Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

WTF GET SKLANSKY UP IN HUR.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

original?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/2007/06/04/070604

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

Lol go be jealous your not a baller. Dropping loot on gambling is pretty sweet. Girls like a guy with some balls who's a badass; not a nit like you.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. Your arguments are so compelling I can't possibly see how I can be right. You live in whatever romantic dream about hi-stakes gambling you want. I am not to argue with that. Good luck and end of discussion...

Actually I could come up with an argument. Here goes:

Romantic hi-stakes gambling arguments...

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

I didn't click on the youtube link, was I gonna risk getting rickrolled?

Rick Astley's debut single, "Never Gonna Give You Up" contrasted the singer's expressive, soulful baritone with synthesized dance-club backing, and while the highly processed quality of the latter sometimes seemed to overwhelm the former (no easy task), the song became a wildly popular smash, winding up as the biggest hit single of 1987 in the U.K. and topping the U.S. charts in early 1988. The song was driven by a busy rhythm track and a synthesized string section strongly reminiscent of late-'70s disco productions, while Astley's distinctive voice boomed over the top. Perhaps the most memorable flourish on "Never Gonna Give You Up" is the way Astley handles the chorus, which alternates rapid-fire 16th notes with longer, off-the-beat triplets; his delivery is impeccably smooth, navigating the rhythmically shifting melody with ease. It's not difficult to see, in retrospect, why Astley eventually grew tired of the Stock, Aitken & Waterman production team's work; while the slick sheen doesn't exactly rob Astley of his personality, the layers of echo don't really do much to accentuate or humanize it, either. Still, the song does demonstrate that Astley has a flair for up-tempo dance tracks, and it's such a well-crafted piece of music that the partnership between singer and producers seems fruitful enough to overlook any shortcomings.


lyric

We're no strangers to love
You know the rules and so do I
A full commitment's what I'm thinking of
You wouldn't get this from any other guy

I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling
Gotta make you understand

* Never gonna give you up
Never gonna let you down
Never gonna run around and desert you
Never gonna make you cry
Never gonna say goodbye
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you

We've know each other for so long
Your heart's been aching
But you're too shy to say it
Inside we both know what's been going on
We know the game and we're gonna play it

And if you ask me how I'm feeling
Don't tell me you're too blind to see

(* repeat)

give you up. give you up
give you up, give you up
never gonna give
never gonna give, give you up
never gonna give
never gonna give, give you up

I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling
Gotta make you understand

(* repeat 3 times)

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

Maybe those prop bets help establish 'creditworthiness' but not insurance, ducy?

Optisizer, you have to warn us about your hypersensitivity, I didn't mean to hurt your ego.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]

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!

[/ QUOTE ]

Hilarious!

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

Yo dave mang you a playa hata

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe those prop bets help establish 'creditworthiness' but not insurance, ducy?

Optisizer, you have to warn us about your hypersensitivity, I didn't mean to hurt your ego.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, when I use the term "Insurance" I do so in an illustrative rather than technically correct sense. Just leave that sentense out from my original post and everything else still stands.
Second, I provide reasons and arguments behind my opinions, you just say "no". So I was being sarcastic in my relpy to you, but i don't expect you to understand that. DUCY?

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

why are a bunch of poker players discussing the morality of gambling?

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

Musings From A Man Who Likes Iceberg Lettuce Too Much

I like iceberg lettuce so much, I don’t even consider buying other lettuces in the supermarket, NO MATTER THE COST. This in turn causes FINANCIAL STRESS.

I like iceberg lettuce so much, it causes STRAIN in my relationships with my loved ones.

I like iceberg lettuce so much, I rarely if ever get enough COMPLEX CARBOHYDRATES, leading to MINOR HEALTH PROBLEMS.

I like iceberg lettuce so much, I would consider working on an iceberg lettuce farm, FOR FREE.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

I agree that gambling for millions with little to no edge is reckless and a complete disregard for money, but I still like hearing about it.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't click on the youtube link, was I gonna risk getting rickrolled?

Rick Astley's debut single, "Never Gonna Give You Up" contrasted the singer's expressive, soulful baritone with synthesized dance-club backing, and while the highly processed quality of the latter sometimes seemed to overwhelm the former (no easy task), the song became a wildly popular smash, winding up as the biggest hit single of 1987 in the U.K. and topping the U.S. charts in early 1988. The song was driven by a busy rhythm track and a synthesized string section strongly reminiscent of late-'70s disco productions, while Astley's distinctive voice boomed over the top. Perhaps the most memorable flourish on "Never Gonna Give You Up" is the way Astley handles the chorus, which alternates rapid-fire 16th notes with longer, off-the-beat triplets; his delivery is impeccably smooth, navigating the rhythmically shifting melody with ease. It's not difficult to see, in retrospect, why Astley eventually grew tired of the Stock, Aitken & Waterman production team's work; while the slick sheen doesn't exactly rob Astley of his personality, the layers of echo don't really do much to accentuate or humanize it, either. Still, the song does demonstrate that Astley has a flair for up-tempo dance tracks, and it's such a well-crafted piece of music that the partnership between singer and producers seems fruitful enough to overlook any shortcomings.


lyric

We're no strangers to love
You know the rules and so do I
A full commitment's what I'm thinking of
You wouldn't get this from any other guy

I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling
Gotta make you understand

* Never gonna give you up
Never gonna let you down
Never gonna run around and desert you
Never gonna make you cry
Never gonna say goodbye
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you

We've know each other for so long
Your heart's been aching
But you're too shy to say it
Inside we both know what's been going on
We know the game and we're gonna play it

And if you ask me how I'm feeling
Don't tell me you're too blind to see

(* repeat)

give you up. give you up
give you up, give you up
never gonna give
never gonna give, give you up
never gonna give
never gonna give, give you up

I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling
Gotta make you understand

(* repeat 3 times)

[/ QUOTE ]


QFMFMFMFT

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
and it's such a well-crafted piece of music that the partnership between singer and producers seems fruitful enough to overlook any shortcomings.

[/ QUOTE ]

i really can't overlook the awful whitebread dancing...anymore than i can overlook owning a pair of shoes for 25 yrs.

DUCY?

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

Many of us have fluctuations and get low on cash, it shouldn't be criticized. Recently someone who I've always had great respect for fell a bit behind on his rent. His landlord drinks and has irrational fits so he videotaped the encounter when she came by to collect. It's worth watching:

http://www.funnyordie.com/v1/view_vi...4c7d2583be6925

-Erik Seidel

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Many of us have fluctuations and get low on cash, it shouldn't be criticized. Recently someone who I've always had great respect for fell a bit behind on his rent. His landlord drinks and has irrational fits so he videotaped the encounter when she came by to collect. It's worth watching:

http://www.funnyordie.com/v1/view_vi...4c7d2583be6925

-Erik Seidel

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, but Pearl is a real hard azz....

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe those prop bets help establish 'creditworthiness' but not insurance, ducy?

Optisizer, you have to warn us about your hypersensitivity, I didn't mean to hurt your ego.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, when I use the term "Insurance" I do so in an illustrative rather than technically correct sense. Just leave that sentense out from my original post and everything else still stands.
Second, I provide reasons and arguments behind my opinions, you just say "no". So I was being sarcastic in my relpy to you, but i don't expect you to understand that. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're babbling. What are those incoherent reasons and arguments?

Face it, the word you chose is illustrative of what?

Call it x.

What does x mean?

Nothing.

You could use 'doodad' in that sentence instead of 'insurance' and it would have the same value--zero.

You could work as a scriptwriter for those Viagra commercials--with the nonsensical chatter, admit it--you had a TOTAL brain fart.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed. Instead of doing all this work we should all just pull down our pants and see whose is the longest once and for all.

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT
A+

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

Id rather grind out 2k a day for the next few years and have a lot of money in the bank rather than playing nosebleed stakes where the edges are small or non-existant. There are only a few players who have a definite edge at that level

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Id rather grind out 2k a day for the next few years and have a lot of money in the bank rather than playing nosebleed stakes where the edges are small or non-existant. There are only a few players who have a definite edge at that level

[/ QUOTE ]

you're not a gambler ldo

it's also worth noting that in the past (and probably still today) it's very difficult to find out if you can beat nosebleed stakes unless you take a shot at them short-rolled. cts is an obvious exception but his cpu is a neural net processor - a learning computer. still, tstoneMBD had a wonderful post about how obsessed most poker players are, esp live pros/tourney donks - they define themselves through the stakes they're playing for.

also i'm disappointed that this drama bomb has been derailed by rick astley talk. to talk about a man's poker game is one thing, but to insult his shoes a low blow.

David, i'm hoping your response includes something about A: all the Nobel Prizes you'd have if you hadn't dropped out of school and B: a hand where someone has 100000 BBs.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
to talk about a man's poker game is one thing, but to insult his shoes a low blow.

[/ QUOTE ]

really? b/c i posit that both relate to how one views money and risk....

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, a professional gambler should always look for bets where he has an edge combined with reasonable variance.
He should always look to bet a kelly fraction of his bankroll which relates to the edge he estimates.
The kelly fraction allows for some uncertainties in the estimation.
Even if you have a 10% edge, betting 30% of your bankroll means its certain that long term you will go broke.

D.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

That's because you suck at golf.

Of course you can write "Sklansky on Golf" and make a million pretty easily at this point. Just deposit 10% of your royalties to nineinchal@pokerstars for this advice.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]

You could work as a scriptwriter for those Viagra commercials--with the nonsensical chatter, admit it--you had a TOTAL brain fart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha ha ha ha. I just noticed you didn't understand squat of what mojed was saying either. Well, at least you're funny, unfortunatelly for you, though, DUCY you do not...

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

" I went to HS with a lot of people who will probably go down like that, and that's a big part of the reason I didn't go to college (no possibility of winding up like that). I do work hard to try and achieve what I want and what I believe in, just not in that way."

shane... i hope there is more to the "thats why i didnt go to college" statement

your blog reads like you have doctorate in English

"Live with Less...Enjoy it More"

good luck this month, hope you win a bracelet

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You could work as a scriptwriter for those Viagra commercials--with the nonsensical chatter, admit it--you had a TOTAL brain fart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha ha ha ha. I just noticed you didn't understand squat of what mojed was saying either. Well, at least you're funny, unfortunatelly for you, though, DUCY you do not...

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't know what he was saying either.

Your persistence in this matter is amusing because you don't know that you don't know.


I'll give you a year, maybe five years.

You couldn't come up with a meaningful word to substitute for the 'illustrative' word, "insurance," because the whole post makes no sense. There is no word that can replace a meaningless word in a meaningless paragraph. Hence, you could insert 'Barney, the purple dinosaur' in there, it would make as much sense, and be funnier.

Five years, come up with the word. Okay?

One word.

Go for it.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

how has sklansky not responded....

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
how has sklansky not responded....

[/ QUOTE ]

Thread with very bad potential to results ratio.

sklansky- I would just like to subtly point out that DN is a crazy selfish degenerate.
DN- OMFG you nitty book peddler!
Rest of Thread: Actually, Rick Astley is pretty good!

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]


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 ]


Here's Bluescouse's latest sad post:

"Friday, June 01, 2007
67 BECOMES 30
just blew £36k plus last months rakeback on betfair $100/$200 just now against bloeffer. he played very well and i didn't keep my head on enough. also given my parents £1k for june so i'm down to £30,000. last few days i've not felt like playing low tables. i'm very disappointed at the moment to lose over 50% of the roll but i don't regret playing those stakes. we played about 1100 hands i think and for awhile i was up $35k+ but he turned it around very well, the key pot was when i lost a $60k pot catching my 2 pair against his flush on the river. however, i should have check folded the river as my 2 pair were quite low and if he bets river he prob has at least 2 pair (which would almost definitely be higher). anyway, no play till monday probably. i do have £1k in my bank account which i might gamble away, but since i'll have to wait till monday to get the next £10k (then £10k tues and £9k wed hopefully) i may not play till then."

Stupidly gambling is stupid!!!!

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

Insurance = redistribution.

But with the bets being 0 EV (but much variance), they don't redistribute in a determined way, so they only add to a poker player's income variance, not reduce it.

This, I think, is what seemorenuts is trying to say.

And seemorenuts, you were right, I introduced the topic of morality, after Sklansky only asked whether it was admirable (or whether it is wise to admire it).

But given that I did add the topic of morality into the debate, I essentially tried to argue that (perhaps) 0 EV gambles aren't immoral (subjective word given that we haven't defined an ethical system to live by), but introduced two possible areas related to the gambling/poker profession that could be considered immoral. 1, you aren't contributing anything to society, you aren't a producer. But then I suggested that gamblers (and here I really meant poker players), can generate utility in a society. I was imagining televised poker, which so many love to watch. Thus, poker players are analagous to professional sportspeople. Further, the whole gambling process can be utility producing, if the participants are all risk loving (see utility theory). This is because +ve utility derived from winning is greater in magnitude than -ve utility resulting from losing (though rake plays a role too). 2, wealthy people (some of whom are gamblers), should use some of their wealth to benefit others (rather than excessive personal consumption), and to not is immoral.

Obviously, those two points above are only immoral within certain ethical frameworks. You could make a case for them using utilitarianism, for example. You could also argue against them using utilitarianism (such is utilitariansim), by saying that the third SUV generates greater utility than the alternative purchase of 30,000 or so doses of AIDS anti-retrovirals.


seemorenuts, I think I can now better express what I was trying to say in my original post. Suppose you and I were to, over the course of our lifetimes, bet $10,000 on the flip of a coin, once a week. In the long run, millions of dollars would have exchanged hands, but only $10,000 dollars (ignoring the bankroll you would need to maintain to avoid ruin) would have been "wasted" by our gambling habit, when it could have gone to better use in society. Then, when we die, it will enter society anyway. Contrast this with you and I making this same bet, but also buying an SUV each week, costing $10,000 dollars. Over the course of a lifetime, millions of dollars were wasted by our excessive consumption of SUVs, when it could have better been used for the good of society. In sum, when gambling with money, you are gambling your purchasing power. In the long run, with 0 EV gambles, you end up with the same purchasing power you had to begin with, so nothing real happens. However, when we consume goods, something real does happen. Therefore, it is the consumption habits, and not the gambling habits (assuming a long run of 0 EV gambles) which we should chose to admire (or not).

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

I saw about a dozen major errors in logic in this post, but it would take too long for too little benefit to point them all out.

Insurance does NOT equal redistribution.

If you used that equals sign to mean something else, maybe.

Only the third clause in your second paragraph is true.

"Immoral" isn't so subjective that you can throw it around incorrectly. The gambles are not zero EV as defined by Sklansky, so the fourth paragraph got off to a bad start.

You don't need to use utility, it's erroneous to say that nothing is contributed to society if you don't produce something; entertainment would fall under the services umbrella.

[ QUOTE ]
This is because +ve utility derived from winning is greater in magnitude than -ve utility resulting from losing (though rake plays a role too).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again. Do you understand the concept of marginal utility?

Why "should" wealthy people use their money to help others?
That's another debate.

Sixth paragraph: you're obfuscating by introducing the concept of these nebulous ethical frameworks; and confusing the utility for the benefit of the wealthy spender with the overall utility to a broader community. In any event, the latter use has greater utility, irrespective of the ethical framework.

Seventh paragraph: much more than $10K would have been 'wasted' in that scenario, you would have to say that the bankrolls needed to avoid ruin were 'wasted' which is a much higher number--so high that your ;waste' of 'millions of dollars' in your SUV example is unconvincing.

If we exclude the comment about religion in Sklansky's post, it's a simple matter of choosing what to admire so as to more effectively play poker to win. When he insinuated that aside, I think he complicated the simple message.

"Nothing real happens" is incorrect, as you've taken millions (not merely $10K, so as to lower the risk of ruin) out of circulation to afford that luxury.

I don't see how your last sentence follows from your erroneous argument--how do you base what you should* or should not admire on the fact that the habits revolve around consumption to the exclusion of gambling habits?

P.S. there are several reasons why purchasing SUVs are good for society, you have omitted mention of those.

*Lastly, don't ignore the naturalistic fallacy, but I think that's getting ahead of ourselves.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
basically complaining that people don't admire him and only him!

[/ QUOTE ]

That would rule out 2+2

Okay, Daniel, I'll take the bullet for ya.

Sklansky was talking about me, not you!!!!

(in my dreams)

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is because +ve utility derived from winning is greater in magnitude than -ve utility resulting from losing (though rake plays a role too).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again. Do you understand the concept of marginal utility?

Why "should" wealthy people use their money to help others?
That's another debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said that I assumed the gamblers were risk lovers, who have increasing marginal utility. So for 0EV gambles between risk lovers, utility is created.

Marginal utility can then be used to answer your question of why should the wealthy use their money to help others. If we have diminishing marginal utilty as wealth increases, then utility is maximised when wealth is distributed. I didn't say they "should" however, I just mentioned an ethical framework (utilitarianism) which would support that.

You're right, I didn't mention the merits of purchasing SUVs.

Pros:

They are good for the economy, at least, the SUV producers within the economy.

They provide better vision of the road for the driver and passenger.

The passengers are less likely to die/be injured in an accident.

Cons:

In the event of an accident, passengers of the other vehicle are more likely to die/be injured.

If two SUVs are to crash, the passengers of both are more likely to die/be injured than if two non-SUVs were to crash. (In fact, you can see than owning an SUV is much like a game theoretical problem, you gain from owning one no matter what the nemesis does).

The chasis (though this is not the case for all SUVs) are more rigid than in standard vehicles (due to the history of off road use).

They roll easily.

They obscure road vision for other road users (again, a game theory problem).

They are less fuel efficient than smaller vehicles.

Do you own an SUV?

I know that insurance doesn't equal distribution, I was suggesting that is what optimizer was interpreting it as.


[ QUOTE ]
"Nothing real happens" is incorrect, as you've taken millions (not merely $10K, so as to lower the risk of ruin) out of circulation to afford that luxury.

[/ QUOTE ]

In hindsight, my argument about money being taken out of circulation was wrong, as the money goes into bank accounts. I'm not sure whether you've understood my point seemorenuts, you probably have, you seem smart enough, but I'll try another example. When Ivey (again, I don't know who won the money off Negreanu) win 500k off Negreanu, I doubt his consumption habits change. Maybe they do, maybe he goes out and spends it. But I imagine that he is so wealthy that it doesn't alter his consumption. I would imagine it goes from Negreanu's bank account to Ivey's, and sits there. Some day, it will end up back in Negreanu's, and sit there. Ping-pong. The bets are inconsequential unless the winner spends the money, and it is this spending I think opens up the question (which, forgive me that I introduced but I feel we are allowed to expand on ideas) of morality.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say they "should" however, I just mentioned an ethical framework (utilitarianism) which would support that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I did say they should, but I covered my arse by saying that is only true given an ethical framework. They should, if they are utilitarians, is what I meant. And perhaps other ethical systems also encourage the wealthy giving the to the poor. Christianity, for example. Now as for why we should adopt these frameworks, I'm not going to answer that, because then you are left with a string of "why? why? why?" to each answer. I think all debate comes to this end. That's why it is easier to answer "I don't know" right away, rather than ending up at that answer after discovering all your arguments were built on an assumption. So, is stupidly gambling for millions admirable? I don't know. Why don't I know? Because.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

I think Sklansky certainly chose the wrong example when he alluded to Daniel.

I would hope some intelligent discussion would flow from DN's post about the usefulness of what he's doing (aside from the fun):

He's establishing golf course image (analogous to table image).

He's honing his betting skills.

He's creating interesting stimulation at the pinnacle of a small community where the players are astute; you have to admit this has some entertainment value for the community at large.

He's accidentally or otherwise creating a useful image for the relative fish who will join the big (poker) game.

He's getting to know his small community of big players better.

He's habituating himself knowledgeably to seemingly large bets to make similar sized bets at the poker table with ease (I think he doesn't need to learn this, lol).

If he's creating misconceptions for the lower skilled masses, this is massively positive EV for him.

If he's not (i.e. if you don't go nuts at lower levels) than there's no harm done--as I said, there's a lot to be learned that Sklansky doesn't teach because he's not comfortable up there.

He's creating a cleaner and more presentable role model than many others (MM for instance) would have in the same position if they had the roll.

He's reminding Sklansky of the principle I outlined in the "Rate this Edge" thread, it should be obvious that EV should incorporate future 'hands.' We could someday learn more about how to set up future bets.

So I think we are in better position to learn than to judge, at least when it comes to Daniel.

Lastly, David forgot to compute that God is on Daniel's side, and I'm not joking here. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

All I want to know is if Barry Greenstein deserves to get into the Kingdom of Heaven, because the New Testament would nix any application--though neither he nor David will be applying.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

Gambling without an edge is plain stupid. It seems that some of the "best players in the world" have a lot of gamble, whether it's golf, table games, etc...and that's a good way to go broke.

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

qft

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Insurance = redistribution.

But with the bets being 0 EV (but much variance), they don't redistribute in a determined way, so they only add to a poker player's income variance, not reduce it.

This, I think, is what seemorenuts is trying to say.

And seemorenuts, you were right, I introduced the topic of morality, after Sklansky only asked whether it was admirable (or whether it is wise to admire it).

But given that I did add the topic of morality into the debate, I essentially tried to argue that (perhaps) 0 EV gambles aren't immoral (subjective word given that we haven't defined an ethical system to live by), but introduced two possible areas related to the gambling/poker profession that could be considered immoral. 1, you aren't contributing anything to society, you aren't a producer. But then I suggested that gamblers (and here I really meant poker players), can generate utility in a society. I was imagining televised poker, which so many love to watch. Thus, poker players are analagous to professional sportspeople. Further, the whole gambling process can be utility producing, if the participants are all risk loving (see utility theory). This is because +ve utility derived from winning is greater in magnitude than -ve utility resulting from losing (though rake plays a role too). 2, wealthy people (some of whom are gamblers), should use some of their wealth to benefit others (rather than excessive personal consumption), and to not is immoral.

Obviously, those two points above are only immoral within certain ethical frameworks. You could make a case for them using utilitarianism, for example. You could also argue against them using utilitarianism (such is utilitariansim), by saying that the third SUV generates greater utility than the alternative purchase of 30,000 or so doses of AIDS anti-retrovirals.


seemorenuts, I think I can now better express what I was trying to say in my original post. Suppose you and I were to, over the course of our lifetimes, bet $10,000 on the flip of a coin, once a week. In the long run, millions of dollars would have exchanged hands, but only $10,000 dollars (ignoring the bankroll you would need to maintain to avoid ruin) would have been "wasted" by our gambling habit, when it could have gone to better use in society. Then, when we die, it will enter society anyway. Contrast this with you and I making this same bet, but also buying an SUV each week, costing $10,000 dollars. Over the course of a lifetime, millions of dollars were wasted by our excessive consumption of SUVs, when it could have better been used for the good of society. In sum, when gambling with money, you are gambling your purchasing power. In the long run, with 0 EV gambles, you end up with the same purchasing power you had to begin with, so nothing real happens. However, when we consume goods, something real does happen. Therefore, it is the consumption habits, and not the gambling habits (assuming a long run of 0 EV gambles) which we should chose to admire (or not).

[/ QUOTE ]

TL,DR

Also QTF

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you gamble for a cool million and win its never stupid because you obv made the right move.

[/ QUOTE ]

qft

[/ QUOTE ]
fyp

Re: Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?
 

intercepted in the end zone! the razorbacks have beaten the number one team in the country!!!