Anyone else feel guilty taking loose passive's money?

[rusellmj]

I don't get it. These people want to take my money. But there's a flaw in their game. Either they play results based or something else. My guess is they wouldn't feel a bit sorry for me if they got my money.

[SNOWBALL138]

According to Alan Schoonmaker, the goal of a loose passive is to socialize or just spend time having fun and gambling with other people. They get what they want: company. I get what I want: their money. We both win.

[Jinx]

I still try to take their money. But against TAGS and LAGS i feel genuinely happy that I'm beating them instead of just being happy that I'm winning money. Against the loose passives it's more like, oh yay, more money.

As others have said, it's not so bad online. But in real life, when you see the workers just getting off their 9-5 jobs, playing well over what their paychecks can afford them, it's just kinda like, huh. How am I really any different from a drug dealer? Aside from the somewhat arbitrary difference that one's legal and the other's not.

Poker makes me far more money than anything else I could be doing at the moment, and I can rationalize it that pretty much 99% of all businesses are screwing someone. But I guess it's just a bit harder when you're actually seeing the people you're screwing.

And the loose passives have a 0% chance of taking my money over a significant enough sample size. I've played enough poker to know that someone who won't raise me with top 2 pair stands no chance against me over enough hands.

The problem seems to be self fixing itself though. At low levels it's not enough money to make me feel guilty, and at the higher levels it's mostly TAGS and LAGS that play.

I've never felt guilty about taking someone's money. But there have been times where I felt bad for the person.

I was playing 2/4 on party the other day. One of my fish was talking about how he had lost 4k. He was talking to another player (who, ironically, was even worse than him) and asking if there was some way to close his account perminitly, so he could never put money on there again. A had no issue taking his money, 'cause someone else would have if I didn't. And if no one else did he'd probably spend it on something stupid.

But it was sad, IMO. Then I started thinking about how many of the terrible players on there are in the same situation as this guy. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
A drugdealer can say " if i dont sell drugs other people do it ", " they want the drugs, so i do it ". In fact poker is a "ugly" business, i say myself everytime "

[/ QUOTE ]

What's funny about this tangent is that I is that I don't think drug dealers are inherently doing anything especially wrong either; they're just opportunists taking advantage of people's stupidity and laws that shouldn't exist.

In fact, here's the parallel as I see it: I have no problem with drug dealers who just give the junkies/bored college students what they want. If a drug dealer were to hang around a high school campus trying to get clean teenagers to start trying his stuff, then I could see a moral objection. Similarly, I'm not actively trying to get anyone to go play poker and lose their money; if I had more rich friends and said "hey guys lets start trying this poker thing on weekends" and then talked them into playing high enough buyins that I could supplement my income with it, that would be a scummy thing to do. However, if someone is going to voluntarily start throwing their money around the table, and I happen to sit down and start catching it...not my problem.

I have given fish playing advice...away from the table, after they asked me for it. I've also told one guy to leave a game after he hinted that he was playing with money he couldn't afford to lose. He didn't listen to me, then flopped trips against my kings full and I busted him. Not my problem.

(BTW, while I don't have a moral problem with poker, saying that the winning players "provide entertainment" is just silly rationalization. The fish would have just as much entertainment if they only played other fish and only the rake was winning. Look at the success of completely -EV house games.)

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
I still try to take their money. But against TAGS and LAGS i feel genuinely happy that I'm beating them instead of just being happy that I'm winning money. Against the loose passives it's more like, oh yay, more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

See above responses regarding your eventual downswing at the hands of a calling station.

[ QUOTE ]

As others have said, it's not so bad online. But in real life, when you see the workers just getting off their 9-5 jobs, playing well over what their paychecks can afford them, it's just kinda like, huh. How am I really any different from a drug dealer? Aside from the somewhat arbitrary difference that one's legal and the other's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is forcing these people to sit in a game. Why don't you leave them alone and let them do what they want with their money? And...as to how you are differenct from a drug dealer...a drug dealer never has to worry that he's going to end up with the same amount of money as when he started, but less drugs to sell.

[ QUOTE ]

Poker makes me far more money than anything else I could be doing at the moment, and I can rationalize it that pretty much 99% of all businesses are screwing someone. But I guess it's just a bit harder when you're actually seeing the people you're screwing.

[/ QUOTE ] This is a rather jaded outlook on the world and business. By and large, businesses are NOT screwing someone, because competitive pressure does not allow them to. The laws of supply and demand suggest that they cannot do so for an extended period of time without dire consequences. AND...let's not forget that doing business with someone is not a one-sided thing...you trade your money for their good or service. If the money's more valuable to you, keep it, and don't get the good or service.

[ QUOTE ]

And the loose passives have a 0% chance of taking my money over a significant enough sample size. I've played enough poker to know that someone who won't raise me with top 2 pair stands no chance against me over enough hands.

The problem seems to be self fixing itself though. At low levels it's not enough money to make me feel guilty, and at the higher levels it's mostly TAGS and LAGS that play.

[/ QUOTE ] Look, I understand your feelings of sympathy for the fish. But, as others have said, NEVER forget this game is kill-or-be-killed. We all risk the exact same thing in this game...you, me, and the rest of the forum just choose to risk it more intelligently...and you are being paid for that intelligence.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that the very best hunters have empathy and understanding for those whom they hunt.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a big difference between empathy and sympathy.

I empathize with losing players all the time, but I have absolutely no sympathy for them. They could just as easily put in the time and effort as I did to better their games. It's their own fault they suck.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
He's probably talking about a player who limps along with 90% of his hands, and check-calls down Q high. The kind that you wonder if he even knows the rules of poker.


[/ QUOTE ]

What type of player did you think we were talking about?

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
But in real life, when you see the workers just getting off their 9-5 jobs, playing well over what their paychecks can afford them, it's just kinda like, huh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it's kinda like, huh...none of your business how they choose to spend their money. Not to mention, you don't know if they have a ton of money somewhere else and the amount they drop may mean little to them.

[ QUOTE ]
But I guess it's just a bit harder when you're actually seeing the people you're screwing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Funny that you associate success, basically in anything including business endeavors, with screwing someone. Unless you're cheating, you aren't screwing anyone at a poker table. You're also not forcing anyone to sit down and play. You're being rewarded for the hard work you spent on your game. Hard work that others at the table could have done just as easily. Why should one feel guilty about being rewarded for that?

[ QUOTE ]
And the loose passives have a 0% chance of taking my money over a significant enough sample size.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither do maniacs or other players of less skill. So what?

[ QUOTE ]
and at the higher levels it's mostly TAGS and LAGS that play.

[/ QUOTE ]

You will run into plenty of terrible players at higher levels. Btw...many LAGs are just as bad off and pathetic, moneywise, in real life as the passives you're referring to. Which is another reason I think your view of this is pretty limited and somewhat naive.

b

[mindflayer]

After your first 100k hands, you will have virtually NO feeling left in you.
Good, Bad, Ugly, Grandma on a pension; Pedophile,
When they are standing around, they are people. I see them I say Hi.
AS SOON as they sit down they they are all the same to me = VILLIAN1, VILLIAN2, VILLIAN3, VILLIAN4,VILLIAN5
You = HERO!
When you are playing hero vs villian, Who do you want to win??