So.... would you sit at this table.
 

Picked up a Card Player from the airport since my flight was delayed a few hours. Darden on the cover. Dr. Al has a few pages on the "Just witnessed the first part of poker" post that was up a while ago. IMHO, it really didn't say anything about where poker ethics are or should be.

So I have a simple question for all of you. How many of you would sit at that head-up table with a guy with $100K to blow and you know you can beat him. Catch is it's everything he has and if you beat him, he will "[have] nothing to live for."

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

I voted yes. That statement is contradictory "...a guy with $100k to blow...nothing to live for," but I'm assuming you didn't really mean he had it to blow, but was willing to blow it. This is like asking, will you take on the Heavyweight Champion of the World, knowing you can beat him, but it will destroy his ego, career, etc. Anyone who says no isn't a poker player or athlete. If he's willing to blow it, I'm willing to take it.

Important edit to post
 

Correct, I did not mean to say he had $100K to blow. I meant he had $100K and that is everything and he is willing to lose it, though losing it would destroy him emotionally, possibly in other ways.

Re: Important edit to post
 

This is a hard question, alot of people will say yes unashamedly, and honestly that's one part of poker that is sickening, the pure parasitic nature of the game ... yet the game is only a representation of Capitalism ... nuff said.

Be that as it may ... I'm not wealthy, and I have to make the decision if I sit down at a table whether I can afford to lose it.

Most times I can't, when I can I play very tight, but nobody cares about your financial problems, if you are at that table, you are a player, and it's the duty of one player to win the others money.

It's a tough game, but if he can't afford to lose that 100k he shouldn't be there, and furthermore if 100k doesn't make him happy, the guy needs some anti-depresants.

Re: Important edit to post
 

[ QUOTE ]
and honestly that's one part of poker that is sickening, the pure parasitic nature

[/ QUOTE ]
The goal of poker is to crush your opponent by outsmarting him and and winning his money. It's not parasitic, it's pure and honest combat between consenting participants.

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

Well, I voted no. I think I'd be thinking about that guy the rest of my life and it just ain't worth it to me. I'm a winning player and I'll just look elsewhere for my game.

Re: Important edit to post
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and honestly that's one part of poker that is sickening, the pure parasitic nature

[/ QUOTE ]
The goal of poker is to crush your opponent by outsmarting him and and winning his money. It's not parasitic, it's pure and honest combat between consenting participants.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, although the original post did imply you knew you could beat him, and since most pro poker players use the word 'fish' it's only natural to assume poker players feed on their weaker opponents like sharks. (or parasites)

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

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I voted no. I think I'd be thinking about that guy the rest of my life and it just ain't worth it to me. I'm a winning player and I'll just look elsewhere for my game.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a great person Net Warrior, maybe it's the beer talking, but you are my hero.

Cheers,
SDM

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

I have seen variants of this post before. Usually, it's along the lines of "If Charity Case A sat at your table..." or "If Degenerate Gambler Mr. X wanted to play you." Typically, the thread assumes that you would win 100% of the time against whomever sad-sack you were playing.

Here's the thing that makes me vote yes every single time: he would do the same to me. It's like asking a soldier in war if he would not kill the opposing soldier because the guy on the other side is a horrible shot.

And another thing: the word parasitic continues to be thrown around for how our game is. I disagree. The outcome of poker is nature and natural selection at almost the purest level that humans can achieve. Life is a zero-sum game. Do you think a lion ever shows mercy when he's hunting?

Re: Important edit to post
 

[ QUOTE ]
losing it would destroy him emotionally, possibly in other ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

What other ways would matter? With emotional destruction you lose health and the psychological ability to recover and regain your financial stability, so you're cooked. Stick a fork in him, he's done. If you asked me, "if you play him you will win and then he will shoot himself in front of you," then I'd have a decision. Knowing he's going to stick a 9mm Beretta in his mouth, do I wear my best shirt or don't I?

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

i went with no on this one

if he offered to just give me $100K, and if i accepted he would have nothing to live for i would refuse it, and therefore i reckon i should not take his money playing poker

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

[ QUOTE ]
Life is a zero-sum game.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're totally wrong and it's not even close.

There is no way human society (Life as far as you are concerned) is a zero sum game.

I hope you're just trying to do some macho posturing here, otherwise, you're a sociopath.

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

I voted yes and my resoning for that is, I believe that if I dont then someone right behind me will take up the offer. So why not me taking the money since its gone either way.

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

It did not refer to the "first part of poker," but to the "worst" part of it.

Part I was primarily on the hard-liners' position. Part II tells about the other side. I wish you had posted this poll and its results before I submitted Part II. Print articles have a long lead time, and that article went to "Card Player" last week. The data would have been very useful.

In neither part did I insist that there is only one way to think. In fact, I regard the position that there is only one correct way to play as "arrogant nonsense."

Thanks for posting this poll.

Regards,

Al

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

The answer is yes.

Everyday there are degenerate gamblers losing their rent money at the Party NL 1K tables.

Every winning online player has played against this kind of player but he only appears as a screen name. "Haha, look at this fish. I just took $xxx from him with his bottom two pair."

Everyone answering no to this poll is a hypocrite.

PS. If you bust him he has a great incentive to get a job.

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

100k is a lot of money. I think it would be interesting to find the point at which people start declining as you decrase the money.

WOuld you still sit down if teh guy had only $10k? 5k? 1k? 100? or $5.

I'm pretty sure the answer lies somewhere between $5 and $1M. What this means is that it's not a blakc and white question for most people. We would take someone for everything if it was enough money (i.e. not take somoene's last $5 if that's all they started with, but would take it if it was the last $5 of the the $1M they started with)

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

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. Nature is a vicious place of winners and losers. Don't believe me? Watch Animal Planet or the Discovery Channel sometime.

Second of all, what you stated in your post seems to be a knee-jerk, boilerplate reaction to a concept which is not an indictment of life or value systems. What you sound like is someone in the throes of a preprogrammed hysteria.

Lastly, I would not make a habit of denouncing someone as a sociopath. That is a very loaded term, and should not be taken lightly. I have never committed a crime beyond a speeding ticket. I pay my taxes, attend church regularly, and hold down a steady job. I have many friends, and most people who meet me seem to like me quite a bit. The words usually used to describe me are caring, compassionate, and sweet.

All of this is to say that if you are going to insist on going through life undergoing irrational reactions to phrases, I suggest you seek professional help yourself.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Every winning online player has played against this kind of player but he only appears as a screen name. "Haha, look at this fish. I just took $xxx from him with his bottom two pair."

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

There's a HUGE difference between an unskilled player and an irresponsible/addicted player. Winning players target the former with the *reasonable* assumption that they are gambling within their means. But to *intentionally* target a player such as the one in the example above is, IMO, repugnant.

Do we all end up unknowingly playing against an addict at some point? Yes. It would be impossible for any poker player to do a background check on every single opponent in order to determine whether or not they are irresponsible. But the minute you tell me that Player X is an addict gambling away the last of his money, I'm finding a new table. The jackals can have him; I'd rather sleep well.

Purposefully targeting irresponsible gamblers is like holding happy hour for alcoholics. Go ahead and do it if you want. I'll pass. That doesn't make me a hypocrite or any other name you want to call me to make yourself feel better.

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

This is an easy three step process.

1) You play.
2) You win.
3) You make him your butler until he works his money back.

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

Yeah, sorry about the typos, and I didn't mean to be mean in my post. Also, I posted this as soon as I thought about it--I just wanted to see how many people would answer directly yes or no.

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

Of all the reasons for a yes answer, I like this one the best.

Would anybody here try and stop the guy from playing, or just not take him up on his offer???

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

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the thing that makes me vote yes every single time: he would do the same to me. It's like asking a soldier in war if he would not kill the opposing soldier because the guy on the other side is a horrible shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. It is unlike war because, especially online, you can choose your battles. If you are in a war, and you can win the war by fighting only the battles you want, it's a whole other game, IMHO

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

Why does it have to be 100K? Don't we all come
across situations where we take someone's last
$100, or $300, or $30? Sure, they likely will
be able to replace it after a week or two, but
in effect we "cause" them great pain for some
period of time.

It's just a matter of degree, I don't want to
argue shades of grey. Problem gambling happens
at all levels.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Of all the reasons for a yes answer, I like this one the best.

Would anybody here try and stop the guy from playing, or just not take him up on his offer???

[/ QUOTE ]

just not take him up on his offer

i assume you are implying that not trying to stop the guy from playing is no better than playing him yourself

i reckon there is a difference, just as there is a difference between not trying to help a guy who's about to get beat up by another guy, and beating up the guy yourself

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

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, penguin...do you even know what a zero-sum game is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I know what zero sum games are. I'm not sure you do.

[ QUOTE ]

A zero-sum game is where there is a winner and a loser.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

A zero sum game is where the amount won by the winner is equal to the amount lost by the loser.

"Most economic situations are non-zero-sum" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum (along with every damn economics course I have ever taken)

Robert Wright - "society becomes increasingly non-zero-sum as it becomes more complex," [same article]

I stated in my post "There is no way human society (Life as far as you are concerned) is a zero sum game."

I guess I was wrong there, you obviously think we live by the law of the jungle (since a system of laws in a civilized soceity is another non-zero sum game, you can't think you live under that).

[ QUOTE ]
I defy you to tell me that the grand majority of life(by life, I don't mean just human beings)

[/ QUOTE ]

I am pretty sure I said that I did mean human beings. I'm a human being, and I'm assuming you are too. Do you seriously think that if I'm hungry I should just kill and eat you? If not, stop trying to use lions to justify your arguments.

[ QUOTE ]

Lastly, I would not make a habit of denouncing someone as a sociopath.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, but you think life's a zero sum game, so I should do whatever I can to "win" regardless of the people I hurt. Lets say calling you a sociopath causes you 1 unit of annoyance. If life was a zero sum game, then not calling you a sociopath would have caused me 1 unit of annoyance.

So 1) If life is a zero sum game, you can't complain about me calling you a sociopath, and 2) since not calling you a sociopath wouldn't have caused me one unit of annoyance (perhaps 0.1 units for having to change my post), there's another non-zero sum situation.

I'm not going to get (further) into personal insults, so snipped the rest of your post.

Re: Important edit to post
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and honestly that's one part of poker that is sickening, the pure parasitic nature

[/ QUOTE ]
The goal of poker is to crush your opponent by outsmarting him and and winning his money. It's not parasitic, it's pure and honest combat between consenting participants.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, although the original post did imply you knew you could beat him, and since most pro poker players use the word 'fish' it's only natural to assume poker players feed on their weaker opponents like sharks. (or parasites)

[/ QUOTE ]
Only fight battles you can win. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

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

Ah, screw it. I had this long rebuttal planned out, but I realized that I've been fighting on message boards all day long over absolutely nothing.

Penguin, you are right, and I am wrong. Maybe I could intellectualize my way to a reasonable position, but frankly, I'm tired, and I'm tired of fighting.

I'm no sociopath. I am a decent man who is normally a moderate thinker, but I was trying to take a hardline position because I believed that is the only way to be about poker.

Maybe it is, and probably, I'll think the same thing in the morning. But now, I'm tired, and I just don't want to fight about how cold and calculating I really can be...when the truth is that I'm a softy, and I'd no more play this guy than have sex with a drunk girl.

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

If someone else would take his money if I didn't I would play; otherwise, no.

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

See, I knew you weren't a sociopath (my original line was something like "if you really believe human society (Life) is zero-sum and not just macho posturing then you're a sociopath"

This was also a rather hardline and poorly judged choice of words on my part (original draft was a less confrontational "then I pity you"), have a high tolerance for arguing (yes, arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics, but it's better than working).

The irony is that I probably display more antisocial personality disorder (what sociopathy is classified under in the DSM IV I think) tendencies than you do.

And I'd have sex with a drunk girl if I was drunk. Or if she was hot.

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

[ QUOTE ]

I'd no more play this guy than have sex with a drunk girl.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would be cool to take his money and then go have sex with a drunk girl.

But I probaly couldn't do it either. Drunk girls are to sloppy in bed.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I voted no. I think I'd be thinking about that guy the rest of my life and it just ain't worth it to me. I'm a winning player and I'll just look elsewhere for my game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm quite sure that you are either lying or kidding yourself. If it's the latter, I am certain that, while licking your chops, you would find a way to rationalize sitting down. That is, if the thought at all, even crossed your mind not to. You play poker to win other peoples' money. Period.

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

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way human society (Life as far as you are concerned) is a zero sum game.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, how wrong you are!

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

[ QUOTE ]
A zero sum game is where the amount won by the winner is equal to the amount lost by the loser.

"Most economic situations are non-zero-sum" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum (along with every damn economics course I have ever taken)

Robert Wright - "society becomes increasingly non-zero-sum as it becomes more complex," [same article]

I stated in my post "There is no way human society (Life as far as you are concerned) is a zero sum game."


[/ QUOTE ]

You are reducing the situation down to the individual. The fact that two people can both seemingly benefit(economically speaking) from the same transaction, without it costing someone, is an illusion.

This is because there are systems in place designed to create this illusion. 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.

Now, it may or may not be exactly two, and it may or may not be exactly the same amount of money. But by Zero-Sum, I am not referring to the fact that an INDIVIDUAL must gain exactly what another individual loses, but that as a whole (human civilization in it's entirety), there is only one constant energy (capital). There is no extra money on the table, so to speak. It can niether be created nor destroyed. It can only be transfered from one to the other, with the process benefiting some, and costing others. If not on the scale of the individual, then as competing societies. Economists and writers that claim otherwise, are either ignoring or discrediting the big picture. There is ALWAYS cost.

So the next time you mistakingly think win-win, just think of all the people around the world that have died or been enslaved (either knowingly or unknowingly) to afford such a seemingly perfect opportunity.

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

So the whole system of economics is a giant con, designed to fool us all into thinking co-operation is actually a good idea? Umm.

Capital can be created and destroyed. Are you saying there's the same amount of "money on the table" as there was 1605? I'd love to see the mental gymnastics you have to use to try to prove that.

Anyway, Capital doesn't mean S***. It's all about Utility.

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

[ QUOTE ]
So the whole system of economics is a giant con, designed to fool us all into thinking co-operation is actually a good idea? Umm.

Capital can be created and destroyed. Are you saying there's the same amount of "money on the table" as there was 1605? I'd love to see the mental gymnastics you have to use to try to prove that.

[/ 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.

Re: Important edit to post
 

Its not parsitic, it is predatory. There is a difference.

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

Think about the question: would you ruin someone's life for profit?

Thats beyond disgusting.

Its the same question.

In Telling lies and getting paid, there's a story about a high-stakes backgammon player who played the tournament director of a backgammon tournament for a lot of money. He busted the guy, only to learn that the money was actually the prize pool of the tournament. The TD tried to committ suicide, almost throwing himself out of a window. The high stakes backgammon player talked him out of it, even offering to forget the whole thing. This made the TD feel even more terrible, so the backgammon pro said "ok, so you'll owe me and you can send me occassional payments"

Would you sit in that game with the TD if you knew that when he lost, he would pay you, but also might kill himself?

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

Its more like saying "If a troubled child challenged you to fight to the death, and you knew you could kill him, would you accept the challenge?"

There's no kill/be killed dichotomy here, because you can always decline. So saying "he'd do the same to me" just doesn't cut it as an answer. However, lets someone who looks like a wealthy businessman challenges you to a match, and you think you are a good favorite. He wants to play for 100k, and you can afford it, so you say yes. You play your best, and are able to beat him, even though he wasn't as poor a player as you thought. Afterwards, you find out the 100k is everything he has. Now, taking it becomes more justifiable, because you didn't know he wasn't actually a wealthy businessman, and also, if he had won, he certainly wouldn't give you a rebate.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Would you sit in that game with the TD if you knew that when he lost, he would pay you, but also might kill himself?

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't as easy as the first scenario for me. If a guy is willing to sit down and lose all his money to me, I'll take it every time.

However, knowing someone will likely commit suicide if they lose would make it extremely difficult for me to play against them. Is it bad that I am really on the fence on this one?

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

[ QUOTE ]
Think about the question: would you ruin someone's life for profit?

[/ QUOTE ]

What limits do you play? If you think you have never taken the last of a person's money at one point or another you are probabaly wrong. Even if you didn't take it all HU, you are still apart of the system that may or may have not ruined someones life.