Re: David, do you think gambling has ANY social value at all ?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I happen to agree with you, but question whether you think gambling has any social value at all.

If so, would it be:

1. Entertainment value,
2. Reallocation of capital from non-productive gamblers to casino owners, smart players, ....
3. ???
4. Profit.


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: David, do you think gambling has ANY social value at all ?
 

David you have spent your life writing books to teach people how to play this game that we all love. In this time surely you have to understand, that to a certain extent a succesful poker player/gambler has less regard for money than your average joe working 50hrs a week to bring home the paycheck.

It is this ability to suspend the regard for money which makes gamblers succesfull at the highest levels. So it is not surprising that many of the younger generation here on 2+2 would admire these guys who have no problem at all risking enormous sums of money for thrill of gambling.

Look at the median age of people here on your website, I would guess that for most of us we are in our early 20's on average. When you are at that age basically starting your life, and you see people just a few years older than you partying it up and playing poker for a living, no surprise that they get a little hero worship. Very rare is the player who decides to seriously play the game and study it that doesn't have some aspirations to make it at a high level.

Your beating your head in the wall if you think that your "warning", is going to get any sort of serious credence here, because like many things in life it is a lesson that has to be learned first hand. If you are crushing the games for a sick winrate right now, and have done so at every level that you have ever played, it shouldn't be surprising that you have the confidence in yourself to play outside of your bankroll. The only way that you learn that this can crush you is to take some hard hits.

The good side to this is, as Shaniac said, that there is a new young generation of players who while be just a hungry as the old generation now understand the need to have a large enough bankroll to combat the dangers of variance in poker. They also have the discipline to move down when not running well and never sacrifice there whole bankroll for pride. But like anything else in life there will always be people that can't get enough of a good thing, and gambling is one of those occurences that when you run hot it can really reward you.

If your post was meant as a warning, and not the snide lil' snipe at other pros that it seemed like, then thank you. But to sit here and belabour over it is a waste of time, because people are going to believe what they believe about themselves, no matter what you do.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with this sentiment.

Poker players today are in a unique place in time and space, and if they really want to be part of the larger world, they should try to connect in more real ways with things that aren't always related to gambling lots of money. The contest for Biggest Degenerate will never be won, so it would be far more enlightened to take that money and do something useful with it. (Edit: At least in the case of someone trying to pursue some version of religious enlightenment with or without poker).

I also think it's crazy that we have the unique opportunity to travel to lots of amazing places in the world, in near first-class style and with relative ease, and the only thing most poker players could tell you about those locations is how good the cash games were or how much they flipped for over dinner.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always wonder about this part of the "touring Pro's" lifestyle.

Ie. the EPT. Do ppl who go to these take advantage of being in such renowned cities and soak up the local culture or is all time spent during non tourney time spent playing cash games, playing on the laptop, partying in the hotel, and sleeping?

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

I'm assuming my post has something to do with this.

Stupidly gambling is obviously a horrendous idea in a nutshell. But you can't just say all stupid gambling is not admirable, IMO the intentions behind the gambling can make even the most ridiculous bets/propositions/life moves which will almost certainly fail, admirable.

For example, an actor could be told by everyone he is terrible, ugly, unskilled, etc. etc., but still sell all his stuff and go to LA and take a shot at it. This to me is probably a stupid gamble (especially if he has opportunities elsewhere), but admirable.

If a poor poker player has aspirations of making it to the big game takes ridiculous risks while chasing a far-fetched dream, I find it admirable. He might fail but at least he will fail trying to fulfill one of his goals. I personally have avoided stupidly gambling in spots where I wish I had tried. I didn't apply early to Stanford because I was told I had no chance, and although I loved Duke I sorta wish I had taken a chance and used my early app on Stanford instead.

The extension of all this is that the opposite is true in my mind. People who don't set goals and try to go after them for various reasons (lack of ambition, laziness, confidence issues, whatever...) are not admirable. Same goes for people who set goals but don't persue them for the same reasons. It's not a bad quality, it's just not admirable.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with this sentiment.

Poker players today are in a unique place in time and space, and if they really want to be part of the larger world, they should try to connect in more real ways with things that aren't always related to gambling lots of money. The contest for Biggest Degenerate will never be won, so it would be far more enlightened to take that money and do something useful with it. (Edit: At least in the case of someone trying to pursue some version of religious enlightenment with or without poker).

I also think it's crazy that we have the unique opportunity to travel to lots of amazing places in the world, in near first-class style and with relative ease, and the only thing most poker players could tell you about those locations is how good the cash games were or how much they flipped for over dinner.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always wonder about this part of the "touring Pro's" lifestyle.

Ie. the EPT. Do ppl who go to these take advantage of being in such renowned cities and soak up the local culture or is all time spent during non tourney time spent playing cash games, playing on the laptop, partying in the hotel, and sleeping?

[/ QUOTE ]

most time is unfortunately spent playing poker. generally the people i've went with have tried to spend at least 1-2 days in each city going around and enjoying the city/culture, but even that doesn't always happen. while it is worth bearing in mind that it is, in essence, a business trip, and having that be the main focus of your trip isn't a bad thing, i do think that players should try to take greater advantage of where this game takes them.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming my post has something to do with this.

Stupidly gambling is obviously a horrendous idea in a nutshell. But you can't just say all stupid gambling is not admirable, IMO the intentions behind the gambling can make even the most ridiculous bets/propositions/life moves which will almost certainly fail, admirable.

For example, an actor could be told by everyone he is terrible, ugly, unskilled, etc. etc., but still sell all his stuff and go to LA and take a shot at it. This to me is probably a stupid gamble (especially if he has opportunities elsewhere), but admirable.

If a poor poker player has aspirations of making it to the big game takes ridiculous risks while chasing a far-fetched dream, I find it admirable. He might fail but at least he will fail trying to fulfill one of his goals. I personally have avoided stupidly gambling in spots where I wish I had tried. I didn't apply early to Stanford because I was told I had no chance, and although I loved Duke I sorta wish I had taken a chance and used my early app on Stanford instead.

The extension of all this is that the opposite is true in my mind. People who don't set goals and try to go after them for various reasons (lack of ambition, laziness, confidence issues, whatever...) are not admirable. Same goes for people who set goals but don't persue them for the same reasons. It's not a bad quality, it's just not admirable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with your actor example.

I have no problem with the 30-60 player who tries 100-200.

I have a problem with the guy who can make 400K a year playing high, throwing away enough money to feed an African city, beause of a ridiculous notion that he can make money where no one else can. Especially if his tiny chance for success doesn't translate into helping others if he somehow succeeds.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

I'd like to know if it was $500,000 in one game, or several.

Also, golf is handicapped, David. If you set the handicaps correctly, matches should be even and whoever plays the best should win. Luck is a very small factor in golf.

But, if you're playing for $100,000 a hole, it's not unlikely to lose $500,000, but assuming the handicap is fair, it's a neutral EV proposition, and if you've got a bankroll that is in the five to ten million range, it's not that big of a deal.


I fail to understand how you can't relate some of your own concepts to this situation.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like a lot of people think it is admirable, or romantic or exciting to risk millions of dollars on gambling games with little or no edge. They somehow equate that with other entrepreneurs who pursue their dreams with little thought of the downside.

But don't you think there is a difference? I'm all for betting big money with an edge that justifies it. And I have no problem if people want to gamble big money without this edge. But to call this second category "admirable" seems totally wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't particularly see much intrinsically "admirable" in the first group either...

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have a lot of friends who pull 90 hours weeks who don't understand how someone could risk the possibility of not making next month's rent because of the turn of a card.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand it and I'm one of the ones doing it. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Especially if his tiny chance for success doesn't translate into helping others if he somehow succeeds.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm not mistaken David, I believe this is your main issue with these superstars. I have to agree. For example, I'm watching high stakes poker, and I'm watching these guys making ridiculous prop bets for huge sums of money. I can't help but think about how much larger their children's trust fund could be. The money they make is thrown away so fast, while it could be put to better use. It's depressing. This seems to be the recurring theme of your posts.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

i guess what i meant is that there are players who are more revered by the public than daniel negreanu who have behaved FAR less admirably than gambling big on golf and losing.

as far as i can tell, daniel has won money gambling so to nitpick and point out a bad gamble he made (after the fact) is silly. unless you believe he is a poor gambler and has simply been lucky to survive up to this point. you cant pick and choose which bets he's made are bad and which are good, and criticize him for the bad bets. and you also must think that he does nothing positive with his money whereas you yourself are using your money won gambling to make the world a better place.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

Why is it up to the million dollar man to feed a nation?
He earned his money, it is his.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it up to the million dollar man to feed a nation?
He earned his money, it is his.

[/ QUOTE ]

(Supposedly) His religious convictions should cause him to be a good steward of his money and instead of being self-seeking in monetary pursuits, he should use the money for the benefit of others (which he may already be doing, yet not publicizing for good reason).

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
For example, an actor could be told by everyone he is terrible, ugly, unskilled, etc. etc., but still sell all his stuff and go to LA and take a shot at it. This to me is probably a stupid gamble (especially if he has opportunities elsewhere), but admirable.

[/ QUOTE ]

i suppose it is a fine line between admirable and delusional behavior.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

Brandi is my role model in life

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

I’m not sure that I have a problem with this sort of high stakes gambling between high stakes gamblers, because it seems to me that when professional gamblers gamble with one another, money is no longer the tool that the common man uses to purchase goods and capital, it is a tool to obtain utility by creating the (illusion) of risk. I say illusion because these sorts of 0 EV gambles will average out between the high stakes gamblers, but being risk loving individuals, they will have created positive utility within their group of gamblers. Essentially, the money stays within this gambling community, no resources have been used, but utility has been created. So when Negreanu loses 500k to Ivey (or whoever it was), nothing real has happened, except that Ivey now has the ability to buy goods and capital with this 500k. However, most likely, he will gamble with it, and the 500k will end up back with Negreanu.

In many ways, this is a positive thing from a utilitarian perspective, because nothing real has to happen between two risk loving gamblers for them to gain utility through 0 EV gambles. Ideally, we would rob these gamblers of their money but leave them believing that they still had the money. In this way, they could continue in their utility gaining gambles, and we could use the money that they use for gambling to save the lives of the less privileged.

I suppose this doesn’t directly address Sklansky’s original argument as to whether it is wrong to gamble with these sums of money, for the sake of your own pleasure. What I’ve tried to argue is that nothing real has happened (in terms of physical resources – money is just a tool), other than the shifting of purchasing power from one gambler to another. However, if the gamblers don’t actually use the purchasing power of this money, they instead gamble with it, then in many ways, it is as if this money is no longer part of the economy as a whole; it is no longer used for purchasing. This creates a similar effect to if the central bank was to decrease the money supply by some amount, the value of money still in the economy increases, that is, everyone else’s purchasing power increases. So if we take this holistic view of gambling, money trickles from the losers to the winners, shifting purchasing power from the losers to the winners. However, within this circle of winners, IF they decline the use of their purchasing power (using it instead as the currency of gambling), they have effectively withdrawn this money from the economy, and so the purchasing power is returned to the masses.

I suppose, then, you could ask, is it immoral for the gambler to return his purchasing power to the masses he obtained it from? I actually think it is, I like the idea of successful gamblers taking small chunks of other people’s money/output and using this to for the good of poor people; the poker playing philanthropist. (The poker playing philanthropist is almost identical to a money collector at World Vision. They are not actually producing anything in the economy, they are just redistributing money from Average Joe in a western economy to Poor Joe elsewhere, and taking a little chunk on the side to sustain themselves. Of course, the poker playing philanthropist may also be taking money from Poor Addicted-Gambler Joe in the western economy, which in itself could be immoral). But I don’t think that this sort of gambling is as immoral as instincts lead you to believe.

However, that rant assumed the gambler declined to use their purchasing power, ie, didn’t spend their money. Obviously, they are going to spend some of it (on food, shelter), and quite possibly most of it (on their third SUV, second house, etc). I’m not sure what I think about professional gambling as a means of sustaining yourself (spending your winnings only on the necessities), after all, gamblers aren’t directly contributing to the economy (in terms of physical goods), but arguments can be made that gamblers are effectively entertainers in the economy, producers of utility. A bit like a sportsman, they don’t produce anything, but they entertain, which produces utility. No different to a guy who produces TV sets, to produce utility. What I do think is that the latter form of consumption (on the third SUV etc) is immoral, when there is so much poverty in the world. However, that isn’t the problem of successful gamblers alone, it’s something all wealthy and middle income westerners are confronted with. An earlier poster asked why is it up to the million dollar man to feed the nation. Well obviously it’s not, but I think if we acknowledge that luck is the major factor as to why the million dollar man is a million dollar man, and not hard work which is the common right wing argument, then we may feel more inclined to help the less fortunate. But I worked hard for my million dollars, you cry! The subsistence farmer in Africa probably worked harder. What he didn’t have was the luck of being born into an economy that had years of capital accumulation and technological progress behind it, allowing future generations to be more efficient.

Sorry that was so long, it’s a topic that interests me.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

You can not view the act of gambling as an isolated event or a single event. We gamble to survive and our gambling is continuous. Taking risks propels us as a race forward. Without the gambooling desire, we would be ants, content to eek out an existance.

So to admire someone for taking a -EV gamble only reinforces our need to gamble, which is positive for us as a whole.

Eventually, the prize goes to someone who won't take endless -EV gambles and does something productive with it. This is the essence of capitalism.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Gambling in general is contrary to distributive justice. Money is pooled and distributed in the hands of few, in part on the basis of luck.

Maybe an argument can be made that pooling the money in fewer hands: affords greater utility to the few that collect, greater utility is derived through the process for all participants, and utility is generated even for the losers who can rationalize the loss as the rejection of the material.

People more articulate than myself have expressed this notion, though I think John Rawls would reject a utilitarian argument and posit that affronts to distributive justice are not welcome in a well-ordered society.

[/ QUOTE ]

first one that's made me laugh out loud,nice work!

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

If you gamble for millions and win its never stupid because you obv made the right move.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

I love poker, and enjoy few things more than sitting down with friends, either known, or as yet unknown,and playing some serious poker. However, there is nothing at all admirable, romantic,about it. It is what it is, and, as much as I would love to be able to play poker all day, everyday, I'm somewhat thankful that I wasn't born into that lifestyle.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

if you have 5-10 mil and golf is nutral ev for you, playing where losing 500,000 is beyond stupid.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

Trying to be the best at something can be admirable, even if you are likely to fail and do so.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I first started gambling, I learned the simplest, ages-old axioms that gamblers live by. Take the best of it on bets in relation to your bankroll. When I first went on the road traveling with big-time gamblers, I went broke fading dice because my bankroll was too small even though I had the best of it on every roll.

I never understood the gamblers with bad leaks and especially bad gambling leaks. How can anyone admire the tragic losers who, although skilled poker players, also lost large sums gambling: Johnny Moss, Titanic Thompson,Stu Ungar, Jack Straus, Nick the Greek. Nick the Greek and Johnny Moss ended up playing cheap limit in their old age because they just wanted to gamble every single day. Colorful but hardly admirable as the best gamblers.

I have often seen very young gamblers go on big winning streaks only to end up broke for various reasons. I have been there. You tell a good trapper by the furs on the wall.

[/ QUOTE ]


Brilliantly put! I think it's also true, though, that spectators enjoy watching all the more when they know the gamblers are being fools. People are voyeurs, and enjoy watching others risk destruction. It's a way they can enjoy the sensation of a thousand little deaths without risking it themselves.

Exhibit one: read the blog of Ed, aka Bluescouse, a 19 year old guy in Wales who lives with his parents and has several times managed to turn £1000 into £150,000 and then lose it again, because he has no game selection, no bankroll management, and no tilt control. Right now he is in the process of losing his last £70,000, one day at a time, and it is gripping reading. His poker blog is one of the most talked-about on the net. The comments pages are filled with people trying to shake him out of it - to hand the money over to someone else, to buy a house, a car, at least a holiday. But he is beyond help; he will lose all this money, and so we want to read on even more.

http://88percent.blogspot.com/

How much more exciting his blog is than that of any number of successful and controlled players. I visited CTS's blog the other day and saw his preppy life, his amazing Los Angeles flat, his fancy cars. I felt a little envy but otherwise wasn't engaged; I didn't think to visit again to see how much more he had won and how fabulous his life continues to be. But I check Bluescouse's blog every day.

Tragedies have always been more popular than comedies; the emotions they make us experience are that much greater.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow - didn't know that you were actually capable of semi-intelligent posts

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I first started gambling, I learned the simplest, ages-old axioms that gamblers live by. Take the best of it on bets in relation to your bankroll. When I first went on the road traveling with big-time gamblers, I went broke fading dice because my bankroll was too small even though I had the best of it on every roll.

I never understood the gamblers with bad leaks and especially bad gambling leaks. How can anyone admire the tragic losers who, although skilled poker players, also lost large sums gambling: Johnny Moss, Titanic Thompson,Stu Ungar, Jack Straus, Nick the Greek. Nick the Greek and Johnny Moss ended up playing cheap limit in their old age because they just wanted to gamble every single day. Colorful but hardly admirable as the best gamblers.

I have often seen very young gamblers go on big winning streaks only to end up broke for various reasons. I have been there. You tell a good trapper by the furs on the wall.

[/ QUOTE ]


Brilliantly put! I think it's also true, though, that spectators enjoy watching all the more when they know the gamblers are being fools. People are voyeurs, and enjoy watching others risk destruction. It's a way they can enjoy the sensation of a thousand little deaths without risking it themselves.

Exhibit one: read the blog of Ed, aka Bluescouse, a 19 year old guy in Wales who lives with his parents and has several times managed to turn £1000 into £150,000 and then lose it again, because he has no game selection, no bankroll management, and no tilt control. Right now he is in the process of losing his last £70,000, one day at a time, and it is gripping reading. His poker blog is one of the most talked-about on the net. The comments pages are filled with people trying to shake him out of it - to hand the money over to someone else, to buy a house, a car, at least a holiday. But he is beyond help; he will lose all this money, and so we want to read on even more.

http://88percent.blogspot.com/

How much more exciting his blog is than that of any number of successful and controlled players. I visited CTS's blog the other day and saw his preppy life, his amazing Los Angeles flat, his fancy cars. I felt a little envy but otherwise wasn't engaged; I didn't think to visit again to see how much more he had won and how fabulous his life continues to be. But I check Bluescouse's blog every day.

Tragedies have always been more popular than comedies; the emotions they make us experience are that much greater.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow - didn't know that you were actually capable of semi-intelligent posts

[/ QUOTE ]


I've written 10,000 words in this thread; whether any of it is semi-intelligent I couldn't say:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...0&fpart=all

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I’m not sure that I have a problem with this sort of high stakes gambling between high stakes gamblers, because it seems to me that when professional gamblers gamble with one another, money is no longer the tool that the common man uses to purchase goods and capital, it is a tool to obtain utility by creating the (illusion) of risk. I say illusion because these sorts of 0 EV gambles will average out between the high stakes gamblers, but being risk loving individuals, they will have created positive utility within their group of gamblers. Essentially, the money stays within this gambling community, no resources have been used, but utility has been created. So when Negreanu loses 500k to Ivey (or whoever it was), nothing real has happened, except that Ivey now has the ability to buy goods and capital with this 500k. However, most likely, he will gamble with it, and the 500k will end up back with Negreanu.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your first assumption is wrong, since there are huge leaks as humorously pointed out by the flow charts showing Ivey's money ending up at the casinos' craps tables.

What doesn't end up there probably does buy real estate and investments at a high enough rate to render the cost of obtaining the utility you speak of as onerous, hence inefficient.

I suggest a simpler and more useful view, that espoused by Sklansky originally:

don't be on the losing end of these titillating displays by fantasizing about, being distracted and influenced by, and glorifying/adulating these activities to the extent that it affects your poker affairs; and between the lines--

do be aware of the benefits to you since OTHER people will continue to be sucked in by these garish displays. (He's not saying 'be like me' as Johnny Hughes claimed.)

I think what follows of your discussion is thereby flawed, but I'm not at all read up on the theory, so others could and might do a better job at this forum. I do see your ideas, but I believe they are misapplied or taken out of context.

[ QUOTE ]
In many ways, this is a positive thing from a utilitarian perspective, because nothing real has to happen between two risk loving gamblers for them to gain utility through 0 EV gambles. Ideally, we would rob these gamblers of their money but leave them believing that they still had the money. In this way, they could continue in their utility gaining gambles, and we could use the money that they use for gambling to save the lives of the less privileged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky would probably not want to use other people's money, he only alluded to the notion that what is possibly admirable is the alternative uses of that money. You are opening a can of worms here.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose this doesn’t directly address Sklansky’s original argument as to whether it is wrong to gamble with these sums of money, for the sake of your own pleasure.

[/ QUOTE ]

He never said that it was wrong, he simply stated that there's nothing admirable about it in his view.

[ QUOTE ]
What I’ve tried to argue is that nothing real has happened (in terms of physical resources – money is just a tool), other than the shifting of purchasing power from one gambler to another. However, if the gamblers don’t actually use the purchasing power of this money, they instead gamble with it, then in many ways, it is as if this money is no longer part of the economy as a whole; it is no longer used for purchasing. This creates a similar effect to if the central bank was to decrease the money supply by some amount, the value of money still in the economy increases, that is, everyone else’s purchasing power increases.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are so many pitfalls in your otherwise functional analogy that matters are just further obfuscated.

Some may be misled by the notion that the gamblers' actions have an intended benefit, when it is accidental; in contradistinction to a central bank's actions.

Further, a macroeconomic tightening has a profoundly different effect than the removal of money on a much smaller scale. One could think of the reality that any new b&m casino sucks money out of the economy and hurts the entire population, but Las Vegas, being a tourist mecca, is an entirely different animal. I guess we are all benefiting from those huge Swiss bank accounts held by the likes of dictators, but you have to also consider other factors, such as the velocity of money (how about momentum of money?).
I'm grasping here, others could do a better job of explaining...


[ QUOTE ]
So if we take this holistic view of gambling, money trickles from the losers to the winners, shifting purchasing power from the losers to the winners. However, within this circle of winners, IF they decline the use of their purchasing power (using it instead as the currency of gambling), they have effectively withdrawn this money from the economy, and so the purchasing power is returned to the masses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Besides the aforementioned flaws, you are overlooking the fact that losers lose at different enough rates to cause social disruption and inefficiencies, thus costing the economy heavily in medical, legal, law enforcement and social welfare sectors.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose, then, you could ask, is it immoral for the gambler to return his purchasing power to the masses he obtained it from?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, the issue of morality is an obfuscation.

Secondly, you are ignoring the aspects of time and location when you refer to the big gambler returning his purchasing power to the masses.

Thirdly, you are getting sloppy about failing to differentiate the big gambler's nominal purchasing power with the differential change in aggregate purchasing power.

Fourthly, instead of moral considerations, cultural impact though difficult to quantify, is more apt.

Lastly, the question if facetious and misleading.

[ QUOTE ]
I actually think it is, I like the idea of successful gamblers taking small chunks of other people’s money/output and using this to for the good of poor people; the poker playing philanthropist. (The poker playing philanthropist is almost identical to a money collector at World Vision. They are not actually producing anything in the economy, they are just redistributing money from Average Joe in a western economy to Poor Joe elsewhere, and taking a little chunk on the side to sustain themselves. Of course, the poker playing philanthropist may also be taking money from Poor Addicted-Gambler Joe in the western economy, which in itself could be immoral). But I don’t think that this sort of gambling is as immoral as instincts lead you to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same problems as above. You've introduce another obfuscation, the exclusive notion of 'giving money to poor people' where Sklansky was broader.

You're allowing the casual reader get confused between morality(which was incorrectly introduced) and that which is admirable.

World Vision produces several good results, it's a cultural reminder to our humanity, hence serving to increase stability in several ways, geopolitically, environmentally, however inefficient the critics claim. Again, there is no need to continue along this obfuscation to see Sklansky's point.

[ QUOTE ]
However, that rant assumed the gambler declined to use their purchasing power, ie, didn’t spend their money. Obviously, they are going to spend some of it (on food, shelter), and quite possibly most of it (on their third SUV, second house, etc). I’m not sure what I think about professional gambling as a means of sustaining yourself (spending your winnings only on the necessities), after all, gamblers aren’t directly contributing to the economy (in terms of physical goods), but arguments can be made that gamblers are effectively entertainers in the economy, producers of utility. A bit like a sportsman, they don’t produce anything, but they entertain, which produces utility. No different to a guy who produces TV sets, to produce utility. What I do think is that the latter form of consumption (on the third SUV etc) is immoral, when there is so much poverty in the world. However, that isn’t the problem of successful gamblers alone, it’s something all wealthy and middle income westerners are confronted with. An earlier poster asked why is it up to the million dollar man to feed the nation. Well obviously it’s not, but I think if we acknowledge that luck is the major factor as to why the million dollar man is a million dollar man, and not hard work which is the common right wing argument, then we may feel more inclined to help the less fortunate. But I worked hard for my million dollars, you cry! The subsistence farmer in Africa probably worked harder. What he didn’t have was the luck of being born into an economy that had years of capital accumulation and technological progress behind it, allowing future generations to be more efficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

You state that there's no difference between the two types of utility (entertainment:TV sets) because they share the qualities of having utility?

Your original mention of utility serves only the gamblers themselves, not the recipients of the entertainment.

What is the utility to us (the supposedly entertained) hearing of the occasional and probably unintentional leak of information about their huge gambling activities?

It's rarely immoral to buy a third SUV. I might be argued that it could be amoral but that's another thread.

Sklansky has once again as a teacher generously cautioned us not to be distracted, so we can be better poker players.

You are free to extrapolate the benefits of this understanding as you see fit, and you should know that Sklansky's job is done if this last step is achieved; for it this that serves to save the world outside of poker.


[ QUOTE ]
Sorry that was so long, it’s a topic that interests me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

Two types of bets or gambles members of the high-stakes group seems to engage in:

1) Prop bets man to man, mostly over the poker table or over some sort of watched or partaken sport:
These bets actually are good for the gamblers' bank rolls in that they are totally uncorrelated to their main incomes as poker players, while over the long term the outcome of these bets also tend to be normally distributed around 0 EV. This helps to lower the overall volatility of the gambler's bank roll, which actually lets them get by on a smaller roll than what their outlandish betting habits would indicate.
If someone goes broke in the short term, no problem, the rest of the group is there to lend them enough to keep them in the game to wait for their turn to get lucky again, or move down in poker stakes where the new bank roll building income comes with a higher degree of "guarantee".
Thus, the betting actually functions as a sort of insurance and allows for a larger group of people to live a long life in a lavish life style than what would have been possible had they all just minded their own business.
As for the amounts gambled. They do need to match the poker income otherwise the bets fill no diversification and insurance purpose. This system will adjust itself sponataneously whether the gamblers themself understand the process or not.

2) Gambooling it up over the craps table and other -EV casino games:
Totally stupid for the personal finances, but indeed good for the society in that the money goes back to a company that does pay salaries, stock dividents, etc. and feed people.

Do I admire any of these two betting habits? No, but to each their own. And if I did have a chance (i.e. enough dough made from poker) I too would partake in the first type as in fact it would be beneficial for my personal economy.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

Gamblers are a special breed. I see an analogy to Hunters. There's no shame in not wanting to be a Hunter. But among hunters you would be considered a nit if you didn't have Hunting in you blood, so to speak. Among pure Gamblers you are considered a nit if you don't have Gamble in you.

It takes a certain amount of courage to take a Gamble. Big gambles are naturally scary for people. We admire courage. But we don't admire the fool who jumps off a cliff to his death on the chance he might survive the fall. The thing is that some Gambles that we need the courage to make are actually worth making. Betting 5% of your bankroll on a coin flip with favorable 7-5 odds is an example. If you don't have enough Gamble in you to make that gamble you are missing out on an opportunity. But if you have so much Gamble in you that you jump off a cliff to your death on the chance you might survive, you are just a Gambling Fool.

Personally, I don't have much gamble in me anymore, at least when I'm in my right mind. I have nurtured the Gamble I do have in me and applied some courage so that I can take advantage of favorable gambling situations when they arise. I am a reluctant Hunter who still goes after the game in order to make a living. I would consider it an insult if I was accused of not having enough Gamble in me to make a bet that fits my criteria for being mathematically sound considering the odds, my bankroll, and my utility of funds function. For those Pure Gamblers who gamble just for the love of the gamble, they can call me what they want. It's their game. They can have at it and get their thrills from the ups and downs. I don't particularly enjoy the ups and downs myself.

PairTheBoard

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

David,

If you don't see any romance in someone betting that much money on a game of golf, you just don't see what gambling does to otherwise normal events. All the roulette spins in the world would be meaningless without the sums of money spread out on the various numbers and colors - just mere probability.

I admire recklessness because I lack it. Having courage and conviction and taking a -EV chance - that's what life is about sometimes. I don't admire degenerate gamblers; their betting is based on a compulsion, but I can't help but praise their sheer recklessness.

Tell me you can read the chapter on golf in A. Alvarez's 'The Biggest Game in Town' and not think that there's something somehow romantic in what they're doing - Straus and Brunson's absolute certainty that they shoot better when the stakes are raised. I feel like a lifetime of +EV gambles against suckers makes you think everyone who makes -EV gambles is a sucker - and maybe you're right. Regardless, not all suckers are contemptible.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Especially if his tiny chance for success doesn't translate into helping others if he somehow succeeds.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm not mistaken David, I believe this is your main issue with these superstars. I have to agree. For example, I'm watching high stakes poker, and I'm watching these guys making ridiculous prop bets for huge sums of money. I can't help but think about how much larger their children's trust fund could be. The money they make is thrown away so fast, while it could be put to better use. It's depressing. This seems to be the recurring theme of your posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't the prop bets a way of getting some people steaming? Winning in the game but losing in the prop betting or losing in both could set off people with less discipline.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

gamboool = manly.. how is this even being discussed?

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

Optisizer, you took a valid concept re portfolio diversification and erroneously came to the conclusion that these prop bets provide insurance. They don't.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

I don't get it. Doesn't the person who won a half million in a golf game have just as much "responsibility" to put the money to good use as the "unnamed" person who lost it did???

I don't think it's fair to suggest he should have "done something good" with the money.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
yeah but a lot of these guys score good snapper and i admire that

unless they is really ugly then they dont score anything

[/ QUOTE ]

QFMFT

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

I have a better person for us all to bow down to and admire:

How about this as a quality to admire- a guy runs a very successful website selling books and advertising. So far so good. Then, decides to START a post in the GOSSIP section of the forum, basically complaining that people don't admire him and only him!
He doesn't mention the player's name in the post because that would be a no-no, instead he makes it painfully obvious who he is talking about without saying said person's name.

Admire me people!!! I am the king of all nits and haven't bought a new pair of shoes in 25 years! How's that for +EV!

I won't name any names, because that would be in really, really, really, poor taste, but I think we, as a society should admire those that have no gamble, avoid fun at all costs(outside of giggling like schoolgirls when other authors make boo-boo's in their books), and look to date women that are one year away from being able to legally drive.

Was the OP bored that day or something? I can't imagine what prompted such a thread?

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Normally I would post this on SMP but my other thread makes it relevant here.

It seems like a lot of people think it is admirable, or romantic or exciting to risk millions of dollars on gambling games with little or no edge. They somehow equate that with other entrepreneurs who pursue their dreams with little thought of the downside.

But don't you think there is a difference? I'm all for betting big money with an edge that justifies it. And I have no problem if people want to gamble big money without this edge. But to call this second category "admirable" seems totally wrong. Not when the world is in the state it is in. One well known hi roller professes strong religious conviction and goes on to lose half a million in a golf game he has little chance in. The loss doesn't affect him much, meaning he could have done some good with it. Fine. That's his right. But to ADMIRE the fact that he has gamble? Cmon. He wasn't risking his money in the hopes of starting a company that would turn apples into fuel. He was betting a half a million dolllars on a GOLF GAME. With the worst of it. You might admire that kind of activity. Forgive me if I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky makes one foolish assumption in his post. A professional gambler SHOULD always look for bets that are favorable, or at least break even. Sklansky incorrectly assumes that said "hi roller" made those golf bets with the knowledge that the bets had negative equity. In fact, Sklansky has absolutely no knowledge as to whether that $500,000 loss provided opportunities to actually earn much more in future golf bets, or if said hi roller is even a lifetime loser in golf betting.

I completely understand the point, that admiring a gambler who is willing to risk it all or bet huge amounts of money on coin flips is hardly admirable, but why he would choose to use the golf example he did, and worse, bring religious beliefs into the equation, well, that much I do not understand. But hey, at least he didn't post said hi roller's freakin' address on his forum and let it sit there for hours.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

where's that drama bomb picture?

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
EXACTLY....conversation from 10 years ago, I am working 100+ hour weeks living on one of the great surf beaches in the world..

Me to Surfer Dude while walking to my car on the way to work

"What are you doing mate"

SD "Just enjoying life my man, surf's up ya know"
ME "But you live in a kombi van and eat like sheet and have no money"

SD" No mate the govt pays me social security, I do what I want"
ME "Yeah but you live in a van with no water, shower etc"

SD "Mate look at those crisp waves...come surfing for the day"
ME " NO dude I gotta work"

SD "Why work man"
ME "Ive got 3 kids in private school and I want to earn enough so I can retire"
SD "So what will you do when you retire"
ME "Probably surf and fish and drink wine"
SD "Exactly, thats what I do now mate...."

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, Awesome!

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

http://comic-mint.com/media/client/0...mall-c7873.JPG

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
EXACTLY....conversation from 10 years ago, I am working 100+ hour weeks living on one of the great surf beaches in the world..

Me to Surfer Dude while walking to my car on the way to work

"What are you doing mate"

SD "Just enjoying life my man, surf's up ya know"
ME "But you live in a kombi van and eat like sheet and have no money"

SD" No mate the govt pays me social security, I do what I want"
ME "Yeah but you live in a van with no water, shower etc"

SD "Mate look at those crisp waves...come surfing for the day"
ME " NO dude I gotta work"

SD "Why work man"
ME "Ive got 3 kids in private school and I want to earn enough so I can retire"
SD "So what will you do when you retire"
ME "Probably surf and fish and drink wine"
SD "Exactly, thats what I do now mate...."

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, Awesome!

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah real original

http://www.storybin.com/sponsor/sponsor124.shtml