Take the money

xniNja · #1 08-26-2005, 01:35 PM

The psychology of playing against degenerates, compulsive gamblers, newbies, and plain idiots is not complex. Too many people on this board are confused. If you're playing on _____ and you just cleaned out some idiot with a picture of a child as their avatar, then you just cleaned out some idiot with a picture of a child as their avatar. You have no information about their financial situation, and you don't want it. If they ask for their money to feed their children, use your poker skills and consider it a bluff you don't have to call to win, since they don't even have a hand.

The correct mathematical, psychological, AND philosophical position MUST be to take any and all money you can from whoever you can and whenever you can in poker, since the converse is always true, that anyone and everyone will try to take whatever money they can from you. This truth cannot be denied, not even by the inferior skills of your opponents.

RiverDood · #2 08-26-2005, 02:06 PM

Online your analysis is essentially 100% correct. The social connections between players are almost zero. No reason to get distracted from the pursuit of money.

In a casino, you're 99% right.

In a home game, things start to change. You know the people outside the poker game. You'd like to stay friendly with most of them. Heck, at some point you'll want to borrow their car . . . or get a job referral . . . or date their sister. Whatever. If you clean them out too fast or too belligerently, that isn't going to happen.

So in social games, your analysis breaks down.

Some people like to play social poker; some don't. Attach the necessary qualifiers, and your analysis stands.

xniNja · #3 08-26-2005, 02:59 PM

Agreed. I'm talking about playing poker for money. My assumption, or qualifier, is that your interest is money, and not making friends or dating sisters.

Sciolist · #4 08-31-2005, 09:59 AM

There are also situations, in a limited pool of players, where you don't neccessarily want to take all of someone's money at once. Better that they return and lose more in the long run afterall. Online though, there's always another couple thousand tables to pick from.

xniNja · #5 08-31-2005, 10:09 AM

Absolutely. I do agree with the cliche Slim's father's maxim about shearing sheep (but not any other personal habits they might share) and I think this can be tacked onto the maximizing profit platform without conflict.

ceskylev · #6 08-26-2005, 02:28 PM

Poker is a game of incomplete information. So is choosing an opponent. When all I have is a screen name and some stats, that's all I consider. But the minute I have some credible evidence that a person is an irresponsible or compulsive gambler, I'm getting up and walking away.

[ QUOTE ]

The correct mathematical, psychological, AND philosophical position MUST be to take any and all money you can from whoever you can and whenever you can in poker[...]

[/ QUOTE ]

Mathmatically correct? Okay. Psychologically correct? Not if I can't sleep that night. Philosophically correct? The idea that you can declare "philosophical correctness" in this instance is absurd. If your personal philosophy is based on statistics and/or greed, I'll grant you that you're being philosophically consistent. But there are plenty of us out there who aren't wired that way.

[ QUOTE ]
[...]since the converse is always true , that anyone and everyone will try to take whatever money they can from you. This truth cannot be denied, not even by the inferior skills of your opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, "always" is obviously an overstatement. I'm an exception, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I accept that I'm in the minority, here. I accept that this philosophy will cost me money. It's +EV for me anyway.

#7 08-26-2005, 02:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But the minute I have some credible evidence that a person is an irresponsible or compulsive gambler, I'm getting up and walking away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do what is in my power to help this player stop gambling all her money: I try to rid her of it as fast as possible. Gamblers are a huge source of profit in poker. Honestly, if there weren't gamblers, I would never win.

Autocratic · #8 08-26-2005, 02:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the minute I have some credible evidence that a person is an irresponsible or compulsive gambler, I'm getting up and walking away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do what is in my power to help this player stop gambling all her money: I try to rid her of it as fast as possible. Gamblers are a huge source of profit in poker. Honestly, if there weren't gamblers, I would never win.

[/ QUOTE ]

This discussion has been had here before. In casinos, I have seen someone with a wife and kids blowing thousands that they clearly could not afford. I try not to care about that person (though I want to), because if I did I'd be worrying about everyone and what the money means to them. But I'm not going to sit at a table and knowingly deprive some kid somewhere of his or her tuition money because I want to take my girlfriend somewhere nice the next day. You may think "If I don't take it, someone else will." I just refuse to let myself be that person.

ceskylev · #9 08-26-2005, 03:07 PM

Exactly. I know this discussion has been had before, but I think it's worth revisiting every so often. There are a lot of extremely young people around here who think that you *must* be a ruthless human being in order to be a great poker player. They all love that quote about being willing to bust your own grandmother. What they fail to realize is that a great player chooses not to sit at a table with his grandmother in the first place.

xniNja · #10 08-26-2005, 03:20 PM

I can't speak for all "young" players, but I think the key difference between our stances is that I don't view it as ruthlessness. It's the correct way to play the game in order to maximize profits, which I am assuming is the goal of a pro or semi-pro player. The board isn't called 2+2=friends, right? A great poker player or even gambler(according to the books I've read by "great poker players")succeeds by finding his edge and exploiting it. Why would anyone need to bust their grandmother when there's 100s of random, mostly dirty and foul-mouthed suckers? If you're an old player, wouldn't you have to admit that a significant amount of money in the poker economy exists only because of those degenerates?

Look, let me ask you a question. Say you're playing at a table with a degenerate, and other decent players... A decent player gets the degenerates money- now do you have a guilt-free shot at the money?

How about if the degenerate player is gambling, but on a hot streak & up 5 racks... is it guilt-free now?

What if a good player busted the degenerate the day before, and is now playing with the degenerates money...

The point I'm trying to get you to realize is there is fundamentally no difference between any of these scenarios or if you took the money from him in the first place.