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

[college kid]

Picked up a Card Player from the airport since my flight was delayed a few hours. Darden on the cover. Dr. Al has a few pages on the "Just witnessed the first part of poker" post that was up a while ago. IMHO, it really didn't say anything about where poker ethics are or should be.

So I have a simple question for all of you. How many of you would sit at that head-up table with a guy with $100K to blow and you know you can beat him. Catch is it's everything he has and if you beat him, he will "[have] nothing to live for."

[xniNja]

I voted yes. That statement is contradictory "...a guy with $100k to blow...nothing to live for," but I'm assuming you didn't really mean he had it to blow, but was willing to blow it. This is like asking, will you take on the Heavyweight Champion of the World, knowing you can beat him, but it will destroy his ego, career, etc. Anyone who says no isn't a poker player or athlete. If he's willing to blow it, I'm willing to take it.

[college kid]

Correct, I did not mean to say he had $100K to blow. I meant he had $100K and that is everything and he is willing to lose it, though losing it would destroy him emotionally, possibly in other ways.

[sexdrugsmoney]

This is a hard question, alot of people will say yes unashamedly, and honestly that's one part of poker that is sickening, the pure parasitic nature of the game ... yet the game is only a representation of Capitalism ... nuff said.

Be that as it may ... I'm not wealthy, and I have to make the decision if I sit down at a table whether I can afford to lose it.

Most times I can't, when I can I play very tight, but nobody cares about your financial problems, if you are at that table, you are a player, and it's the duty of one player to win the others money.

It's a tough game, but if he can't afford to lose that 100k he shouldn't be there, and furthermore if 100k doesn't make him happy, the guy needs some anti-depresants.

[olavfo]

[ 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.

[Net Warrior]

Well, I voted no. I think I'd be thinking about that guy the rest of my life and it just ain't worth it to me. I'm a winning player and I'll just look elsewhere for my game.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ 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)

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I voted no. I think I'd be thinking about that guy the rest of my life and it just ain't worth it to me. I'm a winning player and I'll just look elsewhere for my game.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a great person Net Warrior, maybe it's the beer talking, but you are my hero.

Cheers,
SDM

[coffeecrazy1]

I have seen variants of this post before. Usually, it's along the lines of "If Charity Case A sat at your table..." or "If Degenerate Gambler Mr. X wanted to play you." Typically, the thread assumes that you would win 100% of the time against whomever sad-sack you were playing.

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.

And another thing: the word parasitic continues to be thrown around for how our game is. I disagree. The outcome of poker is nature and natural selection at almost the purest level that humans can achieve. Life is a zero-sum game. Do you think a lion ever shows mercy when he's hunting?

[RydenStoompala]

[ QUOTE ]
losing it would destroy him emotionally, possibly in other ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

What other ways would matter? With emotional destruction you lose health and the psychological ability to recover and regain your financial stability, so you're cooked. Stick a fork in him, he's done. If you asked me, "if you play him you will win and then he will shoot himself in front of you," then I'd have a decision. Knowing he's going to stick a 9mm Beretta in his mouth, do I wear my best shirt or don't I?