Winner's Guilt?

[Pepsquad]

[ QUOTE ]
If you decided at dinner to all sit at the same table and fleece some fish, then the prior agreement is collusion and a problem. What if you went into a casino and seven people at the table had agreed to gamg up on you? How would you feel about that?

If, and I believe this is the most likely scenario, you guys all sat down to play together and simply stayed out of each others way because that is smart poker and you didn't discuss it beforehand, then the fish just picked the wrong table.

[/ QUOTE ]

This outlines my concern. Is there a difference between your first paragraph scenario and the 2nd?

[Wayfare]

It was the latter. We didn't make any attempt to hide the fact that we knew each other -- scrub even commented to the other players (fish) that I was a "noted poker authority."

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]

So is it right? Sincere question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there is anything wrong with it.

And judging from Wayfare's most recent post on this thread, he didn't do anything wrong either.

[Pepsquad]

[ QUOTE ]
It was the latter. We didn't make any attempt to hide the fact that we knew each other -- scrub even commented to the other players (fish) that I was a "noted poker authority."

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, this makes a difference. It helps get the the 7 on 3 visions out of my head that the fish were aware you knew each other.

Pep.

[tek]

The better players at each table will stay out of each others' way to a certain extent. I am known as a tricky TAG, but I still occasionally go against a better player for two reasons: to bluff advertise and because I just have a great hand.

The lesser player at the table can figure out who the better players are. But they will give action because they think they have the better hand or better draw, and because they want to take a good pot down against one of us.

Because they want to take a pot down against a better player, they often get trapped or give correct odds for us to draw out.

It's not just addiction that keeps them coming. It's also greed and the ego need to take on a better opponent.

[cardspeak]

What cures me of the sympathy pangs for the po lil fishy is remembering all those times when I've run ugly. It's always been due to the lil fishys gleefully chasing and hitting their 2-4 outers and cracking my power hands. As they sit there stacking MY chips [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] , glowing and seeming to think they are truly one of the world's great players, I've not received sympathy from them. Nope, other players are just as happy as I am to take as much money as possible.

It's true, I've sometimes had qualms as 3-4 good players completely gut a bad player (often also a nice guy) out of thousands, but the next day or week I'll see that "nice guy" win huge because he's still playing nearly every hand and (today) nearly every hand is winning.

So, I just remind myself that poker is a ruthless game. We are there to make the max money.

[for teh win]

This is a really interesting topic. I won't comment on the examples. The last one has that grey area taste to it, but what do I know, I wasn't there. So I'll stick to the general idea of winner's guilt instead.

Do I ever feel bad about winning? Yeah, it happens sometimes.

I bet there are quite a few 2+2 readers who never felt remorse about anything in their lives, much less winning in poker. I guess it goes along with the INTP, Aspergeresque, empathy impaired type of personality not uncommon in this scene. (Yes, I'm being provocative on purpose.)

But... for the vast majority of players, I'm guessing winner's guilt can be an issue at times. Why is that? Well, it's simple really. Stealing candy from children goes against the Western Christian ethics, so if you were fostered into this cultural sphere you might feel bad about exploiting someone's horrible poker skills as well, as it is similar. The problem is it is also the only way to win in poker since you don't make money off of strong players. Here is a dilemma.

A successful poker player is kind of like a shady used car salesman selling lemons to unsuspecting customers. At the table I want to be that person because I have to in order to win. But I don't want to be like that outside of poker. Thus there is an incongruence that can be hard to cope with, especially at times when the world of poker and the outside world aren't completely separated (it's nice to play online). If busting out in poker means no food on the table for you then the two worlds are one.

What to do about this guilt? Well, you can't fight an entire cultural tradition, certainly not the one you grew up into yourself. You might not even want to fight it. I for one don't. You can only adopt some coping strategies to bear with yourself at the table. Reminding yourself that no one held a gun to your opponents heads forcing them to play, as was mentioned, is one such strategy. And it's all true. No one forced them. I can think of two other mental strategies I have used as well along with that one.

First, paraphrasing Nietzsche (I can't seem to pull out a quote from the top of my head right now), I try to remind myself of this: The only way to show your opponents proper respect is to do your worst. They never asked for your pity. Showing pity, now that would be humiliating them. They just sat down with the intent to win, like you.

Second, think about the situations in the past (if any) where you felt bad about winning over someone. Analyze. Why did you feel bad? Did you feel bad because of the amount of money you won? Was there maybe a time where you won as much but didn't feel bad? Was it only because your opponent was so clueless and innocent while you played with him like a prey, and does that happen to you a lot? (I wish it did!) Or was it perhaps because you somehow knew he lived in a shack on a dump and had fifteen kids at home who would now starve to death? Or... could it be that there was something about his behavior and personality that made you feel this way?

Different people affect you in different ways when you interact with them, both consciously and unconsciously. I would like to argue that some people are very good at making you feel bad about winning over them. It is probably not a conscious thing, neither in you nor in them. But it's there. Some people can take a devastating loss without twitching a muscle. Some just get angry or even annoying. Yet some squirm and make you feel sorry for them. Just different personalities. But why should you feel less sorry for Mr Stoneface? Maybe he was the one with fifteen kids. This is totally unscientific, but I have this impression that the type of person that will make you feel the worst about yourself is also all too often among the least likely to ever give you a break, should he get the better of you later. So be careful with who you pity. Not only cluelessness is exploitable. Guilt is too. Although a rare thing perhaps, I have seen it happen. And it wasn't pretty!

[turnipmonster]

I play with people I know for the most part. I ask them about their kids, they ask me about my music, we are all on pretty good terms. we joke around at the table, and generally I enjoy their company. despite all this, the one thing I never forget is these people are trying to take all my chips, and I am trying to take all theirs.

that's not a very good response, but it's a good thing to remember. my personal answer is no, I don't really care in the context of a poker game. people choose to spend their money in all sorts of ways, and I think they should do it however they like. Salespeople in stores sell people things on credit they can't afford all the time. I just don't see how it's much different. Sure, I feel bad for people who don't manage their money well and do stupid stuff, but what can you do?

BTW, most people who are chip dumpers in bigger games can easily afford it, some know it, and genuinely do not care. I have no idea about 2 chip guy but he could have been rolling in it, appearance isn't everything. maybe he ran a $30 buyin up to 600? the poker gods giveth, and the poker gods taketh away.

as for angle shooting, I don't think it's an angle at all. players are always going to have varying levels of info about each other's game, depending on their history. to me, as long as we are all trying to take each other's chips, it's all good.

--turnipmonster

[steamboatin]

Absolutely, one is collusion and two is friends playing poker together and the fish needs to work on his game selection skills.

The prior discussion and agreement to work together creates the problem. If we just go play cards as friends and play good poker or bad poker, for that matter, that has to be okay.

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
as long as we are all trying to take each other's chips, it's all good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly