Re: What was there name?
 

Well, I'm certainly not saying I have any problem beating drunk, tilted or bad players. I want to stress I am a WINNING low limit player. But when I see someone playing in a truly depraved fashion -- ie. the player I cited who was playing EVERY hand -- I do feel compassion for that player. In a live game, especially at the lower limits I play (1-3 through 5-10) I do think some players might try to talk with the player. On the Internet, that's less possible. For example, the player I'm speaking of never chatted a word during the 90 minutes I played with him. Those posters who feel "everyone is equal at the table, just take his money" are, in my view, lacking in perspective and decency. There are two sides to the game -- playing hard and winning is one, sharing the game with others who play it is another. Obviously, this site is an example of the latter. I think trying to help severely sick gamblers deal with their problem is another.

Re: What was there name?
 

I'm going to challenge you on this, if for no other reason than your post has a self-righeous sound to it.

How do you know that that person in the online game was hurting himself? In my view, you are basing a very strong opinion on a shaky premise.

I say again, there are $1,000 slot machines at Bellagio. That's $3,000 per spin. They aren't there for show, there are people who play them. For those people, $3,000 per spin has the same impact on their finances as 15 cents per spin does for nickel slots players.

The point is - money does not have an objective value. Yes, the person online COULD be gambling his grocery money, but he just as easily could be throwing away an insignificant amount of pocket change. You don't know, yet you use this flawed preminse to flaunt your moral superiority.

Fine. I believe in freedom. You're free to leave the table for whatever reason you choose. As far as I'm concerned, when a person with free will CHOOSES to sit at the table, their problems are their responsibility.

Wow. Individual responsibility. there's a unique concept. But, then again, I'm a sociopath. What'd you expect from a guy who uses a Klingon screen name?
[img]/forums/images/icons/cool.gif[/img]

Re: What was there name?
 

Kurnson, I did not call you a sociopath. And I earlier agreed that it was possible that this particular player is a wealthy eccentric. If that is the case, I wouldn't be concerned. But I think you must concede that there are problem gamblers in the poker world who lose their homes and families. It's interesting -- and disturbing -- to me that so many people reject any concept of compassion for these people.

Re: What was there name?
 

I know it wasn't you who called me a sociopath. Someone else did, so I'm running with it.

I am not at all rejecting the idea of compassion for people with a gambling problem. I am rejecting the idea of showing that compassion at the poker table. I am all for providing people with the proper counseling for addictive-compulsive behavior, but at some point, those people MUST make the choice to change their behavior. Like alcoholism is not caused by bars, gambling addiction is not caused by casinos. Those people for whom we show compassion spit in our faces by rejecting attempts to be helped and returning to the addiction.

Treating addiction as a disease only and not addressing the character issues inherent in recidivism does not help addicts. At some point, any addict must take responsibility for his/her problem. Just as welfare does not solve the problem of poverty, reinforcing the "it's not my fault, it's a disease" mentality does not help an addict.

If a friend of mine had a gambling problem and said, hey, Kurn, let's hang out this weekend, I'd go to a ballgame with him, go to a club, etc. I would not say, "hey. let's go to Foxwoods."

But if I'm sitting a a poker table and he comes in on his own. I might ask him if he was sure this was what he wanted to do, but the minute he sits at that table, he ceases to be my friend and becomes an opponent. Maybe the only way he'll ever get the message is to go bust, I don't know.

One last question at the risk of sounding like a broken record. Do you at least accept the fact that you have no idea whether or not the person at that online table was doing himself harm?

Re: What was there name?
 

To answer your last question first, I certainly don't know if that particular person was "doing themselves harm". But I'd say it's more likely than not that they are. Let's face it, for every rich loon there are probably 10 sick gamblers. It's hard to envision a scenario where playing every hand and losing $750 in 90 minutes can be a happy, fun time for the person involved.

I think that your statements are fine as far as they go. Individuals must ultimately help themselves. But there is a bigger issue -- if we know gambling is addictive for some people, if we decide to sanction it in our culture, then we inevitably must develop a response to addicted gamblers. In other words, for each individual, gambling addiction is a "choice". But for society, gambling addiction is a certainty. Just as sentiment is moving towards holding cigarette companies responsible for damages to smokers, I expect that ultimately casinos will begin to bear some responsibility for the damage addictive gamblers do to themselves. As an individual player trying to win, I agree it's every man for themselves. But as part of the group of poker players, I feel sorry for those who play in a way that has no chance to win and that, for some, costs more than they can afford to lose.

Re: What was there name?
 

Then we disagree philosophically. Specifically, you state:

>Individuals must ultimately help themselves. But there is a bigger issue -- <

Here is where I disagree. There is no bigger issue than personally responsibility and accountability. The concept that there are "bigger issues" that trump that is the failing of the liberal, social-democratic point of view.

But this forum is about poker, not politics or philosophy, so I will let it rest.

Re: What was there name?
 

We probably do differ politically. But I would respond to your comments with two well-known quotes:

"No man is an island"

"Love thy neighbor as thy self"

Re: What was there name?
 

"I certainly don't know if that particular person was "doing themselves harm". But I'd say it's more likely than not that they are."

was this the first time you ever played with someone like this? i think youre making a snap judgement about this person. im with kurn, once their on the table it's war. if i dont take their money someone else will. the only thing 'you' can do to 'help' them, in reality, is to leave. what are you going to do? go up on a soapbox for them against the table, hold up the action telling everyone to show compassion? i know this sounds ridiculaous, but think about it...

im also not trying to sound insulting, but i certainly dont believe in protecting people from themselves. theyre over 21, they can make the choice themselves.

i remember a time where a gal busted out of the game around 11:30p. and she was tilting pretty good. she kept saying she'd have to wait til 12 to get more money. thats when the cash machines reset your daily withdrawl limit. she was obviously jonesin. now should i have stepped in and said something? i have no idea who she is...

i just played tight til 12 for when the game was going to get good again... [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

sound harsh? poker is a harsh business. and no one will show you compassion on a table if you needed it.

i agree it's sad, but it's part of playing the game. eventually you WILL run into some of these types. i think it's a fairy tale to think you can save them much less help them...

cya...

b

Re: What was there name?
 

Bernie, in the case of the woman you mentioned, yeah I might have tried to take her aside and say something. No I don't think I can save everyone or even make a difference most of the time. But knowing that does not absolve me from the responsibility to behave ethically and compassionately. The kind of "whatever is, is right" thinking that most of the responders seem to champion seems to me to be an agrogation of personal responsibility, not an embrace of it.

Re: What was there name?
 

Well, I was going to let it rest, but I can't. Your last sentence suggests that personal responsibility only applies to the strong and not to the weak. That personal responsibility somehow presupposes a carte blanche to impose *morality*, however you define it, on those unable to discern it for themselves. But I digress.

Gambling is what it is. For pete's sake, man, what kind of people do you think it attracts? You can't make gambling available and then sanitize it to make it safe. In case it hasn't occurred to you, poker is a zero sum game (well, it's actually a negative sum game when you factor in the rake). It's like the balance between freedom and equality. You can't maximize both.

Different people come to the poker table for different reasons. Some come totally unarmed for the battle and are guaranteed to bust out from the start. What do you want? Someone to screen everybody before they come to the table? Should I have raised my hand when the tourist family (young guy, his wife & mother-in-law) came to the 4/8 table at Bellagio two weeks ago and said "Mr. Floorman, don't let these people play, they're going to lose all their money." What am I, nuts? It was sort of like the scene in rounders where a few people at the table exchange subtle glances of restrained glee at the sight. And guess what, they did lose all their money. Re-buys, too. And I'm happy to say that I got the right cards in the right situations and pretty much had my A-game that day and walked out with a good chunk of their money. I should feel the need to dissuade them from playing poker? Not in this lifetime. And you want to know why? Because the next time I go to Vegas, I may sit at higher stakes, and somebody like Dynasty or Clarkmeister or Balt might be at the table and if I don't have my A game, I'll get my clock cleaned. But that's the way it goes.

Maybe you're not cut out to be a gambler. The world of poker is a lot like a free society. It isn't always pretty, and it isn't always safe, but it's better than a completely secure world where there's no chance of failure or triumph.

You gave me some quotes before. Here's one for you:

"Any man who would trade a portion of his freedom for a small measure of security deserves neither." - Benjamin Franklin