Paul Phillips, $2-5 Mirage

[pokergripes]

Yeah, it's someone who believes that people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't seriously harm others. For example, when I'm drinking and looking to dominate a small nlh game, and someone racks up and leaves with a win of a bunch of my chips, if they come back and tell me it was nice playing with me, I should have the liberty to tell them "it's a shame you left, I was gonna take all those chips of yours" without a lot of crying about it after the fact...

And, having read a bunch of his historical posts on substantive strategy and psychology over the past couple of days, I assure you that his absence is a substantive loss for this site (if he has the good sense to stay away after being scolded by people who should have appreciated his participation more than that). But whatever--I guess you guys got to stand on principle, and cost/benefit analysis be damned...

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it's someone who believes that people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't seriously harm others. For example, when I'm drinking and looking to dominate a small nlh game, and someone racks up and leaves with a win of a bunch of my chips, if they come back and tell me it was nice playing with me, I should have the liberty to tell them "it's a shame you left, I was gonna take all those chips of yours" without a lot of crying about it after the fact...


[/ QUOTE ]
One may hold the political belief that government cannot restrict a person's liberty as long as that person is not harming others (this is called libertarianism) while still criticizing people for being cocks. Do you see why?

[jmgurgeh]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it's someone who believes that people should be free to do as they please as long as they don't seriously harm others. For example, when I'm drinking and looking to dominate a small nlh game, and someone racks up and leaves with a win of a bunch of my chips, if they come back and tell me it was nice playing with me, I should have the liberty to tell them "it's a shame you left, I was gonna take all those chips of yours" without a lot of crying about it after the fact...

And, having read a bunch of his historical posts on substantive strategy and psychology over the past couple of days, I assure you that his absence is a substantive loss for this site (if he has the good sense to stay away after being scolded by people who should have appreciated his participation more than that). But whatever--I guess you guys got to stand on principle, and cost/benefit analysis be damned...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you'll have a hard time convincing both democrats and republicans alike that they are supposed to be opposed to libertarianism as you described it. You also failed to give any reason as to why poker players would be libertarians, and more importantly, why libertarians would advocate your complaining but would pounce on a polite suggestion as if it were a mortal sin.

Conducting cost-benefit analyses of what valid criticisms we should not make (maybe we should treat them all as philosopher-kings?) is ridiculous. If Paul was that upset over a situation that was really of his own making, then it's unlikely he was long for these forums regardless of this particular thread.

Then again, maybe he left because we're all libertarians.

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
id get up and leave as soon as you lost one of your early gambool buy-ins to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some dude sits down and overcalls all-in with T7. You win the hand, and leave???

Okay, if you believe the guy can totally outplay you, and you know what he's doing, sure, as soon as he gets a large stack you should leave. (I don't see why you'd leave as soon as he loses an early gamble to you, shouldn't you stay until he wins a gamble?) But my point is that I doubt many players who double up against him are going to leave.

[pokergripes]

Yes, they certainly "may", but the question was whether they "should"...in my experience around winning card players (which is fairly extensive), they tend to have thicker skins than the people whining here about poor manners from a guy who wasn't looking to give you any lessons in manners, but sure might have improved your nlh game through discussion. You're certainly right, in a narrow sense libertarianism ties to government restrictions of liberty. But in a broader sense, it means lighten up and don't chase away the best players here by trying to impose some "nanny state"-type restrictions on how they should interact with others, even if those restrictions might make some of the more sensitive of you less offended at the margins. Libertarians also don't like campus speech codes, even at private universities. Do you see why?

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, they certainly "may", but the question was whether they "should"...in my experience around winning card players (which is fairly extensive), they tend to have thicker skins than the people whining here about poor manners from a guy who wasn't looking to give you any lessons in manners, but sure might have improved your nlh game through discussion. You're certainly right, in a narrow sense libertarianism ties to government restrictions of liberty. But in a broader sense, it means lighten up and don't chase away the best players here by trying to impose some "nanny state"-type restrictions on how they should interact with others, even if those restrictions might make some of the more sensitive of you less offended at the margins. Libertarians also don't like campus speech codes, even at private universities. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really the silliest point I've seen in a while. Libertarianism has nothing to do with lightening up, and has no say on whether people should try imposing social pressures on other people to be less of dicks. This "broader sense" relates to libertarianism in the same way that saying thank you at the dinner table relates to conservatism. The example of speech codes is irrelevant here-nobody's forcing Paul to shut up in the way that the campus is. Libertarians don't care if people tell Paul Phillips to play nice...do you see why?

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
in my experience around winning card players (which is fairly extensive), they tend to have thicker skins than the people whining here about poor manners from a guy who wasn't looking to give you any lessons in manners

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, which one of us left in a huff?

SpaceAce

[AEKDBet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paul Phillips is classless. Very simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

couldnt agree more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is all of this coming from. I just read this thread, and the comment Paul made was kinda-funny / good natured. He was simply teasing the guy about taking his money. I mean aren't we men here? Is this really upsetting?

We all know he didn't say it, like "God you inferior player, I can't believe you are leaving the game before I get to [censored] you up.

Seriously though why all this Paul hostility. I met him just once, in Barcelona during the heads up championships last year. He had busted out early so he was watching the games from the sidelines with his wife. They were both very friendly, and he left a good impression on me. I even got a free Jack D. out of it.

[elindauer]

I recently had the good fortune to meet Paul over a dinner in Vegas. During this time, he generously engaged me and my poker rookie friends as we discussed short-handed no limit tactics. He produced a little "I gave Paul Phillips a bad beat" poker chip which we all thought was great. At the end, he generously bought dinner for the whole group.

In my limited experience, Paul seems to take his poker results in a very easy-going and light-hearted manner. I got the impression that he enjoys the battle, the theory of the game, not so much the results. He discussed the theory of Scrabble with as much excitement as he did poker. It seems totally inconsistent with the person I met for the comment in question to have been delivered with any malice.


Just my 2 cents.
Eric

[Mike Gallo]

I've heard William Shatner is mean to Star Trek fans, too.

Leonard Nimoy dude, Leonard Nimoy. George Tikay (Sulu) still tours.