Take the money

[xniNja]

The psychology of playing against degenerates, compulsive gamblers, newbies, and plain idiots is not complex. Too many people on this board are confused. If you're playing on _____ and you just cleaned out some idiot with a picture of a child as their avatar, then you just cleaned out some idiot with a picture of a child as their avatar. You have no information about their financial situation, and you don't want it. If they ask for their money to feed their children, use your poker skills and consider it a bluff you don't have to call to win, since they don't even have a hand.


The correct mathematical, psychological, AND philosophical position MUST be to take any and all money you can from whoever you can and whenever you can in poker, since the converse is always true, that anyone and everyone will try to take whatever money they can from you. This truth cannot be denied, not even by the inferior skills of your opponents.

[RiverDood]

Online your analysis is essentially 100% correct. The social connections between players are almost zero. No reason to get distracted from the pursuit of money.

In a casino, you're 99% right.

In a home game, things start to change. You know the people outside the poker game. You'd like to stay friendly with most of them. Heck, at some point you'll want to borrow their car . . . or get a job referral . . . or date their sister. Whatever. If you clean them out too fast or too belligerently, that isn't going to happen.

So in social games, your analysis breaks down.

Some people like to play social poker; some don't. Attach the necessary qualifiers, and your analysis stands.

[ceskylev]

Poker is a game of incomplete information. So is choosing an opponent. When all I have is a screen name and some stats, that's all I consider. But the minute I have some credible evidence that a person is an irresponsible or compulsive gambler, I'm getting up and walking away.

[ QUOTE ]

The correct mathematical, psychological, AND philosophical position MUST be to take any and all money you can from whoever you can and whenever you can in poker[...]

[/ QUOTE ]

Mathmatically correct? Okay. Psychologically correct? Not if I can't sleep that night. Philosophically correct? The idea that you can declare "philosophical correctness" in this instance is absurd. If your personal philosophy is based on statistics and/or greed, I'll grant you that you're being philosophically consistent. But there are plenty of us out there who aren't wired that way.

[ QUOTE ]
[...]since the converse is always true , that anyone and everyone will try to take whatever money they can from you. This truth cannot be denied, not even by the inferior skills of your opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, "always" is obviously an overstatement. I'm an exception, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I accept that I'm in the minority, here. I accept that this philosophy will cost me money. It's +EV for me anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
But the minute I have some credible evidence that a person is an irresponsible or compulsive gambler, I'm getting up and walking away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do what is in my power to help this player stop gambling all her money: I try to rid her of it as fast as possible. Gamblers are a huge source of profit in poker. Honestly, if there weren't gamblers, I would never win.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the minute I have some credible evidence that a person is an irresponsible or compulsive gambler, I'm getting up and walking away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do what is in my power to help this player stop gambling all her money: I try to rid her of it as fast as possible. Gamblers are a huge source of profit in poker. Honestly, if there weren't gamblers, I would never win.

[/ QUOTE ]

This discussion has been had here before. In casinos, I have seen someone with a wife and kids blowing thousands that they clearly could not afford. I try not to care about that person (though I want to), because if I did I'd be worrying about everyone and what the money means to them. But I'm not going to sit at a table and knowingly deprive some kid somewhere of his or her tuition money because I want to take my girlfriend somewhere nice the next day. You may think "If I don't take it, someone else will." I just refuse to let myself be that person.

[ceskylev]

"Gambler" and "addicted gambler" are two different animals. Someone who, on the weekends, drops money that he can afford to lose on slots or craps is a gambler, but not an addict. I could play .05/.10 and gamble like the Pope on a three-day bender, but not be an addict.

The guy who loses his rent money month after month or can't afford to feed his kids is an addict. Once I identify him as such, I refuse to sit at his table, because I refuse to contribute to his addiction.

There are plenty of poor players out there who are not addicts. I'll sit with those guys all night, because (psychologically at least) it's a fair contest. I don't need to take money from someone who I know is not mentally fit to gamble. I don't *want* that money.

And if you think you're doing an addict some sort of service by taking his last time, you obviously don't understand addiction.

[xniNja]

Agreed. I'm talking about playing poker for money. My assumption, or qualifier, is that your interest is money, and not making friends or dating sisters.

[ QUOTE ]
And if you think you're doing an addict some sort of service by taking his last time, you obviously don't understand addiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I'm doing myself a service. Tainted cash buys just as many things as cash that one can afford to lose (and at the table, it's legal to collect tainted cash). It's a good thing you walk from the game if you can't stand to see this, as it would affect your play otherwise.

I don't feel bad taking her money. That's all I'm gonna say.

[xniNja]

[ QUOTE ]

Mathmatically correct? Okay. Psychologically correct? Not if I can't sleep that night. Philosophically correct? The idea that you can declare "philosophical correctness" in this instance is absurd. If your personal philosophy is based on statistics and/or greed, I'll grant you that you're being philosophically consistent. But there are plenty of us out there who aren't wired that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I buy this argument, for something to be psychologically or philosophically correct would always depend on the individual. The reason I don't buy the personal philosophy argument is because of the structure of the game. It's a strict game with strict rules and a strict purpose. The fact that some people don't know the purpose, or care about the purpose (money) doesn't eliminate the game or the rules.

[ QUOTE ]

Well, "always" is obviously an overstatement. I'm an exception, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I accept that I'm in the minority, here. I accept that this philosophy will cost me money. It's +EV for me anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a fair game, by definition, all players are going for the money. I'm also more talking about the degenerates/noobs/gamblers going after your money... not the skilled player who doesn't target a gambler. Note that your argument also doesn't apply to the agent of action (me, you, or another skilled player) as the person you would go easy on, isn't you. Under the same analysis, your own, everyone will be after your money, unless you are the compulsive gambler, then people like your current self will take pity on you, but that solves no dilemma for the good player who MUST play his edge against whoever he is against, because as a good player he's not receiving your pity.

[ceskylev]

Exactly. I know this discussion has been had before, but I think it's worth revisiting every so often. There are a lot of extremely young people around here who think that you *must* be a ruthless human being in order to be a great poker player. They all love that quote about being willing to bust your own grandmother. What they fail to realize is that a great player chooses not to sit at a table with his grandmother in the first place.

[ceskylev]

[ QUOTE ]

If I buy this argument, for something to be psychologically or philosophically correct would always depend on the individual. The reason I don't buy the personal philosophy argument is because of the structure of the game. It's a strict game with strict rules and a strict purpose. The fact that some people don't know the purpose, or care about the purpose (money) doesn't eliminate the game or the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstand. I'm not taking it easy on anyone I play against. I play to win. But if there's a known addict at the table, I'm simply not playing at that table. That's a decision that I make outside the structure of the game. To call that choice "philosophically incorrect" is absurd.

[xniNja]

I can't speak for all "young" players, but I think the key difference between our stances is that I don't view it as ruthlessness. It's the correct way to play the game in order to maximize profits, which I am assuming is the goal of a pro or semi-pro player. The board isn't called 2+2=friends, right? A great poker player or even gambler(according to the books I've read by "great poker players")succeeds by finding his edge and exploiting it. Why would anyone need to bust their grandmother when there's 100s of random, mostly dirty and foul-mouthed suckers? If you're an old player, wouldn't you have to admit that a significant amount of money in the poker economy exists only because of those degenerates?

Look, let me ask you a question. Say you're playing at a table with a degenerate, and other decent players... A decent player gets the degenerates money- now do you have a guilt-free shot at the money?

How about if the degenerate player is gambling, but on a hot streak & up 5 racks... is it guilt-free now?

What if a good player busted the degenerate the day before, and is now playing with the degenerates money...

The point I'm trying to get you to realize is there is fundamentally no difference between any of these scenarios or if you took the money from him in the first place.

[xniNja]

You're right I did misunderstand. I obviously could not make a philosophical claim on your values in life. I still defend the claim as philosophically correct in the realm of poker theory.

Edit: I just want to point out that I consider players playing at tables part of the structure of the game. I would not let anyone arbitrarily influence my decision to enter a good game, simply because they were going to lose in it. It might be +EV in terms of your conscience but it's bad business and you're literally losing control of table selection because of a degenerate. You can argue it's a choice, but it isn't- if you see the degenerate, you don't play, even if the game is good- that's not a real choice.

[ceskylev]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't feel bad taking her money. That's all I'm gonna say.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine. I'm not arguing this on moral grounds. I'm arguing in terms of value. I took issue with OP's assertion that there is a "correct philosophy" regarding this issue.

For me, the positive value of the tainted money (as you call it) does not cover the negative value of the damage I do (to myself and to the addict) by knowingly enabling his addiction and (if he has one) adding to the misery of his family.

No offense intended. I'm not implying that anyone is some kind of horrible person. I'm just saying (mainly to OP) that we value money differently. To me, taking advantage of an addict is no different than trading $10 for $5, or paying $100K for a used Kia. It just isn't worth it. There's nothing "philosophically incorrect" about it.

[xniNja]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just saying (mainly to OP) that we value money differently. To me, taking advantage of an addict is no different than trading $10 for $5, or paying $100K for a used Kia. It just isn't worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This just doesn't make sense man. I understand your point, as a personal philosophy... but when you use the word VALUE we are talking about strict numbers. The difference between taking $100 from a degenerate, and trading $10 for $5 is a REAL VALUE, it is +$105! When I talk about philosophical correctness, the assumption is you are playing poker for $ with the given rules. It then becomes philosophically correct. It is only NOT philosophically correct if your goal is not to maximize profits, which very may be the case, but then you haven't qualified for the assumption.

[ceskylev]

[ QUOTE ]
Look, let me ask you a question. Say you're playing at a table with a degenerate, and other decent players... A decent player gets the degenerates money- now do you have a guilt-free shot at the money?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by degenerate? If he's just a normal, terrible player, then I'm playing, and hopefully I'm winning a bushel full of money. If he's an addict and I know this, I'm not at the table in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
How about if the degenerate player is gambling, but on a hot streak & up 5 racks... is it guilt-free now?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. See above.

[ QUOTE ]
What if a good player busted the degenerate the day before, and is now playing with the degenerates money...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is different. It's less about the origins of the money and more about these things:

1) Am I willing to take advantage of someone who (at the poker table) is handicapped not by lack of skill, but by mental illness?
2) Am I willing to contribute to addiction by giving this guy action?

Playing against the player in scenario #3, these questions are irrelevant, because I would win the money in what I consider to be a fair contest.

[xniNja]

Do you keep the IRS' indexed files of all the players you play against? I ask mockingly, but I'm really dead serious... How can you claim to know the difference between a degenerate, a REAL degenerate, and an addict in the first place...

Assume you realize he's an addict while you are still playing, you could still answer the hypothetical questions.

As for the last thing you said... about skill vs. mental illness; I'm no doctor or psychiatrist, but I don't see logically how a poker player would be able to observe another poker player and distinguish whether or not his absolutely terrible plays over and over, were reckless gambling driven by fun, lack of skill, or mental illness.

I'm sure there may be cases where you know of a certain degenerate railbird at your B&M, but we shouldn't assume you can tell if players are mentally ill before sitting down.

Also, I'm curious as to what you think of my argument on your detriment to table selection?

[ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of extremely young people around here who think that you *must* be a ruthless human being in order to be a great poker player. They all love that quote about being willing to bust your own grandmother. What they fail to realize is that a great player chooses not to sit at a table with his grandmother in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frame this, and write under it, "there but for the grace of God go I."

From what I've read of Stu Ungar from various sources, he was pretty ruthless -- when he was ahead. Problem was that the ruthlessness was a component of HIS addiction.

Something to think about.

[ceskylev]

[ QUOTE ]
This just doesn't make sense man. I understand your point, as a personal philosophy... but when you use the word VALUE we are talking about strict numbers. The difference between taking $100 from a degenerate, and trading $10 for $5 is a REAL VALUE, it is +$105!

[/ QUOTE ]

It makes perfect sense. I value $10 more than I value $5. I value my personal ethics and my peace of mind more than I value the added income I would make from taking a known gambling addict to the cleaners.

People make this trade all the time. They trade overtime hours at work for more free time. They change to lower paying jobs in order to pursue personal interests or spend time with their families. They're giving up an exact number of dollars for something that is more abstract, but has real value.

Money is only worth what you can trade it for. Some things are more important.

[xniNja]

[ QUOTE ]
People make this trade all the time. They trade overtime hours at work for more free time. They change to lower paying jobs in order to pursue personal interests or spend time with their families. They're giving up an exact number of dollars for something that is more abstract, but has real value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I buy this point. You can still be a pro and play with that philosophy, but you can't maximize profits. I view a poker player as a business, opponents are my competitors, the duty is to the shareholders (yourself) and what I feel a company owes its shareholders is maximization of profits. I fully understand your differing value premise- now I'm just curious as to how you distinguish who is who and know before you get in the game, or what happens when you find out in the game?

[ceskylev]

Well, like I said in my very first reply: we're working with incomplete information.

I take the attitude of a bartender. There are a lot of addicts/alchoholics out there, but the percentage of these addicts is low enough that it's reasonable for me to assume that I'm dealing with a non-addict until I'm presented with evidence to the contrary.

I'm not a mind-reader, and there's only so much I can reasonably do to avoid playing against a compulsive gambler. So I do what I can, which is to find another place to play when I do have evidence. That's the balance I've struck between wanting to enjoy the game and wanting to be responsible. It's flawed, but it's the best I can come up with.

[xniNja]

This is more or less my stance. The bartender serves everyone alcohol, everyone's getting drunk... some people are drinking more and being more irresponsible... on any given night the bartender doesn't know or care who is a raving alcoholic and a few more shots might give them cirrhosis... So he does his job, serves everyone... and if a raving deadbeat drunk comes back after 2am for a last drink, I myself might refuse on occasion.

[ QUOTE ]
on any given night the bartender doesn't know or care who is a raving alcoholic and a few more shots might give them cirrhosis... So he does his job, serves everyone...

[/ QUOTE ]
No, a bartender's job is also to identify people who need to be cut off. Sometimes he's even legally responsible to do so, which if anything gives him the backup he needs to make the right decisions.

[ QUOTE ]
and if a raving deadbeat drunk comes back after 2am for a last drink, I myself might refuse on occasion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Funny.

[xniNja]

Yea, in some places a bartender's job is also to identify the "too drunks" to drink more at the time, but never to identify who is an alcoholic with a serious drinking problem. I'll also remind you there's no corresponding trait for a poker player to identify addicts. Glad you liked it; to explicate, if I beat an addict in a ring game (what I consider serving him drinks) and after the game he wants to take a shot at me to get even, I might take it occasionally, but refuse sometimes feeling sorry for him. The key point is I view the ring game as fair game, no matter who is involved... I can't think of a good way to explain it, but I don't think you're giving him any unique action in a ring game.

[ QUOTE ]
For me, the positive value of the tainted money (as you call it) does not cover the negative value of the damage I do (to myself and to the addict) by knowingly enabling his addiction and (if he has one) adding to the misery of his family./quote]
As long as you are aware that you are giving up profit by leaving these game conditions, then it seems that you understand that this is a poor decision when it comes to maximizing profits... unless it will drive you to insanity to play with an addict and cause you to give up profits in future games.

You need to measure the importance of table selection versus the importance of keeping yourself slightly more happy by not playing with an addict. There will be days when sacrificing one for the other will be the difference between a winning and losing session, and there will be days when it has no effect.

[DCWGaming]

Just gonna add some thought to the whole "younger kids play more ruthlessly" idea.

I'm 20, and people from my generation are very used to the internet and the fact that you arent held personally accountable for much of anything that goes on. So it is much easier for us to not care about people with gambling problems.

For the most part, people born before 1980 arent used to this freedom because they didnt grow up with the internet.

Thought i'd toss that in there /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Repost, because the first one is ugly.

[ QUOTE ]
For me, the positive value of the tainted money (as you call it) does not cover the negative value of the damage I do (to myself and to the addict) by knowingly enabling his addiction and (if he has one) adding to the misery of his family.

[/ QUOTE ]
As long as you are aware that you are giving up profit by leaving these game conditions, then it seems that you understand that this is a poor decision when it comes to maximizing profits... unless it will drive you to insanity to play with an addict and cause you to give up profits in future games.

You need to measure the importance of table selection versus the importance of keeping yourself slightly more happy by not playing with an addict. There will be days when sacrificing one for the other will be the difference between a winning and losing session, and there will be days when it has no effect.

[Al Schoonmaker]

I wrote a two part series on this subject, "Would you bust your own grandmother?" You can read it at cardplayer.com. In it I stated that it is arrogant nonsense to insist that there is only one correct way to play.

You have just insisted that it is the ONLY way to play, which is, in my opinion, arrogant nonsense.

Regards,

Al

[ QUOTE ]
I wrote a two part series on this subject, "Would you bust your own grandmother?" You can read it at cardplayer.com. In it I stated that it is arrogant nonsense to insist that there is only one correct way to play.

You have just insisted that it is the ONLY way to play, which is, in my opinion, arrogant nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you post a link?

[Goodnews]

consider this situation, you find a group of players who play for a good amount of money, adn they are just horrendous. The kind of game we dream of, however, these people do not like to lose if you are a newcomer and have had a history of violent behaviour.

do you still play in this game? do you still play in this game under your philosophy of cut-throat poker?

[xniNja]

I didn't insist it was the only correct way to play. In responses to posts I admitted that I thought it was a reasonable cost-benefit decision for some players; (choosing not to play against "addicts") I did however suggest that this option wouldn't maximize profits and would hinder table selection capabilities.

Also note, that although I did leave the OP general, the examples I gave mainly concerned on-line play and/or situations where the nature of your opponent may be uncertain. My argument stems from countless posts complaining about people asking for refunds, or touting images of their children-

Would you agree, from a psychological standpoint, that it's fair to say people need not feel guilty in these situations while playing on-line? (and/or in real life for that matter)

[xniNja]

My philosophy of cut-throat poker (if you can call it that) stays on the felt. I don't think people should risk their lives for a buck, unless it's a reasonable risk/reward situation.

The scenario you created implies if I go beat this game, they will beat me- and probably take back the money. If they didn't, assuming I was hurt and they didn't kill me, I'd still need some time to recover and it would probably take a few days out of my game.

Therefore, the answer, from the same cut-throat poker philosophical perspective, is no- because it would decrease profits.

[Sciolist]

There are also situations, in a limited pool of players, where you don't neccessarily want to take all of someone's money at once. Better that they return and lose more in the long run afterall. Online though, there's always another couple thousand tables to pick from.

[xniNja]

Absolutely. I do agree with the cliche Slim's father's maxim about shearing sheep (but not any other personal habits they might share) and I think this can be tacked onto the maximizing profit platform without conflict.

I'm gonna bring up thought that seems to have not been discussed here - in regards to the degenerate gambling addict - that being, the person who is playing recklessly with money they cannot afford to lose.

In such a situation, the absolute BEST thing you can do for them is to take their money from them as quickly as possible.

Do you honestly think that if they have a nice session, they will walk away and say "hey, that went really well. Maybe I should take this cash and buy some books and new clothes for my kids! I'm gonna quit while I'm AHEAD!!"

Sorry, but, no.

If they win, then the money they win will simply go to fuel some other addictive behavior. They may take their winnings over to the roulette table, hoping to parlay it into a BIG WIN. They may use it to buy drugs or alcohol if they are addicted to those things. Whatever happens, I guarantee you that their one winning session is not going to result in even a measurable improvement in their lives.

That is why the best thing you can do is to take their money from them.

For most addicts, they will not stop until they hit rock bottom. So you help them by speeding their path along to that destination. Every time they win, it fuels their addiction - it gives them the faith that they can win back all the money they lost, and then some. Every time they lose, it brings them one step closer to the point where they realize they cannot continue.

This concept, however, does not in any way apply to home games or to people you know or care about.