Trickle Up Theory.

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet as the only poker book I've read was SSHE, but I think of poker as a "trickle UP" effect.

Opposite from the capitalist economy which is trickle down, in poker, the $$$ trickles "up" to the rich and the rich get richer.

I love poker.

Thoughts?

[Rasputin]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't know if this has been mentioned yet as the only poker book I've read was SSHE, but I think of poker as a "trickle UP" effect.

Opposite from the capitalist economy which is trickle down, in poker, the $$$ trickles "up" to the rich and the rich get richer.

I love poker.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a bizarre view of capitalism.

Other than that, in poker the money doesn't trickle to the people with money but to the people with the ability to play the game.

[ QUOTE ]
You have a bizarre view of capitalism.

Other than that, in poker the money doesn't trickle to the people with money but to the people with the ability to play the game <font color="red">better than the ones with all the money</font>.

[/ QUOTE ]

Highjacked your post.

ty

nh

Sure, but in our economy $$$ trickles from the people that know how to make money down to the people who don't. Trickle down.

Example: TO signs new contract, goes out and buys a bunch of benz's and fubu coats... the salesmen that profit from those sales go out and spend that money on shoes/clothes/food, etc. The companies that make profit on those basically pay out to service employees. It all trickles down eventually. The only difference betwen rich and poor is time. A poor person will have today what a rich person had 50 years ago.

In poker, it trickles UP from the people who don't know how to make money (poor players). Up to the people that do (good players).

Guy beats up 5/10 limit and makes a few grand profit, moves up to 10/20 and perhaps donates. He hits a ceiling. People that profit from that guy at 10/20 go up to 20/40 and donate, etc...

Anyway, VIVA POKER!

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

Opposite from the capitalist economy which is trickle down, in poker, the $$$ trickles "up" to the rich and the rich get richer.


[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, did you say opposite to a capitalist economy, the rich get richer? I think you're confused.

eastbay

I think you're all confused.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have a bizarre view of capitalism.

Other than that, in poker the money doesn't trickle to the people with money but to the people with the ability to play the game <font color="red">better than the ones with all the money</font>.

[/ QUOTE ]

Highjacked your post.

ty

nh

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting way of spelling hijacked.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Opposite from the capitalist economy which is trickle down, in poker, the $$$ trickles "up" to the rich and the rich get richer.


[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, did you say opposite to a capitalist economy, the rich get richer? I think you're confused.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I maybe misspoke. In each case, the rich get richer. My point was that the opposite is the fact that our economy is trickle down while poker is trickle up. That is the opposite. The rich getting richer wasn't supposed to correlate to "opposite of capitalism".

Sorry. Sorry to all the nits.

Now how bout somebody responds with their thoughts on my "Trickle Up Theory"??

Yay? Nay? Stupid or what? I use it to explain to people who think poker is "all luck".

I tell them that the money trickles up to the skillful players.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
A poor person will have today what a rich person had 50 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, not really. Your understanding of economics seems to be non-existent. (Hint: Guess who pays for the tickets that are used to pay TO's salary.)

Here's how American capitalism and poker are different. Playing poker is optional, while you don't have much choice but to participate in our economic system. Moreover, the rules of poker are explicitly given and favor nobody. The rules in our capitalist society are much more complex and nobody knows them all; in addition, some people benefit disproportionately from the rules than the others through no skill or talent of their own. This is not necessarily how capitalism is supposed to be or would be in an ideal world, but it is how the real world works.

Ok, straight to the point:
I think Poker is Trickle Up.
Not sure what Capitalism is, but probably trickle up as well. And I think the richer getting richer is definitely a form of trickling up.

And well said, rasputin.

Poker devoid of rake is a zero sum gain a la socialism.

Poker with rake is capitalism plain and pure.

What? How is poker a zero-sum game? If I sit down and play HU against Phil Ivey the only zero will be the amount of money I walk away with.

[ QUOTE ]
How is poker a zero-sum game? If I sit down and play HU against Phil Ivey the only zero will be the amount of money I walk away with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your loss is exactly balanced by Phil Ivey's gain--what more textbook definition of zero sum could you seek?

And.....I'm retarded. I got nothing, just wasn't thinking /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[ZenMusician]

to have one week of posts without goofy political metaphors,
Sklansky's dating advice, religious musings and other various
crap that is cluttering these boards?

There have been 5 or 6 extra forums added since I have been
around; perhaps trying to traffic this digital waste. While I am
for free, unabridged exchanging of ideas, I am also for order and
reason...something we lack as of late.

I would rather guide a n00b through another tipping thread than
have to sort through this garbage for the few nuggets of wisdom
a thoughtful poster has waded in to share.

If 2+2's books were put together this way, well, you probably
wouldn't be here reading this...in a Poker Theory thread...

-ZEN

[wadea]

[ QUOTE ]
Now how bout somebody responds with their thoughts on my "Trickle Up Theory"??

[/ QUOTE ]

Even assuming you HAD known WTF you were talking about, I'm not sure what kind of discussion you expected to come of this. My comment on the Trickle Up Theory: It is single-handedly responsible for leading to the worst-thought-out thread in the history of 2+2 (although I concede that there is plenty of competition lately).

-w.a.

[paul0503]

great reply. I felt myself getting stupider the more I read this thread until I came across this response. Could not have been said better...