote:   On December 28 2006 11:21 kantoiki wrote:   On December 28 2006 11:19 bigbb33 wrote: Work a fucking $8 hour (canadian) job doing hard labour for 10 hour shifts with a dumbfuck boss who has authority over you and you'll stop the 'woe is me' crying pretty quick. Poker is an opportunity to earn money without having to kiss someone's ass or be limited (or helped) by anyone else. And welcome to capitalism: everything costs someone something else. When you buy bread from the bakery, the baker is taking people's money. The people are getting bread in return. When people go to a movie, they pay money in return to see a movie. When someone plays poker and loses, they pay money in return for the opportunity to win money and the experience of playing poker. There is no free lunch in a capitalistic system, and poker is the most capitalistic. You live or die by your own abilities, not locked into an 'equal to everyone else' communist system where one person's abilities and effort are either unrewarded or unpunished in relation to their effectiveness. I have no more guilt taking someone's money than I would if I ran a bakery or a movie theatre. i agree, the idea is to make profit off a product, the only thing i used to question was what product it was that we as poker players offered; entertainment value. I used to tell myself that but I dont think I provide people with entertainment. They arent on to have fun, they are sick. They turn their computer on, open the program and start to "play". To me this indicates that they chose to play, and in playing like everyone else they also risk losing but they are happy to take this risk because the enjoyment of winning is entertaining for them. Add to that their liking of the game, or wanting to play a few hands because they just watched a donkament on tv i think its a fair call to say that they are being provided with a service that they would otherwise not have if we weren't playing.

Yes but what compells them to put a months rent on a table is a little more than the desire for entertainment.

On December 28 2006 11:26 Maynard! wrote: Show nested quote + On December 28 2006 11:21 kantoiki wrote:   On December 28 2006 11:19 bigbb33 wrote: Work a fucking $8 hour (canadian) job doing hard labour for 10 hour shifts with a dumbfuck boss who has authority over you and you'll stop the 'woe is me' crying pretty quick. Poker is an opportunity to earn money without having to kiss someone's ass or be limited (or helped) by anyone else. And welcome to capitalism: everything costs someone something else. When you buy bread from the bakery, the baker is taking people's money. The people are getting bread in return. When people go to a movie, they pay money in return to see a movie. When someone plays poker and loses, they pay money in return for the opportunity to win money and the experience of playing poker. There is no free lunch in a capitalistic system, and poker is the most capitalistic. You live or die by your own abilities, not locked into an 'equal to everyone else' communist system where one person's abilities and effort are either unrewarded or unpunished in relation to their effectiveness. I have no more guilt taking someone's money than I would if I ran a bakery or a movie theatre. i agree, the idea is to make profit off a product, the only thing i used to question was what product it was that we as poker players offered; entertainment value. I used to tell myself that but I dont think I provide people with entertainment. They arent on to have fun, they are sick.

Obviously there are some people who are addicted and such and need the money but can't stop themselves from playing - no I wouldn't want to take money from those people, but I think they are a tiny tiny minority in all the players. Obviously when I think of 'average fish' I think of some guy with a 60k job who can afford to toss a buyin or two, when you think of fish you think of some guy who can't pay his rent and is psychologically addicted to gambling.

I'm guessing you had either a personal experience with or read about a degenerate gambler/addict etc, and like most people you are now superimposing that example on the entire body to conclude statistics - ie 'my brother' is an addict/lost his house/committed suicide/etc so now I see all people who gamble as addicts (hypothetical example). Am I right about this? Did you read or deal with personally a moving example and now view most fish as having some sort of addiction and losing more than they can afford to lose?

I think the statistics are that a large majority of poker players (most of whom are losers of course) are actually well off and recreational players who can afford to lose - there was a study a year ago with these conclusions, I'll try to google it.

On December 28 2006 11:43 bigbb33 wrote: Show nested quote + On December 28 2006 11:26 Maynard! wrote:   On December 28 2006 11:21 kantoiki wrote:   On December 28 2006 11:19 bigbb33 wrote: Work a fucking $8 hour (canadian) job doing hard labour for 10 hour shifts with a dumbfuck boss who has authority over you and you'll stop the 'woe is me' crying pretty quick. Poker is an opportunity to earn money without having to kiss someone's ass or be limited (or helped) by anyone else. And welcome to capitalism: everything costs someone something else. When you buy bread from the bakery, the baker is taking people's money. The people are getting bread in return. When people go to a movie, they pay money in return to see a movie. When someone plays poker and loses, they pay money in return for the opportunity to win money and the experience of playing poker. There is no free lunch in a capitalistic system, and poker is the most capitalistic. You live or die by your own abilities, not locked into an 'equal to everyone else' communist system where one person's abilities and effort are either unrewarded or unpunished in relation to their effectiveness. I have no more guilt taking someone's money than I would if I ran a bakery or a movie theatre. i agree, the idea is to make profit off a product, the only thing i used to question was what product it was that we as poker players offered; entertainment value. I used to tell myself that but I dont think I provide people with entertainment. They arent on to have fun, they are sick. Obviously there are some people who are addicted and such and need the money but can't stop themselves from playing - no I wouldn't want to take money from those people, but I think they are a tiny tiny minority in all the players. Obviously when I think of 'average fish' I think of some guy with a 60k job who can afford to toss a buyin or two, when you think of fish you think of some guy who can't pay his rent and is psychologically addicted to gambling. I'm guessing you had either a personal experience with or read about a degenerate gambler/addict etc, and like most people you are now superimposing that example on the entire body to conclude statistics - ie 'my brother' is an addict/lost his house/committed suicide/etc so now I see all people who gamble as addicts (hypothetical example). Am I right about this? Did you read or deal with personally a moving example and now view most fish as having some sort of addiction and losing more than they can afford to lose? I think the statistics are that a large majority of poker players (most of whom are losers of course) are actually well off and recreational players who can afford to lose - there was a study a year ago with these conclusions, I'll try to google it.

Yes I guess I do base my views on personal anecdotal experience. I knew someone who would sooner go gamble than go to the doctor. I also know several people who make 60k+ a year at their job and only really play .01/.02 on pokerstars. And I do remember that study you refer to.

What compells them is basically the same thing the makes us play for hours, to win? They put that money on the table regardless where that table is thinking they have a chance to win. True we have an edge on them but ask any gambler in a casino (by gambler i dont mean the ones who are there once every few months or more, the ones who are there days a week) and they'll tell you they either believe they can win or that its so much fun to win, possibly both.
I assume that nearly everyone who plays poker either plays for "fun" (even though other people can't see how the possibility of losing a months rent can be fun its the potentials WINS they can get from playing) or because they believe they are better than other players.

edit: screwed up the quote thing, and also yeah i remember the statistical research but i'd be interested to see it again

On December 28 2006 11:32 Maynard! wrote: Show nested quote + On December 28 2006 11:30 PoorUser wrote: i was unaware that eri had opened a second account Na I'm old timer starcraft.

just a guess but i dont think he meant this literally, more a witty remark that references you share the same (highly questionable) moral objections to playing poker professionally as someone called eri who expressed them here at some point.

to add something else, the commodity we sell by gambling for profit is not "entertainment" but the chance for others to win our money.

when they play for the chance to win our money, are they not entertained when they do so or even in the process of trying?

On December 28 2006 10:55 Maynard! wrote: Show nested quote + On December 28 2006 10:51 SKoT wrote: A fool and his money are soon departed. Id rather he gave it to me than some other retard. Don't make this into some sort of philosophical thing. If he didnt dump it to you, it'd be somewhere else anyway. Might as well jump on the carcass before any other vulture?

um... YES
do you think theres something wrong with doing this?

On December 28 2006 11:49 Ket wrote: Show nested quote + On December 28 2006 11:32 Maynard! wrote:   On December 28 2006 11:30 PoorUser wrote: i was unaware that eri had opened a second account Na I'm old timer starcraft. just a guess but i dont think he meant this literally, more a witty remark that references you share the same (highly questionable) moral objections to playing poker professionally as someone called eri who expressed them here at some point. to add something else, the commodity we sell by gambling for profit is not "entertainment" but the chance for others to win our money.

Eri sounds like a smart guy who probably gets laid constantly.

On December 28 2006 11:52 kantoiki wrote: when they play for the chance to win our money, are they not entertained when they do so or even in the process of trying?

if theyre desperate problem gamblers, the type who maynard makes out to be the true victims of our evil ways, then i doubt it. anyway whether or not they happen to be entertained by playing is irrelevant, all im saying is the commodity we "sell" to worse players is the chance to win our money.

as an analogy, the commodity sold by a prostitute is sex, it is not entertainment, although the "buyer" might experience entertainment as a result of doing business with the seller. whether this is or isnt the case is not the concern of the seller. the buyer is solely responsible for his own decisions and all subsequent consequences, not the seller

Tillerman quote:

Poker is about as close to soulless as you can get. I am cursed with being good at it!

On December 28 2006 12:00 pinbaLL wrote: Tillerman quote: Show nested quote + Poker is about as close to soulless as you can get. I am cursed with being good at it!

Very insightful and true.

On December 28 2006 11:59 Ket wrote: Show nested quote + On December 28 2006 11:52 kantoiki wrote: when they play for the chance to win our money, are they not entertained when they do so or even in the process of trying? if theyre desperate problem gamblers, the type who maynard makes out to be the true victims of our evil ways, then i doubt it. anyway whether or not they happen to be entertained by playing is irrelevant, all im saying is the commodity we "sell" to worse players is the chance to win our money. as an analogy, the commodity sold by a prostitute is sex, it is not entertainment, although the "buyer" might experience entertainment as a result of doing business with the seller. whether this is or isnt the case is not the concern of the seller. the buyer is solely responsible for his own decisions and all subsequent consequences, not the seller

sooo we're much like a lottery, where we sell the tickets?

On December 28 2006 11:17 Fraser wrote: In life there are a million and one ways to win and lose, financially, socially etc... Poker is just one of them, although admittedly the wins and losses in poker are more explicitly defined than most. Some wins and losses we cant control (disease, earthquakes, whatever), poker however is a voluntary competition. People have the freedom to make their own decisions, and thats all you can give them. In the end, if a person is self-destructive theres no way you can protect them from themself without taking away their freedom, and at the same time, their humanity. You can help a single person, or maybe a few people, but you cannot protect all people from themself. If there was no poker, no gambling at all, people would still lose, still die, still make bad choices. If we're going to stop competition in poker where do you suggest we draw the line?

i hate to quote myself, but i wanna hear ur answer.

I dont actually understand how in purchasing something like a lottery ticket, or sex from a prostitute for that matter isn't the purchase of a form of entertainment?