[0524432]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is discussing luck in terms of something happening to you during your life. What about the "luck" of the larger circumstances of one's life? Say two people go into a bar to pick up the "10" and one looks "better" than the other. He wasn't, then, "lucky" to have picked her up, but couldn't we say he's "lucky" to have been born that way? His genes determined this, but he's lucky to have those genes, right? But people don't like this line of thought, quite understandably, because it just sounds like sour grapes on the part of whomever didn't get the "10."

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point about the born human traits that are more attractive than others to most of the public in the dating game. We could go on and on about the form in which luck affects EVERYONES lives on a daily basis, and that was one of the points of my original thesis.

What we need to do with this understanding is show how unreasonable the negative connotation that has come along with the word "poker" is because of the factor of luck involved with the game. IMO, and as I stated in the documentary filming of the GPSTS conference this past weekend at Harvard Law, it is not the luck factor that is holding poker down, but instead something else. This something else is the "crowd" poker has been involved with since it's beginning.

We've all heard Doyle speak of the stories he told his now wife that he was a business man etc etc because of the shady/criminal/immoral image that the game of poker and it's player held. This IMO, is what is making it so hard for some people to forget and now understand that poker is a respectable sport and in reality, involves just as much if not LESS shady/criminal/immoral activities than most other sports, political, or judicial venues.