Re: So.... would you sit at this table.
 

When I play live, I play 3/6. When I play online, I play 1/2. I also play the occasional no limit hold em cash game.
Even playing limits this small, its still likely that I have taken someone's last dollar, but thats not that bad.

When someone has 100 dollars to their name, and loses it, they can make that back in a day or two. When someone has 100k to their name, and you break them, how can they recover from that?

Another thing that you should consider is that gambling is a major source of white collar crime. If we could encourage people to wager responsibly, we could improve america's economy. Not to mention, preventing families from being destroyed.

And no, I don't think its bad to be on the fence about this.

Re: So.... would you sit at this table.
 

Its not bad that you're on the fence about this one. An aggressive, predatory outlook can be helpful for any kind of competition. There's nothing wrong with that outlook. I just think that ignoring the consequences of that outlook can in some situations lead us to do things we wish we hadn't.
I'm not accusing you or anyone else of doing shameful things, but I do think that in the case of taking 90k off of a guy and leaving him totally broke is not something to be happy about.

Re: So.... would you sit at this table.
 

Here's my problem with all of these questions, and no, I'm not going to get into the debate about economics above that I started:

Where do you draw the line? Where do you say that it's okay to take this person's money, but not that person's money? Moreover, what about the other guy's sense of personal responsibility about the money? This question has elicited a lot of responses one way or the other(including my own). I think the thing that bothers me about it is that it is not cause-and-effect; it is perception.

If you play the guy, and he kills himself, that is not a linear progression. Your taking his money did not push him out the window...he jumped. He made a decision that his life was not worth living, and he jumped. That said, I think the backgammon player did the right thing, and the thing I would hope to do in that situation, too.

But, this is very squicky, because it makes it sound as though the other guy does not have a choice, and frankly, I believe strongly enough in people that I believe we always have a choice. I think that I dislike adopting a paternalistic attitude toward other adults, which, incidentally, is why I dislike the current state of government in the United States...but that's a different topic altogether.

Re: So.... would you sit at this table.
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'll play Devil's Advocate. Sure, you look around you and see a better world than existed in 1600. But, what about all the injustice that occurred throghout those 400 years? We wouldn't be where we are without the suffering and misery of slavery. You wouldn't be able to buy cheap clothing if some 10 year old in Bangladesh wasn't working for 50 cents an hour. If millions of people hadn't died in all the wars over the years, we wouldn't have the political structures available to ensure our current prosperity. Not to mention the fact that sure, perhaps human society has actually advanced, but what about non-human society? What about all the aspects of nature that have been destroyed or forever altered so that we can enjoy SUVs and plastic? I think it's something to think about, anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent, playing Devil's Advocate is great (let me know if you want to swap sides). /friendly comment

Do you think there is more or less injustice in the world today than in 1600?

If there is more stuff (which I think you have to accept) and less injustice, then I think we have clear proof that overall, human society is a non-zero sum game (although certain situations, like poker can be treated as such).

Your argument only works if we accept that the non-zero sumness of human society comes at the expense of other species. Some of it certainly does, like idiots with SUVs getting other idiots to allow oil drilling in Alaska.
However, not every improvement in human society has an equally negative impact on the environment.

"The environment" is also very hetrogenous. For example, killing most / all of the wolves in Yellowstone was negative for the wolves, but positive for the elk. Similarly, creating a landfill in a field negatively impacts the rabbits (or whatever) that were living there, but positively impacts the seagulls, rats, and other scavengers. There are many examples of a win for humanity, loss for one species, win for another species situation.

/argument

Seriously, let me know if you want to swap sides.

Re: So.... would you sit at this table.
 

Man, drunk-girl sex would be the icing on the cake after stripping 100k off that dude.

Re: So.... would you sit at this table.
 

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, penguin...do you even know what a zero-sum game is? A zero-sum game is where there is a winner and a loser. I defy you to tell me that the grand majority of life(by life, I don't mean just human beings) is not clearly defined in those terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

This assumption is contrary to classic economics, which assumes that all voluntary transactions are Pareto efficient (i.e., utility maximizing).

In other words, if I pay you $10 to mow my lawn, and you accept and mow my lawn, you value $10 more than the cost/effort it took to mow my lawn, and I value a mowed lawn more than I value $10.

It is a win-win result, not a zero-sum result.

A zero-sum situation would exist if we both were in an airplane and there were only one parachute. Zero sum situations also frequently arise in life. However all of life is not zero-sum.

Re: So.... would you sit at this table.
 

Yes. I'll play until I'm up $99,998 dollars. I'll leave him $2 to buy a bullet, and I'll loan him the gun.

That's poker.

As Robert Heinlein said: "There is no such thing as 'social gambling.' Either you are there to cut the other bloke's heart out and eat it — or you're a sucker. If you don't like this choice — don't gamble."

Re: So.... would you sit at this table.
 

I can't see how anyone said no. He's got 100k that he can't find a better use for. If it is "all he has to live for", then knocking him down to rock bottom may be the only thing that will awaken his senses.

It's not like he's going to stop shopping around if he gets declined, so saying "no" isn't doing him a favor.

About the only reason I can come up with for saying "no" would be the risk that he wins, because 200k isn't going to fix what's broke with him. I'm positive that losing is what he wants, and he'll just continue searching.

Re: So.... would you sit at this table.
 

Hey SDM, can I be your Hero too? To me its not even a question. "NO" and no in any terms if the way you put it is that he is ruined and thinking of say Suicide or something, you need to make this kind of a poll 100% clear. I was thinking he has a family, he a degenerate gambler and it will affect his kids and then I thought YES Id play "IF" I knew he would play the next guy and blow it all when I can beat him and drive him home and give it to his Old Lady.

I havent done this playing poker BUT I have done this in some VERY similar ways during my short life span.
I am not going to let someone I know or someone I "feel" for ( to be specific it means means I dont have to know you) throw thier life away and again thats how I took it.
Now I dont believe many of you would do this if you knew it would say bring about his death and again this is how I seen it.

Re: So.... would you sit at this table.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Now I dont believe many of you would do this if you knew it would say bring about his death and again this is how I seen it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about it this way... if this guy is going to commit suicide if he loses his $100K, yet is still going to try to blow that $100K- he must want to die. However, whether or not he commits suicide if he loses cannot be the issue. We shouldn't just create false scenarios where he may kill himself, and may have a wife and kids to feed or whatever else. Any time you play poker against anybody, for any amount of money, you would then have to take in the same consideration that he's going to kill himself if he loses, or he is losing away money his family needs (which I bet is most often the case anytime anyone is gambling and losing.)

Bottom line: We live in the natural world. The Laws of nature, in the end, govern. I would 100% of the time still sit down at the table if I were guaranteed to win the match. This applies even in the offchance he would kill himself if he loses, or would kill others, or would get a job, or it would bring about a nuclear holocaust.

All that really should concern me, as a poker player, is that he has money that I need, that he either doesn't need or isn't intelligent enough to realize that he needs it; and that alone is enough reason to take it from him.

Life may not exactly be a zero-sum game, but you can bet your last dollar that the next guy will take your food, money, clothes, or life- if it ensures his survival.

Re: Wrong!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can promise you that for every two people who are percieved to be both profiting from a given transaction, there are others somewhere else in the world that are paying the price for this to be possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is absolutely not true. It is possible for such a win win situation to occur simply because we have preferences which can be translated into dollars.

Let's say you and I both like baseball, in particular one player. I really like Player A and you really like Player B. We also like collecting baseball cards. Now I see a card for Player B and think that it's a decent value, even though I am not as big of a fan for Player B. So I buy it and am moderately happy with my purchase--I think I got a deal even though I don't really love the card.

You find the same situation for Player A. Then later we meet and see that each of us has a card which the other would really enjoy, instead of moderately enjoy. We swap, and each of us thinks we got a great deal because we enjoy our new card much more than the previous one. The seller is happy--he sold his cards. And we are both happy.

At every point along the way, the happiness/profit level for every person in this scenario increased without taking away from somebody else.

This is what economics is about. Very often, situations can be improved to the benefit of everybody involved without detracting in any way from anybody else. And when this is not the case, the times that the deals do hurt others do not necessarily "make up" for the times they don't. It's not a zero sum type of deal. There is an overall positive expectation from making these kinds of transactions.

Re: Wrong!!!
 

I'm only replying to this because you totally ignored what that guy was saying. His point acknowledged the "perfect" transaction between you and your friend. You ignored the crux of his argument; the other people in the world who suffered from the trade.

Baseball cards are a weak example, the scenario you created was a perfect one in which both of you ended up with cards of the player you wanted- with no other criteria by which to judge the value of the cards. This doesn't attack the thesis whatsoever.

Here's a relevant analogy: You go to the store to buy a sweatshirt. The sweatshirt sells for $40. You value the sweatshirt more than the $40 and the store owner values the $40 more than the sweatshirt. Win-Win? Not exactly, here's why.

The "other people" the poster above is talking about are the store employees, perhaps more significantly the sweatshop workers in other countries that have no real choice in the transaction and anyone else who may somehow be affected by the deal.

While it could be true that the 2 cents per hour they make, they value above their time and effort- in reality it's a forced scenario in which the worker has no choice or basis to make a value judgment.

I want to throw away my bachelor's in Econ. when people talk about Free trade being win-win.

Re: Wrong!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm only replying to this because you totally ignored what that guy was saying. His point acknowledged the "perfect" transaction between you and your friend. You ignored the crux of his argument; the other people in the world who suffered from the trade.

Baseball cards are a weak example, the scenario you created was a perfect one in which both of you ended up with cards of the player you wanted- with no other criteria by which to judge the value of the cards. This doesn't attack the thesis whatsoever.

Here's a relevant analogy: You go to the store to buy a sweatshirt. The sweatshirt sells for $40. You value the sweatshirt more than the $40 and the store owner values the $40 more than the sweatshirt. Win-Win? Not exactly, here's why.

The "other people" the poster above is talking about are the store employees, perhaps more significantly the sweatshop workers in other countries that have no real choice in the transaction and anyone else who may somehow be affected by the deal.

While it could be true that the 2 cents per hour they make, they value above their time and effort- in reality it's a forced scenario in which the worker has no choice or basis to make a value judgment.

I want to throw away my bachelor's in Econ. when people talk about Free trade being win-win.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm venturing away from my area of knowledge here, and you obviously, with your degree, have more of an idea of what you're talking about but...

Though sweatshop conditions and the employees may dislike what they do--would they do it if the cons outweighed the pros. Though pennies an hour may be small pay, it's better than nothing, and although the would be better off if they had dollars per hour pay, pennies is still more than nothing. It may be a sickening scenario and we think they "lose" from the transaction--but the alternative of starving is worse, isn't it?

How exactly have they lost?? It may be a bad situation to begin with and still bad after the transaction, but it is better than not having the work.

Please help me understand where I am wrong; I am very interested in this and you seem more than qualified to help. Thanks. (I am serious and not being sarcastic, just FYI.)

Re: Wrong!!!
 

zero sum just means that to the extent that one party gains, the other loses. The zero refers to the sum of these gains/losses. I gain 5 dollars by paying you 5 dollars less. You lose 5 dollar by being paid 5 dollars less. Negative five plus positive five equals zero. In the example given above, it can clearly be seen that the retail store owner, the manufacturer of the clothes, and perhaps the consumer gain from the low wages of people working in sweatshops.

Zero sum doesn't mean that one party has zero gain. Clearly, even the lowest paying most demeaning job may be preferable to starvation.

Re: Wrong!!!
 

This lies more along the lines of my opinion and philosophical/political views than a concrete example from Economic theory, but I'll attempt to explain in this way:

The slave-wage labor we speak of, may or may not, be worse than the "alternative," death. More importantly, death is not the only alternative, but simply one of two forced choices given the slave-laborer by the rest of society. The worker, therefore, has no choice or basis to make that value judgment. This means that he is unable to weight death, against 2 cents an hour, against fishing instead, or rebelling against society altogether.

If we want to go back to Econ. at this point, the post above did a good job of explaining why this interaction (between the worker, consumer, employer, and society) is in fact, in a sense, a zero sum game. (The + + that the consumer and employer gain is at the expense of the others.)

I'm not sure how else to explain the principle, let me know if you have further questions?

Re: So.... would you sit at this table.
 

Posts like this always remind me of the "Executive Game" episode of the Sopranos, where Tony's buddy, a degenerate gambler, begged his way into the big executive poker game. After trying to talk him out of playing, Tony eventually gave in, and of course his friend lost all his money. At the end Tony S. defended himself by saying, "A grown man made a wager. He lost. He made another one. He lost again. End of story."

I tend to agree. I'm just playing a game to the best of my ability, as I would expect anyone else to do against me. I feel bad for the other guy, but there are a lot of factors that made him a degenerate gambler, none of which I had anything to do with.

If the situation was reversed, and any one of us sat down at a table with our last 100K, good luck finding someone unwilling to take your money.

Re: Wrong!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]

I want to throw away my bachelor's in Econ. when people talk about Free trade being win-win.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should know better than them. Use your degree to teach them to take a closer look.

International trade theory states that there are gains from free trade. This is supported by empirical studies.
These gains can lead to win-win situations if distributed in such a way. It is often assumed that all participants profit from free trade, the participants here being countries.

It does in no way state that every single individual is a winner of free trade.

So please do not put that degree in the shredder, that might be -EV. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Wrong!!!
 

[ QUOTE ]

So please do not put that degree in the shredder, that might be -EV. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hah. Yea, that's what people keep telling me. I plan to keep it around; I'm going to law school now, but I swear all I do is play poker on-line and in the B&M.

I just meant that as more of a frustrated comment about Free Trade and the common perception that it is in fact win-win for all parties concerned (countries, individuals).