My friends and family see poker as a taboo.

[Lawrence Ng]

I have been playing winning poker for well over 7 years now. This is the one pastime I truly enjoy and I have spent thousands of hours playing in cardrooms and online.

My family and friends do not see my poker playing as a form of recreation and entertainment. They see it purely as gambling and as a form of evil that can consume man.

I guess I don't blame them for thinking this way, because that is how I use to think before I started playing. Then I started studying the literature behind poker. In my 2nd year of university I did an intensive course on Intermediate Statistics and Game Theory which dealt a lot with probabilities and econometrics. So slowly I started understanding how positve EV can work and became more and more educated on how to play and understand the nature of the game.

My parents however have been very disgruntled to this day on accepting and respecting the fact that I have made this a pastime of mine. It is not my "job." I have a full time job that is my main source of income and poker is only supplemental income to which I use to save up and build a bigger bankroll and move on to higher limit games.

My parents refuse to listen to me when I explains the merits of the game to them. They are very conservative and they have seen some of their own relatives lose the dog and farm from compulsive gambling disorders. It's as if they will only focus on the negative but not the positive to this game. I have tried many many times to reason with them, but most of the time it will end up in a very big argument and then everyone winds up frustrated. 3 years ago I had to move out because my father would not sleep till I came home from the cardroom which was usually 3 or 4 in the morning. The next day he would lecture and yell at me. This carried on for well over 6 months.

My girlfriend doesn't appreciate it much either. But at least she understands why I play and why I enjoy it. However, she will not commit to a long term relationship with me if I continue to play on a habitual basis. I do not neglect her though. Family and friends always come first. I will drop any poker game no matter how good it is for them if they need me. She is also unhappy when I tell her I'm in the cardroom or playing online.

About 2.5 years ago I took a 6 month sabbatical away from poker. I needed dire time off to think clearly and I didn't want to cloud my judgement. During that 6 months I realized that I have done little or no wrong. For me poker is a game. It is not a taboo. I do not steal, rob or kill. Well..maybe rob a little somtimes with a bluff here and there. LOL /images/graemlins/cool.gif

But the bottom line after that 6 month sabbatical - I have accepted the fact I want to play and I really want others who are close to me respect and hopefully accept that fact.

Perhaps I am missing something or perhaps there is professional help that I can seek.

Thanks.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Lawrence,
You are most definitely not alone. A similar post some months ago caused me to write "Nobody understands us." You can read it at cardplayer.com. Click on "magazine" in the top left corner, writers, and my name.
Hope it helps a little.
Based solely on the information you have provided, I do NOT think you need professional help.
Regards,
Al

[James Boston]

Why does no one say this kind of thing about a guy who plays golf every chance he gets, or watches sports, or hunting & fishing? I understand although I haven't dealt with it like you seem to have. My parents scoff at it. Although, last time I was home I was watching WPT with my dad and he seemed to take interest in it and even asked me some questions. I've never had a woman that was bothered by it. Then again, I don't tend to end up with "good girls." But, I digress. You don't have a problem. Your parents will support you regardless. As for the chick, that's a tough call. I'm stubborn, so I'd tell her to deal with it, and then she either would or wouldn't.

[SnowBreeze]

Lawrence,

This is a very common problem you have. I have been playing winning poker for as long as you have. People just don't understand how poker works, they just remember they saw a film where gangsters and other criminals sat at night in a smoky room. Usually it doesn't help explaining, it's like talking to a wall, and you see them pulling out the holy cross over and over again. I have 2 small children and for their sake and to become a respectable father and husband, I stopped playing for a 2 year period. It was hell. Today I am divorced, I have accepted who I am and teach my children what a wonderfull game poker can be. Beeing able to play poker is an income for life, and today with online poker, you have complete freedom. Even if I feel I have made the right choice, accepted myself as i am and doing what I like and enjoy, it is still difficult to answer the question "what do you do for a living" I guess the guilt/shame feeling will never go away, but I am certain that if other people don't understand, it's their loss, not mine. But I also know that I will allways be regarded as a gambler, just not from the only people i care about, my children. You too, some day will be forced to take a stand. Accept and demand to be accepted for who you are or give up poker. there is no halfway.
Good luck to you.

[Boris]

IMO, if your girlfriend can not accept you playing poker you should not enter into any sort of long term deal with her. You will most certainly end up resenting her.

As for your family, not much you can do. I would probably just keep a low profile about the gambling.

[Redhotman]

Must people are unwilling to change their beliefs. Same reason there are so mnay old people who think it swrong for people to marry outside their race.

Send them a copy of your tax papers.

[FredJones888]

If you are playing internet poker and live poker on a daily basis then you are letting it take over your life. You said yourself this is not your job so don't spend 40 hrs a week doing it.

[onegymrat]

Hi Lawrence,

I feel for you. I have had the same problem. It seems like the older generation of parents sees gambling as gambling, and any way, shape or form is bad. I have had the same lecture from my parents about how their friend/acquaintance lost it all from compulsive gambling. They fear that I can be headed in the same direction.

I don't blame them for not understanding the game of poker and how it does not have a house edge like table games. They may never understand. What I try to do is keep my poker playing at a low profile. I did take time to try and explain to my mother before about the theory of poker and statistics and odds and the edge and so forth. It made her feel a bit better knowing that I educate myself on a regular basis on poker, and sees that I take it seriously, not recklessly. It also helps that I am seen to be a very responsible single father of two, and have lived an exemplery life for the challenges I've had. So my impression that I give is that I am responsible and can be trusted. Do you have that in your life, or are there other factors about your lifestyle that makes them worry so much about the poker playing?

I don't think it matters to my family that I am playing winning poker, or that all their xmas gifts were purchased by my opponents. I'm sure whether you win or lose regularly, it'll seem just as negative by your family. I guess my nickel's worth of advice is are there other things in your life that make them worry so much?

As far as your girlfriend is involved, that's a tough one. There needs to be a compromise between you two if you want it to work. But I guess a guy who's been divorced and girlfriend who left him last year, shouldn't give any advice about relationships. By the way, poker had nothing to do with either. In fact, my ex-wife encourages my playing because she knows that it pays the tuition bill for the kids.

We can't change who we are. We love this stupid game, and we know we are not reckless. At least I hope we're not. I can honestly say it's a controlled addiction for me. But if your personal life is not affected negatively by it, why change something that we love so much? Good luck.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I have struggled with this type of thing too. I generally just don't bring it up with people who can't accept it. Any women I meet find out immediately that I have been a semi-pro or pro player for years. If they don't like it I find out immediately and generally don't pursue them any further. I yam what I yam. If you don't like it, too bad.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I have consistently spent an average of 25-30 hours a week for years playing poker. This has always made me a "semi-prop" player. At times poker has been my only income, such as right now. These times I am of course a pro player. I think the poster is just a semi-pro player. Only if he plays so much that his personal life suffers should he consider playing less.

al

[warlockjd]

Fred, I play chess every day both online and live. Would you and your 20 posts have any suggestions as to where I can get help for this 'chess problem' that is 'taking over my life?'

Thanks in advance!

[loco55]

i can understand your relatives. For my part i dont let too many people know that i play poker.. only good friends.

Poker is a game where experts or advanced players try to hunt the less skilled players. your aim is to find some rookies or lottery players that dont care much about losin for a life or that make wrong over wrong decisions.

let me tell you a story. when i was a dealer at the local stud table there was a heavily drunk man. the players got excited and offered him to sit down. if u saw that once you know there is a shady part of the game so im not proud to play poker. this poor man had to look at his cards for 1 minute and still no decision then. i had to place the bets for him...he repeated...fifty, i wanna bet 50.. but 30 was maximum. even the floor man didnt care much.

Poker will never be seen as positive as some pros or the indusrty (sites, B+R rooms) hope. and i think you should ever be thoughtful playing that game. its a game of war and not of friendship. its adult territory, it may get you wealthy, but it destroys personalitys, it is addictive....

and so on... lot of negative aspects you see

[CrisBrown]

Hi all,

Lawrence, I suspect that the reason your family (and our society in general) disapproves of poker has little to do with any fear of you becoming a compulsive gambler, or even with the nature of the game itself. It has to do with the lingering, pervasive, corrosive spirit of Puritanism in American culture.

It's worth noting that George Washington's Continental Army was funded largely by state lottery proceeds. (Yes, that's really true.) State lotteries abounded during the early years of the U.S., until the Puritans noticed that people were having lottery parties, getting together to hear the winning numbers read out in town squares and then choosing their numbers for the following week. This became quite an entertainment.

The essence of Puritanism was eloquently captured by one wise wit as "the pathological fear that someone, somewhere, is having a good time." And it was this which drove them to concoct one of the most specious theological arguments in the history of mankind, and the basis for contemporary American moral disapproval of gambling.

There is no such thing as luck or random chance, so the Puritan argument went. Every event, down to its smallest detail, is breathed from the will of God. Thus, when one places a wager, one is praying for Divine intervention in a wholly trivial matter, for one's own enjoyment.

Ergo: Gambling is blasphemy!

No, I didn't make that up.

Well, that argument was sufficient to convince most state legislatures to outlaw lotteries (and other forms of gambling) in the early 19th century, and while lotteries (and other forms of gambling) have made a return, the long-held social stigma remains.

But, lest anyone think this is restricted to gambling, consider the horror stories associated with role-playing games in the late 70s and early 80s. Or the way American culture paints chess enthusiasts, avid golfers, and other hobbies. (I won't even go into sexual mores.) We have a love/hate relationship with fun. We love it when we're having it, and hate it when someone else does and we're too busy, too distracted, or too depressed to share in it.

Enter the Spanish Inquisition and Umberto Ecco, the author of THE NAME OF THE ROSE. One of Ecco's characters gives a speech which was largely lifted from the lips of a 14th-century bishop, who was asked to explain why laughter is a sin. Laughter, the bishop (and Ecco's character) said, is sinful because it dispels fear. Without fear, man has no way to know right from wrong. Without the everpresent fear of Hell, man would do whatever he wished. Thus, laughter is a sin because it encourages godlessness.

No, I didn't make that part up either.

Nor am I making up the part where one of the common targets of the Spanish Inquisition were minstrels and performers of comic skits, songs, and stories in rural Spain. With all of the horror in the world -- we're talking Black Plague, folks, not to mention the incursions of Moors and Saracens, the Crusades, and other such events -- how could it not be evil to make people laugh? Thus, minstrels became gypsies became ne'er-do-wells, a tradition which continued for many years afterwards.

The Europeans, of course, outgrew the Inquisition, and by the 17th Century had little use for its revival in Puritan values. In Europe, an adult who spends two or three hours a day puttering in the garden, painting toy soldiers, or on some other idle diversion is considered "well-rounded." It is a social discourtesy to rush through a meal, which after all was prepared with the intention that it be enjoyed and not merely consumed.

So when the Puritans were denied the opportunity to oppress their neighbors -- first in England and then in Holland -- off they sailed to the New World, where they would be free to oppress anyone they happened to come into contact with.

I didn't make that part up either.

And while Europeans have long since decided that leisure and enjoyment are worthwhile aims of the human spirit, we Americans know better. That they couldn't make a success of the Inquisition merely shows that they weren't as smart or capable as we are.

And thus, American arrogance, fed by the Puritan tradition, decries poker and other "games" as morally questionable if not downright sinful pursuits. Even if poker was invented in America. Even if 1:3 American adults plays poker at least once a week (according to the NY Times). It's still wrong, because, dammit ...

... someone, somewhere, is having a good time.

End of rant.

Cris

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Except that I suspect that somehow you had a good time writing this.

So therefore I chastize you and cast you out!

al

[Al Schoonmaker]

Cris,

It was a brilliant analysis, not a rant. I love history, and your analysis was much better than any I've read before.
Thank you,
Al

[fluff]

What an excellent rant!!

You should get this published! Maybe one of the Cardplayer writers here would allow a guest columnist? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[CrisBrown]

[lil']

I still say winning cures alot of people's ideas about poker. If you are losing or breaking even, you just look like a regular gambler. If you start bringing a little something extra home on a consistant basis, people look at it differently. If you start winning big, people think you're cool like those guys on TV.

Show your girlfriend your growing bankroll, or have her watch you play live while you rake in a huge pot. That'll help her commit.

[RydenStoompala]

What a good post. Some of the replies are excellent. I liked the history lesson. From my own history, I offer this advice. I give it with this caveat: it's from my expereince, not yours.

1) Don't argue with people who equate playing poker to slot machine addiction. That's dealing with a prejudice that is insurmountable and you could be up against someone with a very bad experience. If your father/brother/sister/ ex spouse was a gambling junkie and ruined your life or the life of someone close, you would be pretty firm in your beliefes. Trying to explain "the math" is a fruitless endeavor.
2) The one who really matters is your partner. If your girlfriend is ever going to be your wife then you either win her over to your hobby or move along to the next girl. Don't marry someone and then be surprised when they feel that your agreement to marry was tantamount to your agreement to quit playing poker.
3) Be reasonable with your demands. Huge time committments to playing poker, year-round, are not reasonable. Both your employer and your family would be right to ask questions.

I just returned from Vegas with my very tollerant and understanding wife who sat behind me for a few hours at a 10-20 game to watch me play. She now understands that I am a capable player and that the bankroll swings are acceptable. She has no problem with me playing 20-40 limits for hours. She understands why I prefer poker to the games she likes, like blackjack. We have an agreement that I can spend a good portion of my leisure time at my hobby but that I will never let it interfere with work or family life. I am one of the luckiest people I have ever met.

Don't fight people on this. Be honest with your committments and only marry a person who truly understands...or quit the game.

[Lawrence Ng]

Wow, an interesting reply indeed and I had a good "laugh" and a "good time" reading it. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Thanks

[Lawrence Ng]

Hi RedHotman,

Show my parents my tax papers? Hmm...was I suppose to file my winnings? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Honestly though, if my parents would be more objective and accept my hobby, I would actually file the winnings on my tax return forms just to prove to them I am a winning player and not some gambling junky.

Hmmm....

[blaenda]

My husband used to dislike my playing online and we argued quite a lot over that. It ended up with me promising to quit the game. But at the same time I also stopped paying all the little extras that I had done before - like champagne and vacations for the both of us. After a new discussion he "allowed me" to start playing again...and tomorrow we go on yet another cruise...

[FredJones888]

"Only if he plays so much that his personal life suffers should he consider playing less."

that's the point right there. he said it is causing him trouble with his girlfriend and his family.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Fred,

[ QUOTE ]
ALJR: Only if he plays so much that his personal life suffers should he consider playing less.

FRED: that's the point right there. he said it is causing him trouble with his girlfriend and his family.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's not the point. Lawrence is an adult now, and he doesn't have to cater to his parents' whims and taboos. And as for the girlfriend, anyone whose love for you is conditioned upon your giving up some important interest isn't someone whose love you should value too highly.

People who love you must love who you ARE, not who they wish you were. If Lawrence is spending so much time at poker that he's missing work or ignoring other aspects of his life, if he's losing, borrowing money to try to "win it back," etc., then yes, he has a larger gambling issue.

But simply that his parents and girlfriend disapprove of poker and he's hitting friction there is not, to my mind, a sufficient reason to say he has a "gambling problem."

Cris

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I have gotten a TON of flak from my family over the years for playing poker. I'm a grown up, so I really don't care if they like it or not, I do it just as much no matter how much flak I get. I wish my mom would give up on that stupid religious crap, but boy would I be the heathen if I told her to give up something that's an important part of HER life.

His girlfriend should be upset if he plays so much poker that it interferes with their relationship. She should respect him for what he is tho, a card player, if he is not playing enough cards to interfere. If she just can't deal with him being a card player, she should move on.

al

[Warik]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no such thing as luck or random chance, so the Puritan argument went. Every event, down to its smallest detail, is breathed from the will of God. Thus, when one places a wager, one is praying for Divine intervention in a wholly trivial matter, for one's own enjoyment.

Ergo: Gambling is blasphemy!

[/ QUOTE ]

Hah - very interesting rationalization... but check this out:

"As you said, every event, down to its smallest detail, is breathed from the will of God. Thus, when I place a wager, I am acting as an instrument of God since He is in control of every event, including the event of me placing a wager.

It's not blasphemy! God made me do it!"

[NotReady]

"The essence of Puritanism was eloquently captured by one wise wit as "the pathological fear that someone, somewhere, is having a good time." "

This is one of the most twisted descriptions of Puritanism I've ever seen. I've read much Puritan theology, and though they did look down on what they called frivolity, it was a very minor issue, hardly the "essence" of their doctrine.

Some misguided Christians, whether Puritan or not, tend to over emphasize their "don't" list. They often forget that the Lord frequently associated with thieves and prostitutes.

I make a heavy distinction between Puritan theology and the common conception of "Puritanism". Even those theologians who might agree that, e.g., dancing is a sin, would not consider it of much importance.

You said:
"There is no such thing as luck or random chance, so the Puritan argument went. Every event, down to its smallest detail, is breathed from the will of God. Thus, when one places a wager, one is praying for Divine intervention in a wholly trivial matter, for one's own enjoyment.

Ergo: Gambling is blasphemy!
"

I certainly agree there is no such thing as luck. Nothing happens outside the control of God. Why you think Christians believe that leads to blasphemy totally escapes me. I pray, but not about the outcome of a hand or a sesssion - mostly that I continue to conquer my tendency to tilt.

[CrisBrown]

Hi NotReady,

I'm not going to debate theology here. The points I raised were matters of historical fact. The Puritans did condemn gambling as blasphemy, for the reasons I gave. I said in the post that it was specious theological reasoning, and it is ... but that it was made is still a historical fact.

As for the essence of Puritan theology, these were in fact a people who came from Europe to the New World, not because they weren't allowed to practice their religion in England and Holland (they were), but because they weren't allowed to compel everyone around them to practice Puritanism (as they wanted to be free of sinful influences). That too is a matter of historical fact.

And in that respect, they are not much different from today's fundamentalists who want to censor movies, TV, the Internet, and public life, force gays and lesbians to hide their affection for each other, and generally long for and hope to legislate a society which conforms to their moral judgments.

That isn't religious freedom. That's religious oppression.

Cris

[Kinli]

I'm seconding Cris here. I have studied this era at some length. A lot of people don't realize that the "Roundheads" who started the English Civil War and decapitated King Charles, among many others, did so because their religion demanded that there be no frivolity and that everyone follow their precepts.

After Cromwell was defeated, and the King returned to the throne, the Puritans (as they were now called) were still a problem. Quite naturally, the king wanted them gone. They insisted that he give them land in England where they could practice their beliefs freely.

The Crown refused, again for obvious reasons, the primary of which was that the new King was rather fond of his head. So the Puritans left for Holland where they were welcomed by one of the most tolerant societies the world has ever seen.

But even the Prince of Orange began to find them troublesome. In the end, the Puritans agreed to accept a land grant in the new world from the King of England and get out of everyone's hair.

So while we are so often taught that they came here seeking religious freedom, they came here also because they wouldn't allow anyone *else* to have religious freedom.

The argument they made against gambling is indeed historical fact, and did indeed end the public lotteries that were paying for public works, hospitals and other things.

I'm a Christian myself, and I'm not lumping Christians into the category of Puritans. I'm a Catholic, and will admit my church has certainly gone through some terrible times.

But everything Cris said in the original post is fact. We don't have to like those facts any more than I like many of the facts about my church in the past. But facts are facts.

Kinli

[NotReady]

"I'm not going to debate theology here. The points I raised were matters of historical fact. The Puritans did condemn gambling as blasphemy"

When you purport to say what "Puritans" did or said, you have engaged in a theological debate. The word "Puritan" is much like the word "Christian" or "fundamentalist". Does anyone think that applying the word "fundamentalist" to both Jerry Falwell and the Ayatollah(sp?) means they believe the same thing or act in the same way? Would anyone confuse the doctrines of Calvin with those of the pope, even though they are both "Christian?".

I completely agree with your conclusion that the idea gambling is blasphemy is specious. Could you provide a reference, because I've read much Reformed theology and have never come across that idea.

I have never studied the detailed history of the Puritans, and only know what I remember from history classes, which is very skimpy. I do know that some of what they did was unScriptural, such as burning people at the stake. There is no doubt however that they were persecuted themselves. John Bunyan, for instance, spent many years in prison for preaching in a Reformed church.

"And in that respect, they are not much different from today's fundamentalists who want to censor movies, TV, the Internet, and public life, force gays and lesbians to hide their affection for each other, and generally long for and hope to legislate a society which conforms to their moral judgments."

This is such a broad, sweeping accusation it is difficult to answer it succinctly. I will respond the the last part. I don't believe it's possible to legislate people so that they become moral, but there is nothing than CAN be legislated except morality. Why have a law that prevents me from committing murder? Isn't that the legislation of one person's morality, imposing on me conduct I may not agree with?

But my real focus isn't on law and politics. They aren't unimportant, just far less so than what really counts. In so far as "Christians" attempt to "Christianize" society by the sword, I believe they depart from Scriptural teaching. At the very time of the Lord's betrayal, Peter took up the sword to defend him, and was soundly rebuked for doing so. The history of the church from that time evinces much failure, and much of the failure comes from that misuse of the sword.

[NotReady]

I don't disagree with anything you say - I think it's just the word "Puritan" as an expletive that I wish to combat. I am interested in where I can find the argument about gambling, which I think is silly and must have been made by mostly uneducated people.

But then, even the very intelligent and educated make mistakes. One of the greatest "Puritan" theologians, J.C. Ryle, condemned theatre going and hunting, though it was not a major issue for him. Which is why it's important to stick to what the Word says.

[ChipWrecked]

Gambling and Lotteries are sin: No opportunity ought to be given for subjects to squander their goods, for God has forbidden this.

- Wilhelmus a’Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, Volume 4 (125-27); Volume 3 (Page 552-553)

[NotReady]

Thanks for the reference. The complete article can be found here.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Stewardship/ABrakelWilhelmusGamblingASin.htm


It's interesting that this is an excerpt from his systematic theology, apparently from a chapter titled "Guideline for Manifesting Compassion". His motivation was not "the pathological fear that someone, somewhere, is having a good time." but rather the desire to prevent people from wasting hard earned money on a "frivolous" pursuit.

The excerpt is from a section of the website concerning the stewardship of a Christian, and the primary purpose was to discuss how a Christian should use his money. Though I think it is wrong to state categorically that gambling is a sin, certainly gambling more than you can afford is wrong and harmful. Notice that none of this has anything to do with poker, which I do not include in the definition of gambling.

BTW, calling gambling a sin is not the same as calling it blasphemy.

[Lou Krieger]

[ QUOTE ]
I have accepted the fact I want to play and I really want others who are close to me respect and hopefully accept that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the next step in your decision making process is to decide what you plan to do when your parents and others close to you don't come around to your way of thinking. After all, that's the ultimate extension of your dilemma, and if you're comfortable with a position at the polar extremes of your conundrum, you can easily handle anything less than that.
_______
Lou Krieger
Raise your game with Lou Krieger, author of "Internet Poker: How to Play and Beat Online Poker Games" and five other poker books at Royal Vegas Poker.
http://www.royalvegaspoker.com/lou

[CrisBrown]

Hi NotReady,

"The History of Lotteries," The History Channel, broadcast 12/27 (I believe). They cited the reference but I didn't tape the broadcast and I can't find the video available on their website.

Moreover, you're trying to conflate my criticism of the Puritans -- who richly deserve it -- with a criticism of Christianity in general. That's a logical fallacy known as the "straw man argument," where you propose what you wish I had said and then attack it as if I did say it.

The history of the Puritans is one of the ugliest in all of Christendom, and that they were persecuted is no redemption for the many persecutions they inflicted. Perhaps you may want to study their history in greater detail before you set out to defend them?

Cris

[NotReady]

"Moreover, you're trying to conflate my criticism of the Puritans -- who richly deserve it -- with a criticism of Christianity in general. That's a logical fallacy known as the "straw man argument," where you propose what you wish I had said and then attack it as if I did say it."

I'm very familiar with the straw man argument. I didn't make one. I simply brought up the analogy of Christian and fundamentalist to illustrate how a term can become so generalized it is no longer useful.

"The history of the Puritans is one of the ugliest in all of Christendom, and that they were persecuted is no redemption for the many persecutions they inflicted."

I never said or implied that being persecuted is an excuse to persecute. I was responding to a specific allegation that Puritans weren't persecuted.

[Cyndie]

I always enjoy the logical nature of the arguments here...even when people disagree vehemently, it isn't violently.

FWIW, I believe that your plight will be reduced when your parents become grandparents...assuming they do not see a reduction in the quality of their grandchildren's lifestyle.

One thing you allowed was to do a better job of reporting income...why not ASK your parents when they think your poker might be a problem. It goes in the "feel, felt, found" philosophy of adapting behavior...understand how they feel. Let them know others have felt that way, then find out what their definition of "problem" is...It probably has to do with "losing." If you agree that the losses that would be beyond recreational expenses would be a problem for you too...then very likely you can come to an agreement. Just remember that their recreational dollars are spent and gone...you deserve credit for the dollars you win...and a fund for losses in the future. In other words, make it fair!

The girlfriend is a totally separate issue. You have more choice and less choice. You get to decide if you stay in the relationship, which you really don't have with your parents...however, if you stay in the relationship, you owe her more accommodations than you would your parents.

As a woman, I totally understand her desires to "nest" and expect a competent provider. Yes, men and women are different. However, if she doesn't understand the difference between a game of chance and a game of skill, I put the chances of this relationship surviving somewhere around negative ten.

Same type of deal...make an honest deal about finances, and TIME and stick with it. You are entitled to recreational time and money from the family income. If you are like most of us, the game is a lifelong fascination and wonderful learning experience. If you cannot negotiate to work out a deal that is acceptable...move on before there are children involved.

[daveymck]

Your parents are the easy part, just keep it low key do not get into arguments over it and personally I would say just dont bring it up. Its somthing they are not going to change their view on, if it comes up say you dont want to discuss it and keep it as brief as possible. You are an adult and can do what you want your parents may not like it but I doubt they are going to disown you over it, if they are concerned reassure them as best you can and change the subject.

As for your young lady depends she knows how/why/when you play and probably knows you win from it. However how often are you playing and how long for? If you were going out drinking with your friends instead of playing poker would that make you have a different response. In other words is this a hobby you can cut back on, can you negotiate see what she is looking for to be acceptable. Relationships are about give and take on hobbies, work kids and everything the most important thing is communication, seriously discuss it with her and see what she wants and how that fits in with your wants.

Going to a casino once a week or a couple of times a month coupled with a couple of hours online a few times a week would be my idea of where to pitch it.

[CrisBrown]

Hi NotReady,

[ QUOTE ]
I never said or implied that being persecuted is an excuse to persecute. I was responding to a specific allegation that Puritans weren't persecuted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you need to study their history in greater depth before you try to defend them. By the 17th century, the Puritans were allowed to practice their religion in England, but were still dissatisfied because they couldn't have a community all their own. That is, they wanted to be able to exclude non-Puritans from their midst, or force their neighbors to convert to Puritanism, so that the little Puritan children wouldn't be exposed to any bad influences.

Well, the King of England was getting tired of their incessant carping and testier by the month, so the Puritans went to Holland. Now, the Dutch were (and remain) one of the most tolerant societies in history. And they showed the same tolerance to the Puritans that they showed to anyone else ... until the Puritans began to demand that their neighbors either follow Puritan doctrines or move away. That's a good way to not fit into even a tolerant society.

So finally having inveigled with the King of England for a permanent Puritan land grant in the New World, the Puritans set off for the Massachusetts Bay Colony, where there would be no non-Puritans (except for those pesky Natives), and no reason for the Puritans to be upset with anyone, and they could all live happily ever after ...

... except for a dozen or so whom they decided were witches.

Cris

[NotReady]

I think you're confusing Puritan and Pilgrim.