Just witnessed the worst part of poker

[Al_Capone_Junior]

An off-shoot of this is whether you should play your friends hard or soft. Yesterday I witnessed two friends soft-play each other on a hand, then afterwords they were wondering if they did the right thing. I recommended that they not only DON'T play your friends soft, but that they play each other HARD. I think it's the only way to go.

Clarkmeister and I have played together, and I recall one hand of 10-20 about four years ago where he pummelled me hard. Had the cards been reversed, I would have done the same to him.

Al, you and I have played together, and I don't ever recall us playing soft just because we're friends.

That's the ONLY way to do it, there are NO friends at the poker table. I like Al's money as much as I like Clark's or anyone else's. They also like mine the same.

al

[kutuz_off]

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing to this story. There is nothing horrible, sad or frightening about it. The stakes were large, so this is worse than the welfare guy who blows his rent money at Party or spends his food money on lottery tickets? Who gives a rats a$$? What exactly does worrying about psychos-r-us gambling junky poster boys accomplish? Donate some money to your local addiction treatment facilities and get back in the freakin game.


[/ QUOTE ]

The unfortunate thing about this story is that this is exactly what may eventually lead to online poker getting outlawed. Of course, the fact that you can gamble your money away just as easily through an online stock market brokerage account won't stop that from happening.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I know what to think of your word now. A guy wanted something, $$$ on UB, and he made an agreement that enabled him to get it. The high stakes poker world is full of these types of gentleman's agreements. They are far from meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay okay now listen, I don't make agreements I intend to break, but then I'm not the sort of person who would a) offer a recovering alcoholic a drink or b) a compulsive gambler a heads up match. Anyways the guy who made said agreement has since reported he does not think this guy was short rolled or particularly awful so these arguments have become spurious, although the basic points are still relevant.

I have given some thought to the argument that there is no room for compassion or sentimentality in poker, and I suppose its true especially for high stakes players or anyone who plays to win money significant to themselves. I myself look for soft games and follow bad players so I suppose I am being slightly hypocritical. Anyway being empathic is no bad thing, I may not be a good poker player, but I can sleep at night.

Best Regards Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its more like taking an axe to a small child, I really don't need money that badly.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


An inapt analogy. If the loser had been a small child then I would change my opinion of this incident from sad-but-ethical to utterly inexcusable and call for the result to be nullified. Of course online you normally cannot recognize a child but that is a practical issue and not my point.

The loser is an adult who is responsible for his voluntary actions. A child being victimized by an adult is not responsible and should be protected. The loser had an equal weapon (chips) and an opportunity to defend himself or even win. You're hypothetical child is truly defenseless.

[/ QUOTE ]

My analogy was to imply helplessness not lack of ethics, the only people I ever hear talk about ethics are solicitors and politicians (are you one?), we could debate the difference between morality and ethics all day (I won't), perhaps theres no room for any morality in poker, who knows. Maybe we can just agree to disagree on this one.

Everything else you say I agree with entirely.

Regards Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Something along the lines of, "When some idiot sits down with money, I hope above all that I get his money and his kids never eat again!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not just wait till he leaves and shoot him, look after number one (no I'm not serious).

Regards Mack

[hotdog da 2rd]

bump

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

[ QUOTE ]
yes, somebody has to lose, but i dunno, watching someone lose everything they had in what couldntve been more than an hour isnt pretty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Predation isn't pretty. It means seeking out weakness and exploiting it. This is not combat. Poker pros do not seek out a "worthy adversary" to prove themselves. They seek out the weakest players, and for the same reason that lions attack the weak, lame and juvenile. It is a much less risky way to earn one's meal than taking on the strong.

Have no stomach for it? Take up chess.

[IShark]

That's not the worst. It's when professional poker players start claiming that their ability to take money from dumb people somehow makes them great or worthy admiration. Or even worse is when they claim they are being responsible with their own lives by utilizing their minds to the fullest.

Pros players are a pretty sick lot. I pity them.

[Moonsugar]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not the worst. It's when CORPORATIONS start claiming that their ability to take money from dumb people somehow makes them great or worthy admiration. Or even worse is when they claim they are being responsible with their own PROFITS by utilizing their TALENT to the fullest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed your post.

Poker is pure and honest. I know every one of my opponents wants to bust me. No marketing needed.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Although I agree with most of your post, I must disagree with one statement.

You wrote: "I know every one of my opponents wants to bust me."

You are committing the egotistical fallaccy by assuming that everyone thinks the same way you do. Some people do NOT want to bust everyone. I'll discuss the reasons for this apparently "irrational" attitude in Part II of "Would you bust your own grandmother?"

Regards,

Al