Play poker --> Bad person? [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

BluffTHIS!

08-03-2005, 10:44 AM

How is this different from any other line of business that seeks to dominate and eliminate it's rivals to make money? It's not. And I don't think the average business person is constantly trying to deceive and hustle people he meets outside his normal business. As long as poker player is not cheating or hustling gambling degenerates to play he should in fact be constantly thinking about his game to improve it. When you go home to your family or are with friends your poker mindset should only make you more analytical in dealing with life's situations, not turn you into someone who constantly seeks to take advantage of others financially or emotionally in non-poker situations.

DCWGaming

08-03-2005, 10:52 AM

It will harden you some, but not make you a bad person.

I mean...you have to learn to disregard and not care about those people who have lost their ass and leave the table knowing they cant pay their rent that month. If you cared about all of the degenerates you'd feel like crap all the time. So in that sense, we're less compassionate.

But as for becoming a bad person...uh not really.

mosdef

08-03-2005, 12:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How is this different from any other line of business that seeks to dominate and eliminate it's rivals to make money? It's not. And I don't think the average business person is constantly trying to deceive and hustle people he meets outside his normal business.

[/ QUOTE ]

i disagree strongly with this statement.

for one thing, you are suggesting that the entire business world is a cut-throat, poker-like atmosphere where all wins come at the expense of the loss of someone else. This is not true. SOME elements of business are like that, i'm sure. But the majority of business is people working together to make the economy grow. it has little or nothing to do with grabbing piles of money from your "opponents".

the difference between the poker world and the real world is the Great Myth of Poker, which basically states that a person's value is defined by winnings/hr. that's why we make up catchy labels like "fish" and "donkey" for the losers. you see, we're great and they'll all worthless, right? that's how it goes, isn't it? a person makes a bad play - that person is a moron or an idiot. you go on a heater and pick up some winnings - you're a bonafide genius, part of the special few "smart guys", the winning players.

so, to the OPs original question, poker doesn't necessarily make you a bad person. but, if you spend hours upon hours playing the game, and you eventually buy into the Myth, then you do run the risk of having your perception of reality badly distorted. don't believe the hype.

Uglyowl

08-03-2005, 12:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is this different from any other line of business that seeks to dominate and eliminate it's rivals to make money? It's not. And I don't think the average business person is constantly trying to deceive and hustle people he meets outside his normal business.

[/ QUOTE ]

i disagree strongly with this statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just go down to Wall Street or talk to a mortgage broker. Although appearing to want to help people, those people are the most ruthless around. At least poker players don't have to fake that they are there to help.

mosdef

08-03-2005, 12:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is this different from any other line of business that seeks to dominate and eliminate it's rivals to make money? It's not. And I don't think the average business person is constantly trying to deceive and hustle people he meets outside his normal business.

[/ QUOTE ]

i disagree strongly with this statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just go down to Wall Street or talk to a mortgage broker. Although appearing to want to help people, those people are the most ruthless around. At least poker players don't have to fake that they are there to help.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not saying that all business people are saints. i work on Bay St, i know the environment. i just think it's a cop-out for poker players to say "sure, i prey on fish. but that's what the villians in big-business do too so there!"

GrunchCan

08-03-2005, 12:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But the majority of business is people working together to make the economy grow.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such nobility in buisness. Everyone who has a job is doing so becasue it is in thier own best interests. Not becasue it is in the best interests of anyone else. I haven't been in the workforce forever, but I have had full-time jobs that I took seriously for 20 years. Never in this time have I ever met a coworker, boss or subordinate who was working "to make the economy grow." Make thier own economy grow, sure. But not in a larger sense.

People do what they need to do in order to pursue thier own interests. They may rationalize things by saying its for the good of everyone, or even by saying its for the good of thier family and "family comes first." But they are still trying to leverage thier own power to yield an advantage for themselves.

For instance, why do people who live in urban areas drive SUVs? One popular reason is becasue they feel it's safer for thier families in the case that they are in an accident. But they either don't realize or don't care that what they think is good for thier family is bad for everyone else. And I'm not talking about the environment. If an SUV and a compact car are in a collision, the person in the compact car is in far greater danger than the person in the SUV becasue they were in an accident with an SUV. If it were compact car versus compact car, things would be more even. But the SUV driver who has selected the SUV becasue it makes his family safer has done so knowing that it puts the other guy at greater risk.

The same is true in buisness. People do what they need to do to survive and thrive. If that means eliminating competition, that's buisness. It happens every day. If you need an example that you can see, just look to MicroSoft.

mosdef

08-03-2005, 12:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the majority of business is people working together to make the economy grow.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such nobility in buisness. Everyone who has a job is doing so becasue it is in thier own best interests. Not becasue it is in the best interests of anyone else. I haven't been in the workforce forever, but I have had full-time jobs that I took seriously for 20 years. Never in this time have I ever met a coworker, boss or subordinate who was working "to make the economy grow." Make thier own economy grow, sure. But not in a larger sense.

People do what they need to do in order to pursue thier own interests. They may rationalize things by saying its for the good of everyone, or even by saying its for the good of thier family and "family comes first." But they are still trying to leverage thier own power to yield an advantage for themselves.

For instance, why do people who live in urban areas drive SUVs? One popular reason is becasue they feel it's safer for thier families in the case that they are in an accident. But they either don't realize or don't care that what they think is good for thier family is bad for everyone else. And I'm not talking about the environment. If an SUV and a compact car are in a collision, the person in the compact car is in far greater danger than the person in the SUV becasue they were in an accident with an SUV. If it were compact car versus compact car, things would be more even. But the SUV driver who has selected the SUV becasue it makes his family safer has done so knowing that it puts the other guy at greater risk.

The same is true in buisness. People do what they need to do to survive and thrive. If that means eliminating competition, that's buisness. It happens every day. If you need an example that you can see, just look to MicroSoft.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree. i think i may have miscommunicated my point.

i didn't mean to say that all business people head off to work in the morning thinking about how to make the economy better for everyone. we all go to work thinking about what we need to do to collect our paychecks and have some fun at the same time if possible. however, i think that EFFECTIVELY what most people end up doing is working, usually in a team, to complete a project that makes everyone involved happy, and this is what makes capitalism work, i.e. economies grow, there is an ever-growing range of wealth and all participants take a slice.

my point (one of my points) that i was trying to get across is that in poker, you head out, pick a table, there's a fixed pool of money and you do everything you can to get the biggest possible chunk of that pool at the expense of everyone else. in business, there is a pool that grows if eveyone is working hard, and there is an exchange of product among the players where BOTH players can be happy because they are each getting something that they value more than what they had before. not true in poker.

GrunchCan

08-03-2005, 01:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
my point (one of my points) that i was trying to get across is that in poker, you head out, pick a table, there's a fixed pool of money and you do everything you can to get the biggest possible chunk of that pool at the expense of everyone else. in business, there is a pool that grows if eveyone is working hard, and there is an exchange of product among the players where BOTH players can be happy because they are each getting something that they value more than what they had before. not true in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple things.

First, the purpose of a (not for non-profit) buisness is to maximize gains. This is true of every buisness that is for-profit. From car dealerships to software companies to restaurants to hospitals. The function is to maximize gains. One of the basic ways of doing this is to minimize costs. You can accomplish this by reducing staff, reducing the quality of the product you produce, etc. This isn't growing an economy -- it's shrinking an economy. Therefore, a buisness that is running efficiently does not necesarrily lead to a grown economy.

Next. Ask yourself, if buisness are inherently good for the economy, then why are there homeless people? These people don't seem to get the benefit of the grown eceonomy. And don't tell me it's thier own fault. I personally know a couple of homeless people who are hard-working and well-intentioned, but unskilled and unemployed. I can say with certianty that some people are homeless becasue we live in a capitalist society. There's a top and there's a bottom. That's just the way it is.

08-03-2005, 01:46 PM

To spin this discussion back to poker:
The most fascinating thing about the poker table is that you are sitting with both competitors and customers. You are competing with the solid players to get the customers' dollars into your bank account. It is not necessary to remove your competitors to collect from the customers, although doing so would make it easier. In poker, there are two major categories of customers: those that are willing to pay $ for entertainment, and those who are getting screwed by the assumption that they are getting something in return for their money. In the business world, corporations are only able to collect money from customers. Both poker and business offer the rare opportunity to earn from the mistakes of your competitors. In poker, money can be instantly taken from your competitors / opponents, whereas in business, your competitors' mistakes will results in more money earned from your customers (also a possibility at the poker table).

As in a capitalist society, there are consistent losers. Homeless people, or broke players, can result from either bad decisions or terrible misfortunes.

mosdef

08-03-2005, 01:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my point (one of my points) that i was trying to get across is that in poker, you head out, pick a table, there's a fixed pool of money and you do everything you can to get the biggest possible chunk of that pool at the expense of everyone else. in business, there is a pool that grows if eveyone is working hard, and there is an exchange of product among the players where BOTH players can be happy because they are each getting something that they value more than what they had before. not true in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple things.

First, the purpose of a (not for non-profit) buisness is to maximize gains. This is true of every buisness that is for-profit. From car dealerships to software companies to restaurants to hospitals. The function is to maximize gains. One of the basic ways of doing this is to minimize costs. You can accomplish this by reducing staff, reducing the quality of the product you produce, etc. This isn't growing an economy -- it's shrinking an economy. Therefore, a buisness that is running efficiently does not necesarrily lead to a grown economy.

Next. Ask yourself, if buisness are inherently good for the economy, then why are there homeless people? These people don't seem to get the benefit of the grown eceonomy. And don't tell me it's thier own fault. I personally know a couple of homeless people who are hard-working and well-intentioned, but unskilled and unemployed. I can say with certianty that some people are homeless becasue we live in a capitalist society. There's a top and there's a bottom. That's just the way it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

again, i agree with your points.

believe me, i don't think that the business world is some utopia of human acheivement that is the solution to all our woes. i'm canadian, for tommy douglas's sake! i mention these BROAD statements about the way business works to differentiate it from poker. it IS different. business doesn't ALWAYS split the world into winners and losers. In business, you can succeed without taking away from someone else. In business, there is a lot less bitter, condescending attitudes like there are in poker towards the fish. IMO.

mosdef

08-03-2005, 01:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
To spin this discussion back to poker:
The most fascinating thing about the poker table is that you are sitting with both competitors and customers. You are competing with the solid players to get the customers' dollars into your bank account. It is not necessary to remove your competitors to collect from the customers, although doing so would make it easier. In poker, there are two major categories of customers: those that are willing to pay $ for entertainment, and those who are getting screwed by the assumption that they are getting something in return for their money. In the business world, corporations are only able to collect money from customers. Both poker and business offer the rare opportunity to earn from the mistakes of your competitors. In poker, money can be instantly taken from your competitors / opponents, whereas in business, your competitors' mistakes will results in more money earned from your customers (also a possibility at the poker table).

As in a capitalist society, there are consistent losers. Homeless people, or broke players, can result from either bad decisions or terrible misfortunes.

[/ QUOTE ]

it is true that in poker, some people will trade in their money for playing time, even though at face value it seems like a bad deal. kind of like when someone buys a coke for $1, it seems like an insane transaction since coca-cola probably only spent a tiny fraction of that amount to make the cola. however, in poker the predominant attitude is that "that's guys a moron, what a fish. only a donkey would do that. i'm such a genius for not doing that". but we don't really criticize consumers for trading in "excess" cash for products, do we? interesting.

GrunchCan

08-03-2005, 02:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In business, there is a lot less bitter, condescending attitudes like there are in poker towards the fish. IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, but isn't this a totally different subject?

[ QUOTE ]
business doesn't ALWAYS split the world into winners and losers

[/ QUOTE ]

If you choose to look at it this way -- and I do believe it's a choice, niether valid nor invalid -- then you can look at poker in the same way, can't you? Poker is a negative-sum game. We're all just paying the rake. Alternatively, just becasue you win at poker doesn't mean someone else can't too. I dunno. I just don't think that this observation has any bearing on the morality of poker itself.

[ QUOTE ]
for tommy douglas's sake!

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't get that, but I am amused by it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

mosdef

08-03-2005, 02:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In business, there is a lot less bitter, condescending attitudes like there are in poker towards the fish. IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, but isn't this a totally different subject?

[ QUOTE ]
business doesn't ALWAYS split the world into winners and losers

[/ QUOTE ]

If you choose to look at it this way -- and I do believe it's a choice, niether valid nor invalid -- then you can look at poker in the same way, can't you? Poker is a negative-sum game. We're all just paying the rake. Alternatively, just becasue you win at poker doesn't mean someone else can't too. I dunno. I just don't think that this observation has any bearing on the morality of poker itself.

[ QUOTE ]
for tommy douglas's sake!

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't get that, but I am amused by it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

okay, let's do this one more time. this is probably the longest exchange i've ever had with someone that i didn't disagree with.

1. the attitude vs. fish thing was part of one of my earlier posts, actually. one of my contentions is that this baseless arrogance and superiority peddling is one of the things that a) is more pronounced in poker and b) is one of the potential character pitfalls of the poker player (going back to OPs question).

2. i don't think you can choose to view poker as a game with no winners and losers. when you win, someone else is losing. that's guaranteed. when you win, someone else could win, sure. but SOMEONE has to lose. EVERY poker game has winner and losers (or, potentially all losers if no one beats the rake). in business, it is possible to have no losers, depending on how you define losers. sure, there will always be people that make more money that others, but it's possible, actually fairly common, in business for everyone in a transaction come out ahead. not so in poker.

3. tommy douglas was a canadian politician who did a lot of good in his time. look him up in answers.com some time.

4. incidentally, i neither believe that poker is immoral or that business is always moral. i just steadfastly object to the notion, put forth by some, that poker may predatory in nature but big business is predatory too so we are therefore entitled to prey on the weak poker player. it plays up to the image of the big bad big business villain.

08-03-2005, 02:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
1. the attitude vs. fish thing was part of one of my earlier posts, actually. one of my contentions is that this baseless arrogance and superiority peddling is one of the things that a) is more pronounced in poker and b) is one of the potential character pitfalls of the poker player (going back to OPs question).

[/ QUOTE ]

I originally wanted to respond to that post but the ensuing debate became far more fascinating. I do notice the tendency for many of my poker-playing amigos to lump everyone besides themselves into the category of "fish". I think it makes the game more enjoyable when they think that they are better than their opponents and that the money is bound to come to them. I also notice that these particular individuals are arrogant in other parts of their lives, and some others experience problems with self-esteem. I typically fall into the latter category. But I think we would all (as poker players) do a little better to assume everyone is better than us until proven otherwise. If you humble yourself, you are more likely to think rationally than ridiculously.

[ QUOTE ]
2. i don't think you can choose to view poker as a game with no winners and losers. when you win, someone else is losing. that's guaranteed. when you win, someone else could win, sure. but SOMEONE has to lose. EVERY poker game has winner and losers (or, potentially all losers if no one beats the rake). in business, it is possible to have no losers, depending on how you define losers. sure, there will always be people that make more money that others, but it's possible, actually fairly common, in business for everyone in a transaction come out ahead. not so in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are considering money as the only measure of winning and losing, then both poker and business are made up strictly of winners and losers (with the house aka the government being the only consistent winner). However, in both poker and business, winners can arise in ways other than money. When people trade in dollars for entertainment, education, company, or self-improvement, it requires the loss of money and the gain of something else in return. Losing money does not always mean losing in general, unless money is the only measure.

mosdef

08-03-2005, 03:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you are considering money as the only measure of winning and losing, then both poker and business are made up strictly of winners and losers (with the house aka the government being the only consistent winner).

[/ QUOTE ]

i disagree, but it may only be a matter of semantics. in business/economics, all sides in a transaction can come out ahead, even in a financial sense. this is because, over the long term, capitalism "works" in the sense that the economy grows. i know that just because capitalism works in general doens't mean that everyone in a free economy is better off. i know that. but the "prize pool" in a free economy is growing and everyone has a shot at the benefits. some businesses make more than others, so that can be viewed as a winner/loser breakdown. but it isn't a necessity that wins are generated by other losses, such as it is in poker.

i acknowledge that in reality there are losers in our capitalist markets. some people lose. i only mean to point out the difference between a poker player accumulating wealth, who MUST do so at the expense of others, and a person participating in the economy, who can accumulate wealth only by taking a share of the overall growing wealth available. again, i am not saying that the business world is perfect. But the argument "business is just as predatory as poker and since business doesn't corrupt people, poker doesn't either" is a baseless suggestion that playing poker isn't bad for your social health.

revots33

08-03-2005, 04:15 PM

No, I don't think playing poker makes you a bad person. Poker is a competition where the score is kept with money. Wanting to crush the other players at your table is no different than Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, or Lance Armstrong wanting to win every time they compete.

Mr. Curious

08-03-2005, 04:29 PM

Konsum,

You are not a bad person.

Mayhap

08-03-2005, 04:37 PM

It is a game that involves deception.
What more needs to be said?

Awesemo

08-03-2005, 04:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone think that playing a lot of poker might cause a bit of a caracter change. From the constant thinking about how to lure an opponent, how to take his/her money and over and onver trying to put ppl to though decissions?

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. The essence of being a good poker player is making good decisions. In poker our object of the game is to make the most money. In social interactions, the object is completely different. That's why I think that this theory is majorly flawed.

skaboomizzy

08-03-2005, 05:09 PM

I'd be interested in reading some quotes from Men The Master or John Juanda on how they balance poker with Buddhism. My limited experience with Buddhism would seem to indicate that these are two fairly contradictory things. Anyone know of anyplace to read up on this, or have any thoughts themselves?

imported_bingobazza

08-03-2005, 05:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]

A couple things.

First, the purpose of a (not for non-profit) buisness is to maximize gains. This is true of every buisness that is for-profit. From car dealerships to software companies to restaurants to hospitals. The function is to maximize gains. One of the basic ways of doing this is to minimize costs. You can accomplish this by reducing staff, reducing the quality of the product you produce, etc. This isn't growing an economy -- it's shrinking an economy. Therefore, a buisness that is running efficiently does not necesarrily lead to a grown economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh?

If country A and country B each have 100 units of resources at their disposal, and A inefficiently uses 50 units each to produce X and Y goods, while B only uses 30 units to produce X and Y goods, then country B can grow faster than country A, as it has more surplus resources to use to enhance future growth, possible making Z to use and sell to country A, and will, on average, grow faster, enhancing living standards and GDP, all other things being equal.

The drive for efficiency comes about as production resources are limited. Therefore the most efficient grows fastest, creating more wealth and jobs.

Bingo

Poldi

08-03-2005, 05:43 PM

not if you have a stable personality

chrisg

08-03-2005, 06:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone think that playing a lot of poker might cause a bit of a caracter change.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since starting to play poker I have developed the rather nasty habit of killing kittens and puppies for fun.

[ QUOTE ]
From the constant thinking about how to lure an opponent, how to take his/her money and over and onver trying to put ppl to though decissions?

[/ QUOTE ]
I work for an advertising agency, so the damage is already done here.

ThinkQuick

08-03-2005, 06:47 PM

Aren't people going to start listing good things poker has done for them?

My B&M play is for sure mind sharpening.
I know that I am more observant than before, I see a lot more of every picture and I see it in a more calculating way. And the social aspect is good too, trying to read and understand what people are doing has definitely helped me demystify other power grabs and relationships in my life.
Anyone else feel like this?

wackjob

08-04-2005, 01:18 AM

Playing low limit(3/6 & 4/8) B&M poker which I am at best a break-even player has made me some great contacts. As well, I have learned to read people really well which applies to everything inter-personal decision you make in your life.

Am I an evil guy because I take advantage of idiots who risk their money player poker on the internet? No. I have no secret advantage, no hidden Ace. The forums & books I've read are available to anyone. However, I don't have a win at all costs attitude, the same as in my business life outside of poker. I think when you develop this type of attitude is when you really get in trouble.

SinCityGuy

08-04-2005, 02:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone think that playing a lot of poker might cause a bit of a caracter change. From the constant thinking about how to lure an opponent, how to take his/her money and over and onver trying to put ppl to though decissions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good people are found in almost all endeavors, including poker players. Many are involved in public service and charitable activities. It's entirely possible to be a tenacious and fair competitor at the table and a good citizen away from the table.

08-04-2005, 03:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]

If you are considering money as the only measure of winning and losing, then both poker and business are made up strictly of winners and losers (with the house aka the government being the only consistent winner).

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your statement on a number of levels.
In poker, I would say that money is the only measure of winning and losing. It is the core of the game. Sure a few player might gamble just for the entertainment but still, the way to differ a winner from a looser in poker is by money and that’s actually not exactly the case in business. Even more, a win in poker is always someone else’s loss, and that’s not the case in business. To add one more point, in business you also learn to cooperate with other players, to work together. In poker, I think that’s considered cheating.
I could also make a couple of remarks on your comparison between the government and the house but that would probably only take us into a never ending political discussion.

08-04-2005, 03:56 AM

Just thought it was about time that someone said that you have made some good points mosdef.

08-04-2005, 03:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Konsum,

You are not a bad person.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, I feel so much better now! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

08-04-2005, 04:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. The essence of being a good poker player is making good decisions. In poker our object of the game is to make the most money. In social interactions, the object is completely different. That's why I think that this theory is majorly flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

In poker the way to success is to take advantage of other people, in social life is not the way be but you often have that option.

08-04-2005, 04:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
not if you have a stable personality

[/ QUOTE ]

Even stable personalities change from habit and experience..

08-04-2005, 04:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Am I an evil guy because I take advantage of idiots who risk their money player poker on the internet? No. I have no secret advantage, no hidden Ace. The forums & books I've read are available to anyone. However, I don't have a win at all costs attitude, the same as in my business life outside of poker. I think when you develop this type of attitude is when you really get in trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

First I just want to state that I don’t think you are an evil guy. But when you “take advantage” of “idiots” that certainly does not sound very kind. Secondly, how do you play poker online without a win at all costs attitude to the game? Do you sometimes lay down a good hand because the opponent has already lost so much money? Need to be encouraged or said he was going broke?

08-04-2005, 04:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Good people are found in almost all endeavors, including poker players. Many are involved in public service and charitable activities. It's entirely possible to be a tenacious and fair competitor at the table and a good citizen away from the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Off course you are right but I didnt state that poker players are bad, however, maby playing a lot of poker can change your caracter in a bad way?

wackjob

08-04-2005, 04:27 AM

There is a difference between a ruthless poker strategy that aims to take all the other players chips/money & the "win at all costs" attitude. Yes I play to win every time(online at least) and I take no hostages, and I give no freebies. However, I feel like the win at all costs type is someone who would collude, cheat in any way possible, take unfair advantages, etc. Maybe its hard to explain in writing, but to me there is a huge difference.

This applies also to B&M poker in a greater way. You can be out to crush your opponent, take his whole stack and still buy him a beer when hes broke. You can also take his whole stack, make fun of his not_so_great plays, then taunt him as he leaves the table.

jjacky

08-04-2005, 05:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]

2. i don't think you can choose to view poker as a game with no winners and losers. when you win, someone else is losing. that's guaranteed. when you win, someone else could win, sure. but SOMEONE has to lose. EVERY poker game has winner and losers (or, potentially all losers if no one beats the rake). in business, it is possible to have no losers, depending on how you define losers. sure, there will always be people that make more money that others, but it's possible, actually fairly common, in business for everyone in a transaction come out ahead. not so in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't get your point. poker is entertainment and many people pay for it. that means playing poker produces a good like a cinema, theater etc. if someone visits a show, he does basically the same as a loser who plays poker: he pays for his entertainment. in a strictly monetarian view, economy is a sero sum game too (excluding the activity of the central bank). someone produces a good and someone else pays to get it.

08-04-2005, 06:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]

poker is entertainment and many people pay for it. that means playing poker produces a good like a cinema, theater etc. if someone visits a show, he does basically the same as a loser who plays poker: he pays for his entertainment. in a strictly monetarian view, economy is a sero sum game too (excluding the activity of the central bank). someone produces a good and someone else pays to get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could off course be wrong but I find that the thought about people who like to play and loose money for fun a bit to spread throu this forum. Ritch people in livegames, yes maby. But do you honestly belive that there is more than a never so small number, that actually sit online on low limit tables (where I guess most of us play) because they think it's a fun way to spend money?

revots33

08-04-2005, 10:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In poker the way to success is to take advantage of other people

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is necessarily true. Success in poker comes from making more correct decisions than your opponents. You are not necessarily taking advantage of anyone. I'm not saying it doesn't ever happen - but the point of the game is to minimize mistakes and make correct decisions. That's more important than the predatory aspects of the game. I worry more about improving my play than finding newbies or degenerate gamblers to prey on. In a way, I find it almost like playing chess against a computer - I'm just trying to play my best each round, and I don't give much thought to the emotions of those at the table with me. That's not to say I am an uncaring person - I like to think I am. It's just that when playing a game my only goal is to play my best. I cannot control the hundreds of reasons that may have led a bad player to sit down at my table. I can only control my own decisions on each hand.

When I win I don't feel like I took advantage of anyone. And when I have a losing session, even against an obviously superior opponent, I don't feel like I was taken advantage of. I just got outplayed.

mosdef

08-04-2005, 10:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
When I win I don't feel like I took advantage of anyone. And when I have a losing session, even against an obviously superior opponent, I don't feel like I was taken advantage of. I just got outplayed.

[/ QUOTE ]

what about the times you lose to an obvioulsy "inferior" player? many, many people on these boards follow up those sessions with violent emotional outbursts.

"I CAN'T BELIEVE THESE FISH!! WHAT A MORON!!!! UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!"

I still contend that the greatest potential social pitfall in poker is the culture of superiority among the long-term winners. the attitude of "deserving" to win because your opponent is a "moron/fish/donkey" can have serious effects on your normal life. if you go through life with a feeling or entitlement, you are doomed to unhappiness and bitterness forever. every success has no meaning - you deserved to be successful. every failure is devastating - you didn't deserve to fail! life is unfair!

revots33

08-04-2005, 10:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
if you go through life with a feeling or entitlement, you are doomed to unhappiness and bitterness forever. every success has no meaning - you deserved to be successful. every failure is devastating - you didn't deserve to fail! life is unfair!

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, but the feeling of entitlement you speak about is hardly unique to poker players. Lots of people go through life thinking the world owes them a living - and they've never picked up a deck of cards in their life.

Most good players realize that poker is a long-term game and that the best player doesn't always win in a given session. The ones who berate their opponents like you describe are probably either not very good players, or else they have a feeling of entitlement that existed long before they took up poker.

08-04-2005, 10:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you are considering money as the only measure of winning and losing, then both poker and business are made up strictly of winners and losers (with the house aka the government being the only consistent winner).

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your statement on a number of levels.
In poker, I would say that money is the only measure of winning and losing. It is the core of the game. Sure a few player might gamble just for the entertainment but still, the way to differ a winner from a looser in poker is by money and that’s actually not exactly the case in business. Even more, a win in poker is always someone else’s loss, and that’s not the case in business. To add one more point, in business you also learn to cooperate with other players, to work together. In poker, I think that’s considered cheating.
I could also make a couple of remarks on your comparison between the government and the house but that would probably only take us into a never ending political discussion. --Konsum

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Success in poker comes from making more correct decisions than your opponents. You are not necessarily taking advantage of anyone. I'm not saying it doesn't ever happen - but the point of the game is to minimize mistakes and make correct decisions. --revots33

[/ QUOTE ]

revots33 practically answered this for me. IF you measure success ONLY in terms of $$, then yes, you being a winner does make someone else (or a group of ppl) a loser. Every financial transaction in business, when measured solely in terms of immediate $$, results in a winner and a loser. Of course businesspersons (and poker players) will be more successful in the long run when leaving behind the importance of immediate success. When I lose a pot to a player that managed to hit a two-outer on me, I may be considered a "loser" on that particular hand, but I'm a winner in the long run because I am more likely to win when I put myself in those situations. This is because I measure my success in terms of good decisions, not only in terms of money.

Hope that was clear...

As to my comparison of the house to the government, I meant it only in terms of them taxing your earnings.

08-04-2005, 10:59 AM

revots is all about stealing my answers today! I feel that many long-LONG-term winners would understand that they profit from other players' mistakes, not from winning hands. The money takes care of itself once you start making the right decisions and putting in some serious hours. But I still know a lot of players that DO win that complain everytime a "fish" takes a pot from them. I do think this is unhealthly, both in poker and otherwise. I see these individuals as people who need to blame their losses on something... i.e. "fish".

mosdef

08-04-2005, 11:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you go through life with a feeling or entitlement, you are doomed to unhappiness and bitterness forever. every success has no meaning - you deserved to be successful. every failure is devastating - you didn't deserve to fail! life is unfair!

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this, but the feeling of entitlement you speak about is hardly unique to poker players. Lots of people go through life thinking the world owes them a living - and they've never picked up a deck of cards in their life.

Most good players realize that poker is a long-term game and that the best player doesn't always win in a given session. The ones who berate their opponents like you describe are probably either not very good players, or else they have a feeling of entitlement that existed long before they took up poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

absolutely. but i think that the culture of entitlement and superiority can really exacerbate a pre-existing sense of entitlement. i especially imagine this to be the case with bitter, jaded college kids who thought they were brilliant and liked that feeling, got to college and found out they were middle of the pack, then discovered the wonderful world of poker, where they are awesome geniuses (especially if they catch some nice cards when they start out) and the world is full of fish and donkeys to beat up on. the way it SHOULD be, from their perspective. then they start to lose a few sessions here and there. and all hell breaks lose in their minds.

i didn't mean to suggest that saints who start playing poker suddenly become demons. but i think it's safe to say that the culture CAN have negative impacts on a player's psyche.

jjacky

08-04-2005, 11:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

poker is entertainment and many people pay for it. that means playing poker produces a good like a cinema, theater etc. if someone visits a show, he does basically the same as a loser who plays poker: he pays for his entertainment. in a strictly monetarian view, economy is a sero sum game too (excluding the activity of the central bank). someone produces a good and someone else pays to get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could off course be wrong but I find that the thought about people who like to play and loose money for fun a bit to spread throu this forum. Ritch people in livegames, yes maby. But do you honestly belive that there is more than a never so small number, that actually sit online on low limit tables (where I guess most of us play) because they think it's a fun way to spend money?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, i honestly believe many people play poker (including small stakes online) for fun, aware of the fact that they are losing players on average.
2 points to back this up:
1) many people play black jack or even roulette online which is obviously -EV and far less interesting than poker.
2) i know people who are losing money online for fun (and i did so live when i learned the game).

08-04-2005, 11:11 AM

I don't think that a large number of poker players play specifically to lose money. There is entertainment provided in live games and online games. But I think that the big appeal to poker is to those people (read: gamblers) who want to get lucky and make money. They see poker strictly as a game of luck, and the thrill of maybe being able to win is their entertainment. Include frequent viewers of TV poker in this category.

jjacky

08-04-2005, 11:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that a large number of poker players play specifically to lose money. There is entertainment provided in live games and online games. But I think that the big appeal to poker is to those people (read: gamblers) who want to get lucky and make money. They see poker strictly as a game of luck, and the thrill of maybe being able to win is their entertainment. Include frequent viewers of TV poker in this category.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, hardly anybody will play poker to lose money, but many people have fun despite losing money.
and the possibility to win money (as a losing player on average) attracts many people but that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't enjoy themselves, of course.