God helped Jerry Yang win WSOP! - Page 8

Splendour · #71 10-16-2007, 11:58 AM

Lol. Sorry you're having trouble rakes.a.beach. I thought I was easier to read than most. Yeah, I do put in too many periods. Maybe its a stream of consciousness thing that is all my own. Sort of like e.e. cummings eschewing capitalization. Ha,ha. Just go back and read them and take out the extra periods. (For a math/science forum there sure is a lot of focus on punctuation.)

madnak · #72 10-16-2007, 05:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get all the anger. You should be happy that now there is a very slight chance of an influx of new blood into the pokerworld: religious fanatics who think God will give them a two-outer.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually a good point. When superstitious people win the WSOP, they can influence other people to play poker according to their superstitions. After all, it worked for Jerry Yang! And the more superstition in poker, the better (for skilled players).

Splendour · #73 10-16-2007, 05:28 PM

Take a look at Greenstein's Ace on the River Madnak...superstition has a lot more ambiguous role in poker than most people think.

slimjim646 · #74 10-18-2007, 01:08 PM

The irony just strikes me as hilarious to hear about a Jerry Yang calling for a god to win a poker tourny. Anyone from UConn here? I ask because my biotech prof was a Jerry Yang. Oddly enough, he headed the first group to successfully clone cattle from non embryonic cells. Not the type of man to be calling on a god to grant luck.

Also, to reiterate from another thread pondering religion in poker. Why would God be granting favors for a sin? That's the biggest mystery. I seriously doubt the Christian/Judean God needs to extort a percentage of Yangs winnings to conduct the daily business. That God would not condone that thought process which concludes a follower could enter the tourny to pay the whatever percentage tribute.

vhawk01 · #75 10-18-2007, 02:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Take a look at Greenstein's Ace on the River Madnak...superstition has a lot more ambiguous role in poker than most people think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think you meant ambiguous? Maybe ubiquitous?

madnak · #76 10-18-2007, 02:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why would God be granting favors for a sin?

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker isn't gambling, it's a sport. I think it's perfectly appropriate for an athelete to seek God's blessing before a major competition.

slimjim646 · #77 10-18-2007, 06:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would God be granting favors for a sin?

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker isn't gambling, it's a sport. I think it's perfectly appropriate for an athelete to seek God's blessing before a major competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the viewpoint of God as I learned of him was bugging me for a week or so now. So I opened up the bible, coughed a bit as the dust flew and read the following bizzare comments from the Catholic Church in it's 1955, "A Parctical Dictionary of Biblical and General Information" Apeendix to the The Holy Bible, Holy Trinity Edition, Chicago Press 1955.
"Gambling, Betting
Gambling is an agreement between participants of a game of chance to pay the winner a certain prize or sum of money (e.g., a game of dice, poker, etc) Betting is an agreement between the bettors to reward the one who correctly guesses the answer or outcome of a past or future event (e.g., the outcome of a horse race)
Gambling is not a sin of itself; and it is licit under the following conditions: (1) the stakes in the gambling must belong to the bettor and be able to disposed of by him. It would be sinful for a banker to with the funds of depositors (2) The game must be honest. It would be sinful to use loaded dice, to stack the cards, etc. (3) All the participants in the game must have an equal chance of winning, or, at least they must know esactly what the odds are. Itw would be sinful for an expert to play poker for money with one learning the game, unless the learner was aware of the inequality and nevertheless willing to play.
Betting is not a sin of itself; and it is licit under the following conditions: (1) the bet must not induce one to sin. It is sinful to bet that one can get another drunk. (2) Those who are betting must not know in advance the outcome of the bet. It is sinful to bet on a sure thing. (3) The bettors must understand the terms of the bet in the same way. (4) Each bettor must intend and be able to pay if he loses.
Both betting and gambling are licit if the above conditions are verified. However, they may be dangerous and may lead on to squander large sums he can not afford; or they mat instill an avarice spirit."

Now what I find particularly odd is that the Catholic Church in this case singles out poker by name. Appearently though, the game itself is not sin, however elements of it are sin. However, while gambling doesn't appear to a sin, the Catholic Church does seem to have it's reservations about gambling in general and where it would takes it's participants lives.

On a more light hearted note. Obviously by reading stipulation 3 of "betting", in Hold 'em betting the nuts is a sin! So maybe we could get all the holy rollers to learn that betting the nuts is a sin, and betting those weak flush draws is a good practice. Now that's a thought I like.