Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?

[mo42nyy]

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

[pete fabrizio]

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

[SkinnyLittleTwig]

[ 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

[luckyjimm]

[ 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

[seemorenuts]

[ 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 ]

[Optisizer]

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.

[PairTheBoard]

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

[Triumph36]

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.

[EL Burro Loco]

[ 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.

[mertzo]

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