Stupidly Gambling For Millions Is Admirable?

[luckyjimm]

[ QUOTE ]
David,

"But to ADMIRE the fact that he has gamble? Cmon."

You find it surprising that a bunch of degenerate gamblers admire bigger degenerate gamblers?

[/ QUOTE ]


What he said

[DAT MOOSE]

you're right david, its much more admirable to nut-peddle a 20-40 LHE game and fold every hand in a tournament.

the thing with actual gambling (and not being a nit and writing books about it) is that you have to give action to get action. a strong gambler puts himself in spots where he isnt sure if he's the favorite.. maybe now everyone thinks daniel sucks at golf & non-poker wagering in general and he's cashing in big on this image. and maybe hes donating all his profits to cancer research. its a lot more complex than 'how can you admire the guy for making a bad bet' no one is saying 'i really admire daniel negreanu for losing a million on golf'

the people you should be more worried about are the guys who have cheated people out of millions of dollars and are revered by the public. thats a lot worse than making a stupid bet.

[szw]

[ QUOTE ]
is that you have to give action to get action

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate this saying so much.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]

the thing with actual gambling (and not being a nit and writing books about it) is that you have to give action to get action. a strong gambler puts himself in spots where he isnt sure if he's the favorite.. maybe now everyone thinks daniel sucks at golf & non-poker wagering in general and he's cashing in big on this image. and maybe hes donating all his profits to cancer research. its a lot more complex than 'how can you admire the guy for making a bad bet' no one is saying 'i really admire daniel negreanu for losing a million on golf'

the people you should be more worried about are the guys who have cheated people out of millions of dollars and are revered by the public. thats a lot worse than making a stupid bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you talking about poker cheats?

As to your other statement, if your "maybes" are true then obviously it wouldn't apply in those cases. But then it would be off the subject. Meanwhile in the real world those "maybes" are just a rationalization in most cases. An excuse they say to themselves later. Do you really think Las Vegas golf hustlers won't reevaluate at the first sniff that things have changed? And way before thay have given back most of their money.

As for "you have got to give action to get action" there is the flipside that the opposite strategy allows for more successful bluffs. Except that the bluffer is more likely to have a innacurate reputation. Meanwhile the analysis of where to draw the line is covered quite well by a subject, Game Theory, that most gamblers are too lazy to learn.

[TStoneMBD]

what it mostly boils down to is the fact that people are jealous of those who can gamble 500k on a single stroke or a turn of the card, and on the other side of that coin are the people who love to be on the receiving end of that jealously. i dont think people find nobility for those who gamble for absurd amounts of money, but it may seem that way because those degenerates hold their heads up high when sharing their story of how they busted their million dollar rolls. i think most would find this type of degeneracy disgusting, but do feel some admiration for these gamblers because theyre doing something they could only dream of. others feel hatred, but that is likely also the cause of jealously. the admiration of this degeneracy plays a large role of why high stakes games are often so good, and why so much money is fueled into the poker economy from outside economies. rich men admire these high rolling gamblers and its their jealously that leads to their donations at the poker tables.

[OPportunist]

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.

[luckyjimm]

[ 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, utility through the process for all participants, and even utility for the losers who can rationalize the loss as the rejection of the material.

People more articulate than myself have expressed this notion, like John Rawls

[/ QUOTE ]


Thanks for the link - Rawls sets out some very interesting concepts that have really made me reconsider the economics and societal function of gambling.

[Peter McDermott]

[ 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 ]

That one was a genuine pleasure. Well done.

[MiltonFriedman]

I happen to agree with you, but question whether you think gambling has any social value at all.

If so, would it be:

1. Entertainment value,
2. Reallocation of capital from non-productive gamblers to casino owners, smart players, ....
3. ???

You imply that shifting capital from "edge-stupid" miilionaires to someone with an appreciation for having "an edge" serves no social purpose.

Why ?

[BLdSWtTRs]

I wouldn't say its admirable but it is exciting.
For a large majority of people its a bad idea and its foolish.

The math just doesn't add up when you factor in taxes, expenses and emotional well being with the huge swings and variance of ultra high stakes.