Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?

[seemorenuts]

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.

[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)

[mojed]

[ 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.

[mojed]

[ 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.

[seemorenuts]

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.

[otter]

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.

[David Slongsky]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

qft

[Broke_Joke]

[ 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

[gregorio]

[ 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

[David Slongsky]

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