Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?

[DAT MOOSE]

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.

[Don Olney]

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

[JJoseph]

[ 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).

[in48092]

[ 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.

[Zeestein]

Brandi is my role model in life

[mojed]

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.

[Grasshopp3r]

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.

[invisibleleadsoup]

[ 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!

[PITTM]

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

[Monolith]

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.