Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?

[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.

[Daniel Negreanu]

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?

[greg nice]

[moving shapes]

WTF GET SKLANSKY UP IN HUR.

[Daddy Warbucks]

[ 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!

[seemorenuts]

[ 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)

[Daniel Negreanu]

[ 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.

[moving shapes]

where's that drama bomb picture?

[Dreamer]

[ 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.

[Erik S]

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