The Article I Promised Is Now In Our Magazine - Page 2

William · #11 09-01-2007, 12:38 PM

You go ahead and keep believing that. In the eye of the authorities, it is better to save 1 person in danger than allow "pleasure" to a thousand sharks.

I want poker to be allowed as much as you do, but I know what it does to people and chose not to ignore it.
Those that play and especially "played" live before online poker know what I am talking about. Playing online allows you not to see the people you are playing against and hides the true face of "reality".

Sklansky's article is well writtena and all you want, but it is written from the point of view of a person that profits from poker and only other winners will agree with what he says.

Telling the world that poker is good for you is just BS. Poker is only good for those that can win.

excession · #12 09-01-2007, 02:27 PM

I'm confused by your position.

If you want poker to be allowed than you must believe that it is ethically/morally persimissble.

The fact that certain puritanical elements in the States believe the opposite is pretty much irrelevant to the continued existence and availability of poker in the rest of the world. There is no way that Europe, S. America and Australasia are going to ban it. It's pick up in Asia is also likely to be tremendous given a few years.

The online world is incredibly different to the old-dinosaur age. It's not just drunk tourists/cynical sharks and hopeless gambling addicts any more.

The vast majority of social players (like myself a 40 yr old lawyer) play for the intellectual challenge and fun - I'd never have gone anywhere as seedy as casino in real life (although I probably have 100+ of them within an hour's drive).

I have won maybe $23,000 over the past 3+ years playing a few hours/week.
I would have stayed at smaller stakes if I'd been losing so would never have lost the same amount, but even if I had let's not pretent that that sort of sum over 3+ years is crippling to a partner in a corporate law firm.

The vast majority of poker players do lose online. It isn't 98% though. Winners are probably 10% and breakeven players maybe another 10-20%. Of the 70% of losers most either blow a few hundred $$$ fairly fast and quit or just keep playing for fun at weekends at a level that they can sustain indefinitely.

I have seen figures that 1/3 of adult males 18-30 in the UK have tried online poker. I don't know how many have now had their lives ruined but given how the press would love to go on about it and the numbers involved it really is a vanishly small %.

Injection · #13 09-01-2007, 04:28 PM

Possibly a dumb question, but has the article been reproduced on the internets yet?

Nevermind, it's probably in the 2+2 Internet Magazine.. obv I've never bothered to click the link.

UrmaBlume · #14 09-01-2007, 04:49 PM

By your argument everything that is harmful to any small percentage of the populations should be disallowed by the authorities.

It is impossible to legislate away risk from the experience of life and if everything in life is reduced to a protection for the lowest common denominator among us then there is no life for any of us.

Some eat so many pork ribs they eventually have a heart attack so I guess ribs are out. Many have trouble with sugar so that leaves out sweets. And what about beer that's gone too and milk for those that can't handle milk.

The biggest thing that people like you would take from the general population is not poker but personal freedom and quality of life.

William · #15 09-01-2007, 05:26 PM

I have never argued that anything that is harmfull to a small % of the population must be prohibited. What I say it's that I understand the position of the authorities that wish to protect that small % of the population. that is in fact their job.
As for your other examples, pork, cigarettes, alcohol, etc... it is in fact very close to poker. Not prohibited but serious warnings about their consumption are issued regularly.

I do make a living from poker (despite what some other clever-that-have-no-clue posters say) but I am fully aware that my winnings have sometimes serious impacts to other players lives.
I don't wish to change that, but I certainly understand those that do want to change it.

Therefor an article about how good poker is for society, especially written by somebody that has earned so much from poker, is in my humble (well, maybe not so humble...) opinion very close to hypocresy (sorry if mispelled). Certainly Mr. Sklansky knows about the downside (addiction, etc...) of poker but choses nontheless to only write about hypotetical but unrealistic benefits to the large population.

5thStreetHog · #16 09-01-2007, 05:46 PM

"What I say it's that I understand the position of the authorities that wish to protect that small % of the population. that is in fact their job"

It is absolutely never the states job to protect us from ourselves.This statement almost made me vomit.

David Sklansky · #17 09-01-2007, 06:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You go ahead and keep believing that. In the eye of the authorities, it is better to save 1 person in danger than allow "pleasure" to a thousand sharks.

I want poker to be allowed as much as you do, but I know what it does to people and chose not to ignore it.
Those that play and especially "played" live before online poker know what I am talking about. Playing online allows you not to see the people you are playing against and hides the true face of "reality".

Sklansky's article is well writtena and all you want, but it is written from the point of view of a person that profits from poker and only other winners will agree with what he says.

Telling the world that poker is good for you is just BS. Poker is only good for those that can win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you actually read the article? The point of it was that the mere act of learning poker and playing it seriously helps teach many useful attributes. (More than other games do by the way.) That would be true even for many of those who are not long run winners.

William · #18 09-01-2007, 06:41 PM

Hi David,

I did read the article. I just believe (I should say I know) that way too many would get lost in the process of learning and even more in the one of playing. It takes a degree of self-control that very few people can reach.
In other words, the goal is true, but the road that leads to it is impossibble to travel on for the majority of the population.

Jibba · #19 09-01-2007, 06:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Telling the world that poker is good for you is just BS. Poker is only good for those that can win.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where your entire argument falls apart. Who are you to say what qualities make something good or bad? Poker is good for those who enjoy the game.

William · #20 09-01-2007, 07:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Telling the world that poker is good for you is just BS. Poker is only good for those that can win.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where your entire argument falls apart. Who are you to say what qualities make something good or bad? Poker is good for those who enjoy the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are quite right, your choice of words is much better than mine. You can enjoy the game even if you are not a winner.
I guess I meant that poker is (very) bad for way too many people and it is kind of immoral to just point out the good things that only apply to some persons (and even if there are many of those, the number of persons that are badly affected by poker is too large to be ignored).