Goofy Devil's Advocate argument for UIGEA

greyhawke54 · #1 03-09-2007, 05:35 AM

I was having a discussion with some non poker nut friends the other day and this came up. Not sure if this is even the correct place for this. If not I apologize, Mods please put it where it belongs.

The argument was that the online poker players are not really concerned about the freedom to play their game and all that. They are really concerned about being able to gamble. Because if they were really just concerned about being able to play poker and the competition of the game, then playing for play money would be just fine with them(poker players).

The person that I was discussing this with, maintained that the biggest reason that people were upset, was because they were degenerate gambler types that just wanted a gambling fix. Whether it be poker or any other type of gambling. They also maintained that poker players rights were not being infringed upon anyway, as that they could still play all the poker they wanted online at any site. Just not for real money. If it was the game, and the competition factor that we as poker players really cared about. We should not have any problem playing with play money chips.

I do not agree with this argument, however I can see some people that are not really poker players seeing this as reasonable. I would like to know what some on this forum think of this argument, and what would be a really good way to counter it? I mean in a serious way not just saying to the person that they are nuts.

Thanks

famousanus03 · #2 03-09-2007, 05:43 AM

dude u cant play for play money thats not even real poker people just o all in...of course you have to bet to make it to make it worth playing

greyhawke54 · #3 03-09-2007, 06:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
dude u cant play for play money thats not even real poker people just o all in...of course you have to bet to make it to make it worth playing

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not my argument, this is the reasoning of a non-player.

I also brought this up in my discussion with this person, their response is. "That just proves that it is about the thrill of gambling and not the playing of the game that is really important to us. If it was about keeping score then play chips keep score just as good as real money chips."

I am looking for serious thought out arguments. I think that this could be an interesting discussion.

costanza_g · #4 03-09-2007, 06:07 AM

I cant speak for the rest of the forum, but i play to win money. Which is hard to do if I only use play chips.

walkertullaris · #5 03-09-2007, 06:19 AM

Hi!

This is mostly related to SnGs and Tournaments..
I don't know if your friends compeat in anything that can be a tournament where you have to pay an entry fee.
But for instance if the play chess, bridge, bowling or whatever, would your friend think people would really play ther A Game if all the would win was the honour, or if there was a relatively small entry fee that was used to pay for some sort of price.

I know myself when we play SnGs within my family the competition gets fiercy even if we only pay like $2.5 in entry fee. I even called my girlfriend a f-cking b@astard when she bluffed me at the river with 4 cards of a suit (i had none of it) and then showed the bluff when i folded [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
No way that the poker would have been so good or competitive with only the "honor" involved.

demon102 · #6 03-09-2007, 08:05 AM

Poker was built around playing for money which is what the real motive is for playing the game. Texas holdem from what I read was made by coybows that wanted a game to play that would allow many players (10+ players at a time) to play the game at the same time which is y u only get 2 holecards. The money was a big motivating factor for playing cuz they would all like to win some extra money. If they just sat around and played for rocks instead of money then of course the game woundnt be the same. The point of the game is to win what is being wagered and is put into the pot, if no one cares what they are wagering and doesnt care about losing it then a major factor of the game is thrown out of the window. Even if a cowboy won all the rocks from every other player I dont think he would be all that pleased and the game would die a quick death cuz no one would want to play to win a rock.

repulse · #7 03-09-2007, 10:23 AM

In all seriousness, the point I'd make in your position is that, even on a theoretical level, poker truly doesn't work as a game without something at stake, especially online. The intrigue and strategy of poker is wholly dependent on the fact that, to some extent, your opponents are attempting to also employ strategies.

Without incentive to do so, ESPECIALLY in an online environment, many play money players just act purely upon whim or in boring simple patterns for fun (i.e. constantly raise). And I'm sure nearly everyone who has ever played for play money would agree with this sentiment on a practical level. I know of very few people who played play money online poker for very long at all; even reserved, "I just like playing for fun" people find the online play money experience to be unbearable after a few thousand hands. The nature of this play money phenomenon also tends to downplay the meaningful social interaction between the players (perhaps a point of interest to the nonpoker people), quickly degenerating into insults and berating.

You could also say that, because of this, playing poker for play money online is not too different than playing a one-player poker game with simulated opponents with a mix of purely awful and purely whimsical strategies -- not difficult to approximate with AI, or, in this case, Artificial Unintelligence. So why connect to the internet at all for play money poker?

Piece of Cake · #8 03-09-2007, 12:07 PM

So? And a degenerate golfer just wants to get his golf fix with his round of golf on Saturday. And the degenerate church-goer wants to get his fix by going to Church on Sunday. And the degenerate movie fan wants to get his fix by going to a movie on friday night. All these things cost money and have a value unique to the particpant. I may feel that golf is a "waste" of discretionary (as well as any number of activities, hobbies, forms of entertainment) but I'm not advocating making it illegal in order to save people from what I feel is a waste of their money - because I understand that what may be a waste of money to me, may have value to someone else.

flafishy · #9 03-09-2007, 01:42 PM

Even if what they're saying is so, what does that have to do with corrupted, greedy bungholes getting in our faces and telling us what we should or shouldn't be doing?

Dane S · #10 03-09-2007, 02:10 PM

Poker IS gambling. Without gambling, it's not poker. The problem with your friend's argument is assuming the government has a right to regulate gambling between consenting adults. Can gambling ruin lives? Sure, so can alcohol, cigarettes, buying too much [censored], getting an STD, getting hit by a meteorite. [censored], to be safe we better just lock everybody up in their rooms to make sure they don't hurt themselves.

If that doesn't get through, remind your friend that the government doesn't even want to make gambling illegal, they just want a monopoly on it. Does the government care one bit about degenerates ruining their lives? State-sponsored lotteries, casinos, and legal horse racing (betting horses being exempt under the UIGEA) would appear to indicate that they don't.