Take the money

[xniNja]

The psychology of playing against degenerates, compulsive gamblers, newbies, and plain idiots is not complex. Too many people on this board are confused. If you're playing on _____ and you just cleaned out some idiot with a picture of a child as their avatar, then you just cleaned out some idiot with a picture of a child as their avatar. You have no information about their financial situation, and you don't want it. If they ask for their money to feed their children, use your poker skills and consider it a bluff you don't have to call to win, since they don't even have a hand.


The correct mathematical, psychological, AND philosophical position MUST be to take any and all money you can from whoever you can and whenever you can in poker, since the converse is always true, that anyone and everyone will try to take whatever money they can from you. This truth cannot be denied, not even by the inferior skills of your opponents.

[RiverDood]

Online your analysis is essentially 100% correct. The social connections between players are almost zero. No reason to get distracted from the pursuit of money.

In a casino, you're 99% right.

In a home game, things start to change. You know the people outside the poker game. You'd like to stay friendly with most of them. Heck, at some point you'll want to borrow their car . . . or get a job referral . . . or date their sister. Whatever. If you clean them out too fast or too belligerently, that isn't going to happen.

So in social games, your analysis breaks down.

Some people like to play social poker; some don't. Attach the necessary qualifiers, and your analysis stands.

[ceskylev]

Poker is a game of incomplete information. So is choosing an opponent. When all I have is a screen name and some stats, that's all I consider. But the minute I have some credible evidence that a person is an irresponsible or compulsive gambler, I'm getting up and walking away.

[ QUOTE ]

The correct mathematical, psychological, AND philosophical position MUST be to take any and all money you can from whoever you can and whenever you can in poker[...]

[/ QUOTE ]

Mathmatically correct? Okay. Psychologically correct? Not if I can't sleep that night. Philosophically correct? The idea that you can declare "philosophical correctness" in this instance is absurd. If your personal philosophy is based on statistics and/or greed, I'll grant you that you're being philosophically consistent. But there are plenty of us out there who aren't wired that way.

[ QUOTE ]
[...]since the converse is always true , that anyone and everyone will try to take whatever money they can from you. This truth cannot be denied, not even by the inferior skills of your opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, "always" is obviously an overstatement. I'm an exception, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I accept that I'm in the minority, here. I accept that this philosophy will cost me money. It's +EV for me anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
But the minute I have some credible evidence that a person is an irresponsible or compulsive gambler, I'm getting up and walking away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do what is in my power to help this player stop gambling all her money: I try to rid her of it as fast as possible. Gamblers are a huge source of profit in poker. Honestly, if there weren't gamblers, I would never win.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the minute I have some credible evidence that a person is an irresponsible or compulsive gambler, I'm getting up and walking away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do what is in my power to help this player stop gambling all her money: I try to rid her of it as fast as possible. Gamblers are a huge source of profit in poker. Honestly, if there weren't gamblers, I would never win.

[/ QUOTE ]

This discussion has been had here before. In casinos, I have seen someone with a wife and kids blowing thousands that they clearly could not afford. I try not to care about that person (though I want to), because if I did I'd be worrying about everyone and what the money means to them. But I'm not going to sit at a table and knowingly deprive some kid somewhere of his or her tuition money because I want to take my girlfriend somewhere nice the next day. You may think "If I don't take it, someone else will." I just refuse to let myself be that person.

[ceskylev]

"Gambler" and "addicted gambler" are two different animals. Someone who, on the weekends, drops money that he can afford to lose on slots or craps is a gambler, but not an addict. I could play .05/.10 and gamble like the Pope on a three-day bender, but not be an addict.

The guy who loses his rent money month after month or can't afford to feed his kids is an addict. Once I identify him as such, I refuse to sit at his table, because I refuse to contribute to his addiction.

There are plenty of poor players out there who are not addicts. I'll sit with those guys all night, because (psychologically at least) it's a fair contest. I don't need to take money from someone who I know is not mentally fit to gamble. I don't *want* that money.

And if you think you're doing an addict some sort of service by taking his last time, you obviously don't understand addiction.

[xniNja]

Agreed. I'm talking about playing poker for money. My assumption, or qualifier, is that your interest is money, and not making friends or dating sisters.

[ QUOTE ]
And if you think you're doing an addict some sort of service by taking his last time, you obviously don't understand addiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I'm doing myself a service. Tainted cash buys just as many things as cash that one can afford to lose (and at the table, it's legal to collect tainted cash). It's a good thing you walk from the game if you can't stand to see this, as it would affect your play otherwise.

I don't feel bad taking her money. That's all I'm gonna say.

[xniNja]

[ QUOTE ]

Mathmatically correct? Okay. Psychologically correct? Not if I can't sleep that night. Philosophically correct? The idea that you can declare "philosophical correctness" in this instance is absurd. If your personal philosophy is based on statistics and/or greed, I'll grant you that you're being philosophically consistent. But there are plenty of us out there who aren't wired that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I buy this argument, for something to be psychologically or philosophically correct would always depend on the individual. The reason I don't buy the personal philosophy argument is because of the structure of the game. It's a strict game with strict rules and a strict purpose. The fact that some people don't know the purpose, or care about the purpose (money) doesn't eliminate the game or the rules.

[ QUOTE ]

Well, "always" is obviously an overstatement. I'm an exception, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I accept that I'm in the minority, here. I accept that this philosophy will cost me money. It's +EV for me anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a fair game, by definition, all players are going for the money. I'm also more talking about the degenerates/noobs/gamblers going after your money... not the skilled player who doesn't target a gambler. Note that your argument also doesn't apply to the agent of action (me, you, or another skilled player) as the person you would go easy on, isn't you. Under the same analysis, your own, everyone will be after your money, unless you are the compulsive gambler, then people like your current self will take pity on you, but that solves no dilemma for the good player who MUST play his edge against whoever he is against, because as a good player he's not receiving your pity.

[ceskylev]

Exactly. I know this discussion has been had before, but I think it's worth revisiting every so often. There are a lot of extremely young people around here who think that you *must* be a ruthless human being in order to be a great poker player. They all love that quote about being willing to bust your own grandmother. What they fail to realize is that a great player chooses not to sit at a table with his grandmother in the first place.