Is "Lucky" a degenerate gambler?

[Easy E]

I write this, having missed last night's episode (so that show may have added some data to include here), but having seen all of the rest. Can Lucky L. be truly labeled a degenerate and/or compulsive gambler (how would you differentiate the two, if you would)?

While he doesn't read people as well as he THINKS he does, making really bad decisions as a result, I haven't seen anything in his gambling that I would label as degenerate (does that make ME degenerate?)

This leads back to my initial primary complaint about the show (which I like a lot, BTW- it could stand to be an hour-long, IMO), with equating a poker player, a supposed "World Champion" to boot, to 'degenerate gambler'. His image, in my mind, has been fairly controlled at the poker table... where's the problem here?
He DOES have some compulsive/control issues to deal with, from what I've seen...

On another topic- it bothers me a bit that we have 4 main characters, all in G.A., and they don't even seem to be TRYING to give up gambling. I don't like the message THAT sends, nor do I assume G.A. would be happy about the message being sent, as to the success/value of their program, by the show....

Am I just getting cranky in my old age? Am I personalizing/projecting? Am I drunk?

Fire away...

[msk]

I found last night's show underwhelming. In fact, I turned the show off after he walked away from quad K's. Yes, unbelievable, huh. Sorry if I gave it away, but they gave it away before it happened too...too bad, I won't be watching any more either, what a waste of a good idea.

If he won the pot with quads, then went over to the craps table with the shrill lady and lost it all, got drunk, jumped into the sack with her, and then had to borrow a stake -----well, THAT would have been believable. But walking from quads, fugetaboutit.

They have a great idea, an excellent cast, and some terrible story lines. The real tension of this world champion should be his fight to rid himself of the OTHER
games which are fit for a degenerate gambler; not the poker, which in principle isn't gambling.

Mark

[Easy E]

it's just not as luck-based, nor as much a negative EV, as other casino games....
For good players, it should be positive EV, but it's still gambling.

So is the stock market.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

So's farming, for that matter. No matter how much you know about your land and your crop, you can't control the weather and you can't control the marketplace. Thus you could do everything right and still go broke.

Big deal. Whether poker is or is not "gambling" is a semantic argument at best.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

From Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

1 a : to play a game for money or property b : to bet on an uncertain outcome

Sure looks like poker fits the definition.

[sucka]

I agree with all points.

In short, I think this show is horrible. There have been a few bright moments but not many.

They blew it for me on the first episode where they are replaying the championship game and they are all playing out of racks and acting a fool. The banter back and forth on the "Do I have the flush....or do I have 2 pair..." was atrocious. I didn't even make it all the way through the first episode before I changed the channel.

My TIVO still records them and I'll fast-forward through to any poker parts - if you could actually call them that.

What a great idea for a show - there's so much opportunity there and they have totally blown it.

[Nottom]

I'm thinking that the fact that Lucky won the world championship and its $Million, yet is broke in less than a year may indicate he had some gambling issues beyond poker.

[Emperor]

LOL...Baseball fits this definition, so does every other sport...

[Easy E]

farming AND semantics points.

A better way to put it? Everything that involves risk based on decision-making can be called a "gamble," no matter how well-informed the decision that is made ends up being.

More specifically, gambling is a decision based on investing money and getting a short-term (for the most part) return on that money, if your decisions are correct.

[Easy E]

at least that relate to degenerate gambling. Thus, the only association that can be inferred by most viewers is that poker player = degenerate/compulsive gambler.... and I REALLY dislike the association, nor do I think it is true as a primary rule.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Are you insinuating that all professional athletes wager on the games they play?

The definition did not say "get paid for playing"

[Easy E]

...or, the love of the game?

"to play a game for money or property" can certainly be interpreted as meaning for an obscene salary (whether that interpretation is correct is, of course, the argument)