Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?

[sellthekids]

[ QUOTE ]
to talk about a man's poker game is one thing, but to insult his shoes a low blow.

[/ QUOTE ]

really? b/c i posit that both relate to how one views money and risk....

[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.

[nineinchal]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

That's because you suck at golf.

Of course you can write "Sklansky on Golf" and make a million pretty easily at this point. Just deposit 10% of your royalties to nineinchal@pokerstars for this advice.

[Optisizer]

[ QUOTE ]

You could work as a scriptwriter for those Viagra commercials--with the nonsensical chatter, admit it--you had a TOTAL brain fart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha ha ha ha. I just noticed you didn't understand squat of what mojed was saying either. Well, at least you're funny, unfortunatelly for you, though, DUCY you do not...

[The B]

" I went to HS with a lot of people who will probably go down like that, and that's a big part of the reason I didn't go to college (no possibility of winding up like that). I do work hard to try and achieve what I want and what I believe in, just not in that way."

shane... i hope there is more to the "thats why i didnt go to college" statement

your blog reads like you have doctorate in English

"Live with Less...Enjoy it More"

good luck this month, hope you win a bracelet

[seemorenuts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You could work as a scriptwriter for those Viagra commercials--with the nonsensical chatter, admit it--you had a TOTAL brain fart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha ha ha ha. I just noticed you didn't understand squat of what mojed was saying either. Well, at least you're funny, unfortunatelly for you, though, DUCY you do not...

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't know what he was saying either.

Your persistence in this matter is amusing because you don't know that you don't know.


I'll give you a year, maybe five years.

You couldn't come up with a meaningful word to substitute for the 'illustrative' word, "insurance," because the whole post makes no sense. There is no word that can replace a meaningless word in a meaningless paragraph. Hence, you could insert 'Barney, the purple dinosaur' in there, it would make as much sense, and be funnier.

Five years, come up with the word. Okay?

One word.

Go for it.

[ESKiMO-SiCKNE5S]

how has sklansky not responded....

[spaceman Bryce]

[ QUOTE ]
how has sklansky not responded....

[/ QUOTE ]

Thread with very bad potential to results ratio.

sklansky- I would just like to subtly point out that DN is a crazy selfish degenerate.
DN- OMFG you nitty book peddler!
Rest of Thread: Actually, Rick Astley is pretty good!

[luckyjimm]

[ QUOTE ]


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 ]


Here's Bluescouse's latest sad post:

"Friday, June 01, 2007
67 BECOMES 30
just blew £36k plus last months rakeback on betfair $100/$200 just now against bloeffer. he played very well and i didn't keep my head on enough. also given my parents £1k for june so i'm down to £30,000. last few days i've not felt like playing low tables. i'm very disappointed at the moment to lose over 50% of the roll but i don't regret playing those stakes. we played about 1100 hands i think and for awhile i was up $35k+ but he turned it around very well, the key pot was when i lost a $60k pot catching my 2 pair against his flush on the river. however, i should have check folded the river as my 2 pair were quite low and if he bets river he prob has at least 2 pair (which would almost definitely be higher). anyway, no play till monday probably. i do have £1k in my bank account which i might gamble away, but since i'll have to wait till monday to get the next £10k (then £10k tues and £9k wed hopefully) i may not play till then."

Stupidly gambling is stupid!!!!

[mojed]

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).