EPTOn September 02 2005 13:04 {ToT}Strafe wrote:
ive never seen you in such a happy mood muh, you up big?
ive never seen you in such a happy mood muh, you up big?
Hahahaha :D Yea kinda xD
Bittersweet Symphony - Page 5
| Forum Index > Articles |
|
Muhweli
Finland5328 Posts
Hahahaha :D Yea kinda xD | ||
|
Oxygen
Canada3581 Posts
| ||
|
Muhweli
Finland5328 Posts
On September 02 2005 13:32 {ToT}Strafe wrote: striving for money CAN make you feel happy a long with other things. everybody has something else that makes them happy That is so true! I have a new dream!! It's not being rich but it's impossible to accomplish without money. I've identified my flaws and I'm going to eliminate them and some of these things cost money. Sooooooo... to sum it up: Money doesn't bring happiness but it certainly helps forgetting the grief! xD And people who say money doesn't bring happiness are very often the people who don't have any. Money itself doesn't make people happy but the things it can provide unless it turns you into a senseless prick (which it shouldn't do) and although there are some bad examples, I do not think this is the general case with poker players.... And as far as it goes with the surgeon thing (whoever said he'd be that), it's great! You can help people, do what you want to do(?) and you get paid well. *cough* All these qualities can be achieved through poker too although nobody forces winners to help people. ps. Up 50 BB/100 over more than $300 hands makes Muh a happy camper and many fishes cry themselves to sleep... oh wait I was going to say poker is a nice way to make muny! xD | ||
|
T______T
United States538 Posts
Most things are not like that: when you buy a laptop, you so it because you feel it will improve your life in some way (fun, business, etc.). The seller sold it because the money is worth more to him/her than the laptop. Both sides win. | ||
|
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
On September 02 2005 12:13 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: How can you say such a thing? If everyone was a firefighter would it be any different? No, the argument isn't that everyone should or shouldn't have the same occupation. The argument is that society has an obvious need for firefighters. People will pay money for the service that firefighters provide. Poker is a leisure activity. At the very most it can be a money-making activity, but it's NOT really a profession. A profession is something you do that society has a need, and therefore will pay for. In other words, the hot-dog vendor that our hypothetical poker player is patronizing is providing a good or service for sale. But the hot-dog vendor is convinced by one of our fellow TLers to quit and start playing poker, now there's no hot dogs for the first guy to buy. But if the hot-dog vendor goes and becomes a firefighter, he's still providing a service to society. To take it to an extreme case for the purposes of clarity, what if 10% of everyone in the world became poker players? Now we've got 10% fewer cars to buy, so they are more expensive (and less fuel efficient cause 10% of the engineers aren't making better engines). We've got longer response to fires, since there are only 90% as many firefighters. And so on and so on. Now, how is the firefighter different? Well, if 10% of the people applied to be firefighters, only some would get jobs and the rest would be disappointed and would go and do something else. If they all decide to do something that people will pay for, then everything will even out via market forces. The point is that there's a self-regulating market for firefighters, but no "market" for poker players. Poker players contribute nothing to the wealth of the world. The money you make off of poker originally had to come from a profession that actually provided a good or service. Once too many people give those professions up, you've got problems. Obviously it's an extreme number to pick 10%, but I wanted to demonstrate the difference between a poker player and a firefighter. It's the difference between an occupation where you provide something that other people will pay for and one which is a zero-sum game. Going back to the comparison between poker and sports, of course it's fine if some small number of people play poker for a living. But encouraging poker as a mainstream way to make a living is just as bad as encouraging athletics as a mainstream profession. It's clear far too many kids are led to believe that athletics are the way to riches and success. This fact is obvious to anyone who follows NBA and/or college basketball. Encouraging poker as suitable as an occupation for a large group of people (most people here seem to agree that anyone can do it) is just as bad as telling every inner-city American kid who's reasonably athletic that they can become an NBA player, rather than trying to encourage them to get educated in a profession that's more stable and time-tested than "professional gambler". If they can become really good at it, yes that would be pretty cool. I wouldn't lend my child for a lifetime of trying to become good at something he actually has no future in, as would noone else in their right mind. The difference between poker and other sports mentioned in this topic is that poker is easier to combine with a social life and/or education. You can take years off if you will, come back later and be in the same shape as you were before regardless of age. Yes, I have no problem with people playing poker either as a hobby or as a full-time life. And I think it's good to combine any profession with education and a social life. The problem is when people start to think that it's a given that they can ignore a more traditional life and rely on poker for a livelihood. And, of course, it's not a life for people who want to feel like they are producing something useful for society, because you aren't. Poker players can at the most offer entertainment for people who happen to want to watch them. But that's still not really providing a good or service of any kind. But whether or not your money-making is "societally helpful" is not necessarily important to everyone and so I'm not going to assume anyone agrees with it. [/QUOTE] | ||
|
Muhweli
Finland5328 Posts
On September 02 2005 14:02 T______T wrote: Poker is strange because when you gain, someone else loses. Most things are not like that: when you buy a laptop, you so it because you feel it will improve your life in some way (fun, business, etc.). The seller sold it because the money is worth more to him/her than the laptop. Both sides win. If you buy a lottery ticket, you hope to win against the odds. Someone eventually wins all the money from the others. So by winning one lottery, you hurt probably 100 thousands. When you play poker, you hurt just a few people (if you wanna refer to it as that). Sure someone loses in poker when you win. But people who play also gain. They have fun, people pay for other kind of amusement as well. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. | ||
|
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
On September 02 2005 12:48 Muhweli wrote: To clutch1: 1. Hmnmyea, applies to all "hard working" jobs as well. Would suck if we all were car mechanics or computer programmers or whatever (some people don't qualify the latter as "hard work" either). 2. I wouldn't encourage everyone to do sports for living, but if they'd be set to do it, i wouldn't consider them being evil, immoral or otherwise faulty. Read my above reply to Nazgul, but I'll summarize. A world can function without poker players. It cannot function without farmers and teachers. And a world without engineers, firefighters, doctors, and so on, is not really worth living in. A world without poker players is like a fish without a bicycle... I can put it another way. Consider a small island with only 7 people: a farmer, a doctor, a mechanic, an engineer, a housebuilder, a teacher, and a poker player. It's obvious that if someone has to die, the most replaceable person is the poker player. But it's also arguable that the poker player is basically leeching off the rest of them and that the society would be stronger without him. You have all the same goods and services but now they are cheaper and better since you need less of them. This is what I meant. At the same time I don't think being a poker player is evil or immoral. I do think that encouraging poker as a way to make a living is bad form because it can convince people to stop doing other more useful things. That's why I posted in this topic. Breavman, sure some people are compulsive gamers with a bad gambling and tilt problem. And like you said already in your post, it's their fault. They got into it, they should be strong enough to suffer the consequences if they prove out to be weak. There are a lot of groups like Gambler's Anonymous that can help with this kinda stuff. Person who belongs to the category you mention, should be willing to seek help. Yes, of course we shouldn't stop people from gambling just because some section of gamblers can't handle it and get addicted. But at the same time we should regulate drugs which are powerful enough to cause addiction, in an attempt to minimize the occurrence of this kind of thing. Just like making people have a prescription for valium can help reduce the number of addicts, I think explaining the risks and "down side" of poker as a living is one way to stop some people who aren't ready from deciding to become a professional gambler. And since TL.net seems to be full of posts from people who are convinced making huge amounts of money off poker is easy for anyone with half a brain, I wanted to provide a counterpoint. | ||
|
Refrain[FriZ]
Canada4337 Posts
oh, you got sick? too bad, we don't have people who dedicate themselves to studying medicine to help you; you're a dead man. society would turn out much differently. | ||
|
Muhweli
Finland5328 Posts
The firefighter example might've been bad but imagine 10% of population starting to sell hot dogs. a) They'd be out of fashion quite fast and b) Some would still make profit by MAKING THE BEST hot dogs, but most people would lose. It's not like you have to apply for such job but still people selling hot dogs can make many people happy although they don't study whatsoever. Hmmn... Somehow I left with the impression that playing poker is like selling hot dogs.. dunno why... And not all poker players are evil. As I mentioned before, pretty much all professions are driven by money - without it you can't survive. But then there are people like Barry Greenstein who are gosu players and give all their poker winnings to charity - how's that? Of course everyone's not like this but i don't see many people giving their salary to charity whatsoever either - instead you go buy that new DVD or buy stuff to that cute girl next door... Uuuu how charitable. At that point it doesn't really matter anymore how the money is earned. The "real" professions go in a pretty interesting way. The more you study, the less you do actual hardcore work (this is true for the mainstream of professions). So now that there's an option that offer's smart people a shortcut to great amounts of schmuck, people are actually jealous rather than morally compelled to interfere. It has been the way probably always - the smart kids aren't liked early on but in the end they're the ones being most successful in the future. Now the smart kids might become successful before they study and 'eyyyy how could this be correct! SOME PEOPLE HAVE TO WORK 24/7 AT some garbage job... Oh god, dunno what i'm even saying anymore, but tagline America: "Keep providing the Schmuck". Rather than thinking how poker players could be more useful to the society, you should be thinking how they harm society before you talk about the moral and all that shit in the game. And remember that the losers are poker players as well. Buka. @^_^@~~ | ||
|
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
On September 02 2005 14:09 Muhweli wrote: If you buy a lottery ticket, you hope to win against the odds. Someone eventually wins all the money from the others. So by winning one lottery, you hurt probably 100 thousands. When you play poker, you hurt just a few people (if you wanna refer to it as that). Sure someone loses in poker when you win. But people who play also gain. They have fun, people pay for other kind of amusement as well. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. sorry, more numbered lists: 1. People who buy lottery tickets usually have a job other than "playing the lottery" and can handle losing a few bucks. 2. Lotteries, at least here in the states, give a percentage to public education. Poker gives a percentage to some random corporation. 3. People don't have to choose between getting a traditional job and playing the lottery. On TL.net that choice is one often discussed. 4. The only way the lottery, like poker, can function, is by siphoning off money made by someone actually making something to sell, or providing a service. Just because the lottery is legal doesn't mean that it's a good thing. Sure, some poeple love the lottery but the comparison still doesn't make me feel any better about encouraging poker as a lifestyle. | ||
|
Muhweli
Finland5328 Posts
On September 02 2005 14:22 Refrain[FriZ] wrote: I have to agree with Clutch... we ourselves invented poker, and that's because some people would want to make it the best thing they can do. for instance, what if we never saw a need for doctors? oh, you got sick? too bad, we don't have people who dedicate themselves to studying medicine to help you; you're a dead man. society would turn out much differently. The way it should be seen is that all professions are needed, if one mainstream profession quit and became poker players, the world would go to hell. If poker players quit, we'd have a lot of social bums, also a problem. xD | ||
|
Muhweli
Finland5328 Posts
On September 02 2005 14:25 Clutch3 wrote: 1. People who buy lottery tickets usually have a job other than "playing the lottery" and can handle losing a few bucks. People who play poker go in well aware of the risk that they can lose the money they invest in - just similar to poker. 2. Lotteries, at least here in the states, give a percentage to public education. Poker gives a percentage to some random corporation. I doubt all the money going to the upkeepers of poker servers goes to the pockets of the owners and even so, a large portion of lottery stuff also ends up in the pockets of those hosting it, they get pretty nice profit from it. And yea poker server upkeepers are evil, the rakes are way higher than required. That doesn't make playing poker a bad thing to do though. 3. People don't have to choose between getting a traditional job and playing the lottery. On TL.net that choice is one often discussed. Many if not most poker pros or semi-pros also have a second job or as for the young guns, are studying something. Not many are looking forward to make their living with it until the end of time. 4. The only way the lottery, like poker, can function, is by siphoning off money made by someone actually making something to sell, or providing a service. Just because the lottery is legal doesn't mean that it's a good thing. Sure, some poeple love the lottery but the comparison still doesn't make me feel any better about encouraging poker as a lifestyle. Again, people here are mearly defending it rather than encouraging it. | ||
|
Izenra
Canada679 Posts
I used to post a lot in the poker forums. Now I don't post anymore. Why? Because I grow to hate poker ( boring ) and can't handle very good the downswing. Although, I was a winning player, not rich but a lot more than most jobs. But, having only money is worthless for me. I can live off 10 000 USD per year and be the happiest I can be. I finally realise that "money doesn't bring happiness". Wow! 2 years ago I would have been like : "wtf you are an idiot". I agree with Rekrul : do whatever you want without hurting others, and have a job you likes. | ||
|
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
On September 02 2005 14:25 Muhweli wrote: Clutch, I really don't think anyone encourages all people to become professional players anyway. And when you talk about 10% of people starting to be poker players, you don't take into account that many of these players would lose their initial bankroll and quit as well (although all you really need to become successful is $6 *snirk*). Either way, nobody here is encouraging on people starting up poker and abandon a worse (can't believe i just said that, I meant to say 'other') profession (also realize that that comment was just to make 90% of the forum's people's blood boil). We're mainly defending the way of living playing poker can provide. The firefighter example might've been bad but imagine 10% of population starting to sell hot dogs. a) They'd be out of fashion quite fast and b) Some would still make profit by MAKING THE BEST hot dogs, but most people would lose. It's not like you have to apply for such job but still people selling hot dogs can make many people happy although they don't study whatsoever. Hmmn... Somehow I left with the impression that playing poker is like selling hot dogs.. dunno why... And not all poker players are evil. As I mentioned before, pretty much all professions are driven by money - without it you can't survive. But then there are people like Barry Greenstein who are gosu players and give all their poker winnings to charity - how's that? Of course everyone's not like this but i don't see many people giving their salary to charity whatsoever either - instead you go buy that new DVD or buy stuff to that cute girl next door... Uuuu how charitable. At that point it doesn't really matter anymore how the money is earned. The "real" professions go in a pretty interesting way. The more you study, the less you do actual hardcore work (this is true for the mainstream of professions). So now that there's an option that offer's smart people a shortcut to great amounts of schmuck, people are actually jealous rather than morally compelled to interfere. It has been the way probably always - the smart kids aren't liked early on but in the end they're the ones being most successful in the future. Now the smart kids might become successful before they study and 'eyyyy how could this be correct! SOME PEOPLE HAVE TO WORK 24/7 AT some garbage job... Oh god, dunno what i'm even saying anymore, but tagline America: "Keep providing the Schmuck". Rather than thinking how poker players could be more useful to the society, you should be thinking how they harm society before you talk about the moral and all that shit in the game. And remember that the losers are poker players as well. Buka. @^_^@~~ Every extra poker player is one less firefighter or hot-dog maker. Therefore, for every person who takes up poker, the quality of firefighting and the quality and price of hot dogs goes down. That's all I am saying. The reverse argument doesn't hold because poker players don't provide anything society wants or needs (except I guess if you watch poker on ESPN). Another tip: if you want to convince someone not to be "holier-than-thou" with morality, don't insult their birth country. Junk bonds were an option that let a small group of people bilk not-as-smart people out of billions of dollars. Enron was another case study in this phenomenon. I will reiterate what I already said, that the 10% was chosen not as an actual figure but to demonstrate the point. And I think you might have gotten the wrong idea: I have no problem with not studying or having a job which doesn't require education. People who take out the trash have a noble and absolutely critical profession. I value garbageman above poker player as far as professions go. At the same time, I think education is one of the best things around and anyone who has the time and money to be able to go to school should seriously consider it. I DO remember that the "losers" are poker players as well. That's the whole point of posting. I don't want any more losers. Edit: okay, I'm out of control posting. Time to get back to my "sucker" job.  | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
............................. please don't bring that up again edit: reading the post above; are you trolling or something? | ||
|
Muhweli
Finland5328 Posts
| ||
|
SChasu
United States1505 Posts
| ||
|
Refrain[FriZ]
Canada4337 Posts
you don't need firefighters? let the houses burn down? you don't need police officers? allow criminals to run free? you don't need doctors? let people get sick and die? you don't need researchers? let technology never improve and no new knowledge be gained? you don't need teachers? fuck education? i could go on and on... btw jobs that are not really "necessary" like... clothing designers are present because there is a demand and a market for that particular job; i don't know if that's the same for poker, but i'm sure there are a whole lot of people that want to play poker | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
| ||
|
joyeaux
United States169 Posts
| ||
| ||
