Take the money

[ceskylev]

[ QUOTE ]

If I buy this argument, for something to be psychologically or philosophically correct would always depend on the individual. The reason I don't buy the personal philosophy argument is because of the structure of the game. It's a strict game with strict rules and a strict purpose. The fact that some people don't know the purpose, or care about the purpose (money) doesn't eliminate the game or the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstand. I'm not taking it easy on anyone I play against. I play to win. But if there's a known addict at the table, I'm simply not playing at that table. That's a decision that I make outside the structure of the game. To call that choice "philosophically incorrect" is absurd.

[xniNja]

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.

[xniNja]

You're right I did misunderstand. I obviously could not make a philosophical claim on your values in life. I still defend the claim as philosophically correct in the realm of poker theory.

Edit: I just want to point out that I consider players playing at tables part of the structure of the game. I would not let anyone arbitrarily influence my decision to enter a good game, simply because they were going to lose in it. It might be +EV in terms of your conscience but it's bad business and you're literally losing control of table selection because of a degenerate. You can argue it's a choice, but it isn't- if you see the degenerate, you don't play, even if the game is good- that's not a real choice.

[ceskylev]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't feel bad taking her money. That's all I'm gonna say.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine. I'm not arguing this on moral grounds. I'm arguing in terms of value. I took issue with OP's assertion that there is a "correct philosophy" regarding this issue.

For me, the positive value of the tainted money (as you call it) does not cover the negative value of the damage I do (to myself and to the addict) by knowingly enabling his addiction and (if he has one) adding to the misery of his family.

No offense intended. I'm not implying that anyone is some kind of horrible person. I'm just saying (mainly to OP) that we value money differently. To me, taking advantage of an addict is no different than trading $10 for $5, or paying $100K for a used Kia. It just isn't worth it. There's nothing "philosophically incorrect" about it.

[xniNja]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just saying (mainly to OP) that we value money differently. To me, taking advantage of an addict is no different than trading $10 for $5, or paying $100K for a used Kia. It just isn't worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This just doesn't make sense man. I understand your point, as a personal philosophy... but when you use the word VALUE we are talking about strict numbers. The difference between taking $100 from a degenerate, and trading $10 for $5 is a REAL VALUE, it is +$105! When I talk about philosophical correctness, the assumption is you are playing poker for $ with the given rules. It then becomes philosophically correct. It is only NOT philosophically correct if your goal is not to maximize profits, which very may be the case, but then you haven't qualified for the assumption.

[ceskylev]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by degenerate? If he's just a normal, terrible player, then I'm playing, and hopefully I'm winning a bushel full of money. If he's an addict and I know this, I'm not at the table in the first place.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

No. See above.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

This is different. It's less about the origins of the money and more about these things:

1) Am I willing to take advantage of someone who (at the poker table) is handicapped not by lack of skill, but by mental illness?
2) Am I willing to contribute to addiction by giving this guy action?

Playing against the player in scenario #3, these questions are irrelevant, because I would win the money in what I consider to be a fair contest.

[xniNja]

Do you keep the IRS' indexed files of all the players you play against? I ask mockingly, but I'm really dead serious... How can you claim to know the difference between a degenerate, a REAL degenerate, and an addict in the first place...

Assume you realize he's an addict while you are still playing, you could still answer the hypothetical questions.

As for the last thing you said... about skill vs. mental illness; I'm no doctor or psychiatrist, but I don't see logically how a poker player would be able to observe another poker player and distinguish whether or not his absolutely terrible plays over and over, were reckless gambling driven by fun, lack of skill, or mental illness.

I'm sure there may be cases where you know of a certain degenerate railbird at your B&M, but we shouldn't assume you can tell if players are mentally ill before sitting down.

Also, I'm curious as to what you think of my argument on your detriment to table selection?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frame this, and write under it, "there but for the grace of God go I."

From what I've read of Stu Ungar from various sources, he was pretty ruthless -- when he was ahead. Problem was that the ruthlessness was a component of HIS addiction.

Something to think about.

[ceskylev]

[ QUOTE ]
This just doesn't make sense man. I understand your point, as a personal philosophy... but when you use the word VALUE we are talking about strict numbers. The difference between taking $100 from a degenerate, and trading $10 for $5 is a REAL VALUE, it is +$105!

[/ QUOTE ]

It makes perfect sense. I value $10 more than I value $5. I value my personal ethics and my peace of mind more than I value the added income I would make from taking a known gambling addict to the cleaners.

People make this trade all the time. They trade overtime hours at work for more free time. They change to lower paying jobs in order to pursue personal interests or spend time with their families. They're giving up an exact number of dollars for something that is more abstract, but has real value.

Money is only worth what you can trade it for. Some things are more important.

[xniNja]

[ QUOTE ]
People make this trade all the time. They trade overtime hours at work for more free time. They change to lower paying jobs in order to pursue personal interests or spend time with their families. They're giving up an exact number of dollars for something that is more abstract, but has real value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I buy this point. You can still be a pro and play with that philosophy, but you can't maximize profits. I view a poker player as a business, opponents are my competitors, the duty is to the shareholders (yourself) and what I feel a company owes its shareholders is maximization of profits. I fully understand your differing value premise- now I'm just curious as to how you distinguish who is who and know before you get in the game, or what happens when you find out in the game?