So.... would you sit at this table.

[college kid]

Of all the reasons for a yes answer, I like this one the best.

Would anybody here try and stop the guy from playing, or just not take him up on his offer???

[college kid]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the thing that makes me vote yes every single time: he would do the same to me. It's like asking a soldier in war if he would not kill the opposing soldier because the guy on the other side is a horrible shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. It is unlike war because, especially online, you can choose your battles. If you are in a war, and you can win the war by fighting only the battles you want, it's a whole other game, IMHO

[mosquito]

Why does it have to be 100K? Don't we all come
across situations where we take someone's last
$100, or $300, or $30? Sure, they likely will
be able to replace it after a week or two, but
in effect we "cause" them great pain for some
period of time.

It's just a matter of degree, I don't want to
argue shades of grey. Problem gambling happens
at all levels.

[Jazza]

[ QUOTE ]
Of all the reasons for a yes answer, I like this one the best.

Would anybody here try and stop the guy from playing, or just not take him up on his offer???

[/ QUOTE ]

just not take him up on his offer

i assume you are implying that not trying to stop the guy from playing is no better than playing him yourself

i reckon there is a difference, just as there is a difference between not trying to help a guy who's about to get beat up by another guy, and beating up the guy yourself

[poker-penguin]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, penguin...do you even know what a zero-sum game is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I know what zero sum games are. I'm not sure you do.

[ QUOTE ]

A zero-sum game is where there is a winner and a loser.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

A zero sum game is where the amount won by the winner is equal to the amount lost by the loser.

"Most economic situations are non-zero-sum" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum (along with every damn economics course I have ever taken)

Robert Wright - "society becomes increasingly non-zero-sum as it becomes more complex," [same article]

I stated in my post "There is no way human society (Life as far as you are concerned) is a zero sum game."

I guess I was wrong there, you obviously think we live by the law of the jungle (since a system of laws in a civilized soceity is another non-zero sum game, you can't think you live under that).

[ QUOTE ]
I defy you to tell me that the grand majority of life(by life, I don't mean just human beings)

[/ QUOTE ]

I am pretty sure I said that I did mean human beings. I'm a human being, and I'm assuming you are too. Do you seriously think that if I'm hungry I should just kill and eat you? If not, stop trying to use lions to justify your arguments.

[ QUOTE ]

Lastly, I would not make a habit of denouncing someone as a sociopath.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, but you think life's a zero sum game, so I should do whatever I can to "win" regardless of the people I hurt. Lets say calling you a sociopath causes you 1 unit of annoyance. If life was a zero sum game, then not calling you a sociopath would have caused me 1 unit of annoyance.

So 1) If life is a zero sum game, you can't complain about me calling you a sociopath, and 2) since not calling you a sociopath wouldn't have caused me one unit of annoyance (perhaps 0.1 units for having to change my post), there's another non-zero sum situation.

I'm not going to get (further) into personal insults, so snipped the rest of your post.

[olavfo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and honestly that's one part of poker that is sickening, the pure parasitic nature

[/ QUOTE ]
The goal of poker is to crush your opponent by outsmarting him and and winning his money. It's not parasitic, it's pure and honest combat between consenting participants.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, although the original post did imply you knew you could beat him, and since most pro poker players use the word 'fish' it's only natural to assume poker players feed on their weaker opponents like sharks. (or parasites)

[/ QUOTE ]
Only fight battles you can win. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[coffeecrazy1]

Ah, screw it. I had this long rebuttal planned out, but I realized that I've been fighting on message boards all day long over absolutely nothing.

Penguin, you are right, and I am wrong. Maybe I could intellectualize my way to a reasonable position, but frankly, I'm tired, and I'm tired of fighting.

I'm no sociopath. I am a decent man who is normally a moderate thinker, but I was trying to take a hardline position because I believed that is the only way to be about poker.

Maybe it is, and probably, I'll think the same thing in the morning. But now, I'm tired, and I just don't want to fight about how cold and calculating I really can be...when the truth is that I'm a softy, and I'd no more play this guy than have sex with a drunk girl.

[spy587]

If someone else would take his money if I didn't I would play; otherwise, no.

[poker-penguin]

See, I knew you weren't a sociopath (my original line was something like "if you really believe human society (Life) is zero-sum and not just macho posturing then you're a sociopath"

This was also a rather hardline and poorly judged choice of words on my part (original draft was a less confrontational "then I pity you"), have a high tolerance for arguing (yes, arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics, but it's better than working).

The irony is that I probably display more antisocial personality disorder (what sociopathy is classified under in the DSM IV I think) tendencies than you do.

And I'd have sex with a drunk girl if I was drunk. Or if she was hot.

[El Cuchara]

[ QUOTE ]

I'd no more play this guy than have sex with a drunk girl.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would be cool to take his money and then go have sex with a drunk girl.

But I probaly couldn't do it either. Drunk girls are to sloppy in bed.