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

[Jazza]

i went with no on this one

if he offered to just give me $100K, and if i accepted he would have nothing to live for i would refuse it, and therefore i reckon i should not take his money playing poker

[poker-penguin]

[ QUOTE ]
Life is a zero-sum game.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're totally wrong and it's not even close.

There is no way human society (Life as far as you are concerned) is a zero sum game.

I hope you're just trying to do some macho posturing here, otherwise, you're a sociopath.

[Weatherhead03]

I voted yes and my resoning for that is, I believe that if I dont then someone right behind me will take up the offer. So why not me taking the money since its gone either way.

[Al Schoonmaker]

It did not refer to the "first part of poker," but to the "worst" part of it.

Part I was primarily on the hard-liners' position. Part II tells about the other side. I wish you had posted this poll and its results before I submitted Part II. Print articles have a long lead time, and that article went to "Card Player" last week. The data would have been very useful.

In neither part did I insist that there is only one way to think. In fact, I regard the position that there is only one correct way to play as "arrogant nonsense."

Thanks for posting this poll.

Regards,

Al

[Kellermann]

The answer is yes.

Everyday there are degenerate gamblers losing their rent money at the Party NL 1K tables.

Every winning online player has played against this kind of player but he only appears as a screen name. "Haha, look at this fish. I just took $xxx from him with his bottom two pair."

Everyone answering no to this poll is a hypocrite.

PS. If you bust him he has a great incentive to get a job.

[goofball]

100k is a lot of money. I think it would be interesting to find the point at which people start declining as you decrase the money.

WOuld you still sit down if teh guy had only $10k? 5k? 1k? 100? or $5.

I'm pretty sure the answer lies somewhere between $5 and $1M. What this means is that it's not a blakc and white question for most people. We would take someone for everything if it was enough money (i.e. not take somoene's last $5 if that's all they started with, but would take it if it was the last $5 of the the $1M they started with)

[coffeecrazy1]

First of all, penguin...do you even know what a zero-sum game is? A zero-sum game is where there is a winner and a loser. I defy you to tell me that the grand majority of life(by life, I don't mean just human beings) is not clearly defined in those terms. Nature is a vicious place of winners and losers. Don't believe me? Watch Animal Planet or the Discovery Channel sometime.

Second of all, what you stated in your post seems to be a knee-jerk, boilerplate reaction to a concept which is not an indictment of life or value systems. What you sound like is someone in the throes of a preprogrammed hysteria.

Lastly, I would not make a habit of denouncing someone as a sociopath. That is a very loaded term, and should not be taken lightly. I have never committed a crime beyond a speeding ticket. I pay my taxes, attend church regularly, and hold down a steady job. I have many friends, and most people who meet me seem to like me quite a bit. The words usually used to describe me are caring, compassionate, and sweet.

All of this is to say that if you are going to insist on going through life undergoing irrational reactions to phrases, I suggest you seek professional help yourself.

[ceskylev]

[ QUOTE ]
Every winning online player has played against this kind of player but he only appears as a screen name. "Haha, look at this fish. I just took $xxx from him with his bottom two pair."

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

There's a HUGE difference between an unskilled player and an irresponsible/addicted player. Winning players target the former with the *reasonable* assumption that they are gambling within their means. But to *intentionally* target a player such as the one in the example above is, IMO, repugnant.

Do we all end up unknowingly playing against an addict at some point? Yes. It would be impossible for any poker player to do a background check on every single opponent in order to determine whether or not they are irresponsible. But the minute you tell me that Player X is an addict gambling away the last of his money, I'm finding a new table. The jackals can have him; I'd rather sleep well.

Purposefully targeting irresponsible gamblers is like holding happy hour for alcoholics. Go ahead and do it if you want. I'll pass. That doesn't make me a hypocrite or any other name you want to call me to make yourself feel better.

[mannika]

This is an easy three step process.

1) You play.
2) You win.
3) You make him your butler until he works his money back.

[college kid]

Yeah, sorry about the typos, and I didn't mean to be mean in my post. Also, I posted this as soon as I thought about it--I just wanted to see how many people would answer directly yes or no.