I really had hoped I could convey more of my thoughts than this but it's all I got without writing a book that gets all deep and philosophical, but take it for what it's worth please
Cause it's a bittersweet symphony, that's life. Tryin to make ends meet you're a slave to money and then you die. Between 20 and 3 years ago I was a very humble (don't let my old rampages on tl.net fool you), modest, generous, and philosophical person. From birth my parents raised me to be compassionate for my fellow man and always keep perspective of what really matters in life. They didn't specifically teach me things by sitting me down and talking to me but things like my dad coming home from a day of hard work in a shitty Honda worth about 50$ with a huge smile on his face asking me if I wanted to play catch conveyed those things to me. When I was a little boy I wanted to be a police officer...I ran around the house with various kinds of guns sometimes pretending to be Rambo or whoever was needed to save the day from the imaginary bad guys. Well guess what: If you're a professional poker player you're that bad guy.
Anyways, that genuine person was buried under a pile of money. I went to Korea and through a series of events you all already know I got rich quick. For a while year I did not once bother to think about life, philosophy, and all the things I did on an hourly basis the previous 19 years of my life. I was a drunken party animal every night buzzed up and on the hunt. It was the first time I had ever experienced such pleasurable things on a daily basis without sacrifice. None of my childhood dreams of being a police officer were at any point emitting any pleasurable aroma for my soul to sniff. The only thing I had was that wallet with two grand in it at all times emitting the noxious yet irresistible scent of freedom and fun. But was I really free?
I was talking last night with a friend, Daniel Lykins aka ilnp, and he made a very interesting point. "Poker money equals freedom. Yet it's just too much freedom. Almost everyone I know who is successful at poker is dangling in neutrality or worse off because they can't handle that freedom. Only a very very select few out of successful poker players are mature enough to handle all the immaturity that being a poker pro allows." He's very right. Sure you're a poker god and you drive a corvette and have a huge house. Your life is only about one thing. Material possession. Does that make you happy? If you really think so then keep going as a poker pro I guess. But lets do a little math: Roughly 20% of people who play poker are winning players I'm guessing. Out of that 20% Roughly 10% can handle it and truly enjoy ever moment of their life at the same time. 2%, 1 out of 50, 40% of your chances to hit a backdoor runner runner flush draw. Do you like your odds?
All the thoughts that I'm trying and convey in this article were instantly triggered a little while ago as I sat and watched a WSOP (World Series of Poker) episode that I downloaded onto my computer. I was watching and instantly hated Scott Fischmann. This guy is a very young and successful poker player who is now doing very well in the poker world. Like the very first hand he was already talking in third person, that short little frumpy fuck who plays cards is sitting there saying "Scott Fischmann is about to fold the best hand. Scott Fischmann has the best hand," as if he is something. Sure, maybe he's a nice guy but this just pissed me off. Then they did a little interlude segment for him where he talks about bankroll management and that he didn't finish college (I think) because he decided to pursue a career in poker. Thats when stuff started jumbling around in my brain. I was confused. I sat there watching, half naked in my 1800$/month apartment thinking..."Do I see myself in Vegas at that final table? Would I enjoy that? Do I want to be on ESPN telling the world how cool of a 'poker pro' I am?" For the last year of my life money really did make me happy. But now I'm burnt out and let me tell you now I find people who take great satisfaction and pride in having a bulging wallet and a monstrous bank account quite pathetic. Money cannot make me happy. Do I really want to be a poker pro?
No, I do not. All this money even corrupted me to a point where I was actually considering a career in business to maximize the money I could possibly make off poker through investments and such. I am literally laughing out loud as I think about how much of a fool I was not so long ago. Most people struggle really hard all their life to get by...yet when I walk by the Subway Sanwhich place near my house and see the 35-ish year old scrubby couple working there every day for atleast 12 hours and we exchange waves I see a truly genuine smile on their faces that can seriously warm the heart. They work so hard, they have no freedom because of financial issues yet they are truly happy. Happiness equals freedom. Not money. Is the business man who works 10+ hours a day making phone calls non-stop, writing up business plans, and meeting people that don't really give a shit about him a free soul? Well I guess if he enjoys what all that gives him (the ability to go to the most expensive hooker at night and the feeling of being someone known and important) then I cannot slander his lifestyle. But lets face it...odds are he probably does not truly enjoy that.
I suppose I'm trying to act like I have been enlightened but I'm still just an animal who has certain values. But my values are much different from most poker pros. They value money and intellectual domination of their fellow man. I value four things with the fourth being the most important: 1. Intellectual domination - Lets face it I enjoy being superior in strategy, mathematic, and intuition based games and things. 2. Bodily Domination - This I have just recently started but I want to get in great shape and take a little bit of martial arts. 3. Ability Domination - Having the experience and knowledge to take advantage of certain things and certain situations where I would normally be clueless. 4. Never ever using any of those three things to harm anyone financially or physically or emotionally but only to benefit my friends, myself, and any average random joe who is in dire need of help. Poker only satisifes one of those four things...the intellectual angle...but even there it only satisfies the gaming angle. So it satisfies like 30% of the intellectual angle, and 0% of everything else. So thats like 30% of one divided by the four others (I'm trying to be funny and serious at the same time help) is 7.5% of what I want to be. Odds are being a poker pro will make me into seven point five percent of what I want to be and do. Thats pretty bad EV.
All this being said I am going to change my life. I will have to be a hypocrite and maintain my current poker playing status for another year maybe in order to finance my life with ease (wow i'm a hypocrite!) but after that I'm done for good from a professional standpoint. But I might play for fun in college games once I get back to university. I'm pretty sure that I want to go back and fulfill my childhood dream. I shall study psychology or criminal justice, maybe combined and pursue a career from that angle. Maybe a cop? Maybe FBI? Maybe CIA? Who knows but I know I love that shit. Helping people makes me happy. And you all know banning people makes me happy (or does it!?!?!). But for the next year I shall workout, study Korean rigorously, and save money to prepare myself. I guess I'll have a little fun too...I'm only 20 afterall.
I still stand by all my points in my other articles. You don't have to go to college. You can do anything with your life just have fun and make sure you are happy in every moment and don't harm other people. If you play poker and you're losing you won't be happy. If you play poker and you're winning sure you'll be happy but you are harming other people. I used to think 'sure, it's their choice if they want to gamble I'm giving them fun!' but now I totally disagree with that. Even if that person is rich as hell and you're not harming him you are not benefiting society in any way you are just using it's goods for your pleasure. Owning rich people in poker and getting rich your self to me is the exact equivalent to some some spoiled brat living off his parents his whole life with no job. He is a waste of space. I'll go ahead and apologize to all the people I will take money from in my next year of poker playing but rest assured I will put it to good use in the future .
In summary: Winning at poker will not give you true freedom. Stop acting like you're cool wearing sunglasses indoors and get a job you fat fucks.
I think that after a couple years of extremely easy living in Korea you are simply not being challenged. Sure the money is nice, and conquest is nice, and the rewards are slick, but what is the purpose of it all? It's too easy.
Some people will forever be satisfied with the money and bitches. Other people experience it, and then grow beyond such a situation. I am sure that there are times when you have looked at your moniter after 12 hours of poker and just felt sick. It is just part of growing beyond a game. Probably people have felt the same way about BW now and then too (I sure have). I think you are just maturing into a better person.
To be honest, once I began teaching, I really felt a sense of satisfaction trying to connect to these kids. Many times they drive me fucking crazy, but at the end of the day I go home with a smile on my face. Thats worth a lot to me.
I just hope that your feeling now translate into something positive in the future. You can always ease your conscience by donating to the Manifesto7 beer fund as well. I will give it a good home.
Hi Rek,again nice article.I usually agree with your posts,but this one really enlightened me that playing poker is EXACTLY what I'd enjoy the most,I prefer money than any other things and being rich is my most important goal in life,maybe it is not good and a lot of people can disagree with me but I am just that type of person.Good for you that you understood that's not your way of life enjoy your studies or be happy in any other way of life you choose,I think I'll stick with poker because I feel it is what I want to do and sometimes can play 15 hours straight without even feeling urge to stop.
I disagree with your last point,if you won't take money from rich fish somebody else will do it anyway.
Knowledge gives you freedom, not money. anyone can come tomorrow and take that money away from you and you'll left behind with NOTHING. Anyone whos proud of not studying and being arrogant abut all the money he wins without studies is a stupid fuck.
everything is relative. there is nothing wrong with making an easy living.
im not sure what you're saying here
this superficial happiness through money/being good at poker/whatever you're talking about doesn't stem from the fact that the people are playing poker for a living, rather it's the opposite. the extremely competitive gambling type tends to often be like that.
but if you simply do not enjoy playing poker for a living or feel that your time would be better suited with another profession, then more power to you.
I don't understand how being in the fbi or cia or whatever the crap it is you want to do gives you any more "true freedom" than playing poker for a living. people have jobs because money makes life easier. there is much more to life than your profession.
and your stance on the morality of poker is just ridiculous. what you said can be said for a million other occupations.
man... your post really annoys me, does this not sound incredibly arrogant to anyone else?
On September 02 2005 02:49 Muhweli wrote: Oh god I wanted to be a teenage mutant ninja turtle when i was little. I shall pursue that dream and quit poker!
me too
i find time for poker and train martial arts up to 20 hrs/week
and you're right about much more to life than your profession
barry greenstein is a very respectable poker player
and i do see why you think my post is very arrogant..IT IS. my main point is: the vast majority of pro poker players are pathetic, but in the same way since my morality standpoint applies to many professions i'm saying many many many people are pathetic too
i came to the conclusion that i hate selfish fucks, and free loaders...which this world has many of
perhaps you mean that playing poker will help no-one but yourself? When you win the big pot you only feel greedy? By taking a other profession you might feel like youre helping other people other than yourself?
dont get hung up on my choise of words, english is not my main language...
travis you're lucky to have been born into a society with lots of surplus, thats why some people have the ability to freeload and get by easy, but most still don't
only the lucky few do
say you were born into a jungle indian tribe where food was scarce...would you run around from teepee to teepee stealing meat scraps after a day lazying around doing nothing except warming urself by a fire that you didn't even make yourself?
I agree, living on poker can give you a fat bank account, bur i dont have any respect for people that arent contributing to the society. Regardless of how much money you make, you need a purpose and meaning with life to be happy.
I wasn't born into a jungle indian tribe. I am of the belief that people are entitled to live as selfishly as they desire as long as they are not inflicting harm upon anyone else.
Im sure there's been the occasional indian who's gone off to live by himself.
The tribe is there because of mutual benefit. Every member of the tribe gains by being a part of it. The tribe is not there because of some innate concept of helping your fellow man.
Im not saying that there is something wrong with feeling an obligation to do good for others in your life, Im just saying I think it doesn't make you morally superior to those who do not feel that obligation. It's all relative, anyways.
"I am of the belief that people are entitled to live as selfishly as they desire as long as they are not inflicting harm upon anyone else."
I agree with that actually just that for every dollar you win at poker somebody loses $1+rake (which is significant? ) and that rake is then given to some rich fuck who doesnt even pay taxes because his business is located at the cayman islands or whatever
so basically, when you are a winning poker player you ARE inflicting harm upon other people.
I think even a selfish person should realize that poker is not a very good activity for the brain for a long time (many jobs aren't either). Your brain is like a muscle and playing poker is like working out your jaws, your ankles and your left little finger. The lack of social contacts and working for a mutual benefit is what bothers me most in poker. When you have a normal job, you have money coming on a regular basis and you have a task you are (supposed to be) able to complete. When you do, the money you get comes from someone who gladly (most of the time) pays it. Teamwork is a big part of what usually keeps people sane, they have coworkers they cares and even if the task is brainless and boring, you are happy to work because on the break or while working you can discuss all the crap in the world. Poker doesn't provide long term personnal growth. You can learn what it is usefull to learn by just playing a year (if you manage to win ). Poker teaches some very good thing to common man who usually goes "math are useless". Some probabilities (very low level), some mental calculation (challenging in the begining). The difference now is when someone has learned and mastered those basic things, they just move to the next level. In poker you don't (you have other thing to learn obviously). So basicly you can't stop poker and go to a company and say "I am a good poker player and my earnings are 5000$ a month, give me an equivalent position in your company". It's a trap, you don't have a choice if you don't realize it in time. I am very happy Dan understand the situation. There is nothing wrong to continue playing poker for fun to make some side money as long as the play time is small over a week.
sometimes I think the same about playing broodwar, when I win I feel good but the other person could end up feeling like shit for whatever reason.. so cruel -_-
Hey Rek, somehow I got the feeling poker isn't going so well. First of all you everyone plays poker with the chance to win. You dont harm other people if that just happen to be you, sure they lose money, but they wouldn't give a fuck about you when they won yours. Its just a game with money and the person doesnt matter. The point why you are pretty tired of poker is probably because its such a meaningless activity. You dont meet new people and all you do is the sammmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee fucking card game.
good write up, i dont know anything about poker players to criticize but all players are humans, cant they enjoy their winnings just like anyone else who makes 200K+ a year?
Any commercial job is harming people, unfortunately. So many non-profit jobs are harmful to others as well. You think of a job and I'll tell you what bad it does to the world. Poker makes it more obvious because there's no medium in between.
My social responsibility is to take money from rich Americans and do something with the money that I hope to be more useful than what others would have done with it.
On September 02 2005 05:39 jjun212 wrote: good write up, i dont know anything about poker players to criticize but all players are humans, cant they enjoy their winnings just like anyone else who makes 200K+ a year?
They can but most of the people Rekrul has in mind are either young kids with too much money or old guys behaving like compulsive gamblers.
I agree more with Rekrul and Drone's point of view in this whole selfishness and social responsibility thing, but not the way they translate it to poker or anything else for that matter. Rekruls post has so many points that I can't agree with, while I support the ethics/thoughts behind it. Among other things this whole freedom thing is in my opinion bullshit.
I agree with Travis. Although Rek's post purported to try to give people insight about poker and life, it comes off sounding hypocritical. The fact that Rek acknowledges this is a positive but does not give him a free pass.
Let's leave aside the obvious issue of a full-time poker player bashing "other full-time poker players" and the superior tone of the whole thing (the latter which I have been guilty of for sure).... My problem is the last sentence of the post in which it appears that, all philosophy aside, you're just bashing people who are in all senses the same as yourself as being posers. Honestly, you sound like a rapper screaming "keep it real!" to all the other identical rappers (and I am a fan of hip-hop, but enough is enough). Not to mention the fact that it's definitely not the first post in which you've given out life advice to others which directly contradicts how you are actually living your life. Do as I say, not as I do?
And yes, if you are just living off of poker you really aren't contributing much to society unless you're doing something more valuable with the time and money you are saving. There's no rule saying that you have to contribute to society, but it helps people to take your advice more seriously.
Rek, I hope you do use your winnings to go back to school and find a meaningful profession -- best of luck in the future.
I only read this post because of the title. If the title had been "Rekruls deep long insiteful post about his life" I would've skipped it and told myself to read it some other time :p
Morality is defined by people. Not agreeing with some of these views makes you a bad person. Thus I'm a bad person.
I like what 0x64 said about Team Work and poker is supposed to be fun, but poker not being social is probably referring to the online form of this. As far as I understood, the article Rek posted is not just about online poker.
I do see Rek's point though - thinking of poker as a long-time career seems a bit silly to me and it's no reason to abandon studies whatsoever, but I disagree on it being "evil" or "morally incorrect". The "someone wins => someone loses" bullshit is just plain stupid. I don't see trouble with the fact that losing players choose to play regardless of their losses. Harming other people should be defined otherwise since these losing players probably play for fun anyway and them losing the money doesn't directly harm them - If it does, they shouldn't play and that's again just their fault.
Someone mentioned rake. Now there's some thought in that. It's normal to set a rake at such business, because upkeeping such systems isn't free either, but the rake levels are very very high compared to what they should be. Either way, there are corporations in the other end too, upkeeping the servers, improving the software etc etc. They're working. Now sure there is a big filthy rich boss in the company that gets the cream of the profits, but then again, there's one in each big company, no?
Also about the taxes - yea if they don't pay them, they probably make a bit more - BUT the servers they run are international, people all over the world use it - shouldn't they be paying taxes in every country then? Big companies, let's say car makers sell cars all over the world, each country adds their own car taxes etc etc to these. Maybe we'd like to add a country specific rake into the pots to compensate for this?
And although people make more money in poker, it only easens their life's anyway. Thinking of poker players as bad evil people who take money from other's applies to all store owner's, game makers, and well, every corporation, shop or such that sells something. They give something to get something in return. Poker is a game where you play for yourself and it's the same for EVERY person. If you think you're evil because you're taking some moderately good player's money, should the moderately good player also feel he's doing wrong still making profit from the worse players. Should this continue to the very bottom of the penny tables where people lose or break even for ages.
My point being that the money will ANYWAY find itself back to the pockets of a hardworking citizen. Mr. John Doe is a head leader of a major car company. He goes to work and arranges meetings, he has this little hobby - he likes to gamble on rather high roll on his freetime. He loses a lot, but what the hell - it's still fun. Mr. Rek is a poker professional who plays and has Mr. John Doe fishlisted. He wins a lot of money from him and after the bankroll has increased enough, he decides he needs a new expensive car. He goes to John Doe's car store and buy's a car. A part of that sum goes as a rake to the goverment and a part goes all the way up, back to John Doe's pocket.
On his way home, Mr. Rek decides to purchase a hot dog from a genuinely happy seller with a supposedly a less good job. The hot dog is made and Rek get's a nice smile as he just made the person a bit richer. The hot dog girl (now let's just assume it was a girl) smiles knowing that she probably made a dollar again for a piece of bread and meat that didn't cost him jackshit and with no risk whatsoever at all (excluding food poisoning and lawsuit). Now where is the moral in that ? She just sits there all day and takes money from everyone that wants to give it to her.
I bet many people have done things such as downloaded music, movies or software from the internet. People work in doing these and downloading them from free is immoral, but I don't see Rek complaining about such things although it's a lot more questionable morally than taking money from people who willingly give it to you.
Happiness is different to each person...to simply say freedom = happiness isn't true.
Poker could be the worst career to ever pursue. For every success story there are hundreds (probably thousands) where people can't even feed their family. All I ever hear is how these ex-BW players play poker 24/7. Maybe if they had gone to college instead of wasting their life on a game..they wouldn't be playing poker in order to survive. Go step outside and get a job.
After reading this scroll down to the bottom of TL.net website...and look bottom left. Absolutely pathetic...
A very insightful and thought-provoking topic, this has become.
After much thinking, here is what I can say with confidence: it is not enough that some of the rich man's money makes its way back into the hands of the hardworker. Working from Muhweli's example, isn't there something obviously wrong with comparing the situations of Mr. Rek and John Doe? One is living a much more luxurious lifestyle than the other, despite SOME of the money finding its way back to hardworking John.
Part of the problem with getting rich through poker and then spending the money selfishly is that by virtue of having so much wealth and luxury, you increase the gap between rich and poor. Ultimately, the more wealth you have, the less wealth some poor person will have.
The other aspect is that your contribution to society through your work is minor or trivial compared to "hardworking" jobs. I mean, you can really stretch it and say that you're providing a means for John Doe to entertain himself or to practice to try and improve, while also supporting Pokerstars.com, etc. Now compare that to the other extreme: a paramedic who saves lives. Clearly different jobs will contribute varying amounts to society. And pro poker is clearly hovering around the less-helpful end of the spectrum.
On September 02 2005 03:40 travis wrote: i don't believe in social responsibility, that's total bullshit.
We all owe society something because we all GAIN tremendously from society, from other people. So at the very least, we should aim to return the favour. Personally, I wouldn't consider playing pro poker and then spending selfishly a way to give back to society what it has given to you (not equally, that is). And if one person (society) is giving much more than the other (you), then the former is ultimately being harmed.
Pig Shot, What do you mean by bottom left of the page ? The commercials to poker sites? They're as good as any commercials as they make money for upkeeping this site to which you also post. So if you have a sudden urge of moral, go and make a deal with Meat to donate enough money every month for upkeeping the forums. Be a sport and make yourself useful. <3
Plus any decently intelligent, persistant and patient person can be a winning player, at least winning enough to make a living with it. Those who don't, lack some of these qualities and just shouldn't play. If they continue to do so anyway, it's their loss. *shrugs*
I play hell lot of poker, have a job and study at an university. Dropping studies for poker is stupid, but I doubt many people in these forums have done or will do so. What I'm trying to say that playing poker doesn't exclude ANY of the activies you described and it can also be done for fun (and even if you get your monthly salary from it, would you still consider it a waste if the people would be studying and/or going to a job the same time?).
Playing craploads of brood war might've been a mistake on some level (well... many levels probably) but it was for the entertainment value anyway, but yet again, it's a game that is played for fun and people don't need to quit college or univ or whatever to play it. I bet you're posting here for some reason too and I doubt it's because you don't play bw. This is a brood war forum and bw and poker have a lot in common and you're not better than any of us by not "wasting your life on games" so goan fuck yourself.
If you play poker and you're winning sure you'll be happy but you are harming other people.
wtf?? no no no. losing players are gonna play and lose money in the long run anyway. if you're not the one to take their money, some other greedy poker pro will be. just because you stop playing in some misguided effort to stop causing harm to people you win money off, doesnt mean they're gonna stop playing too, and be all happy and thankful they're allowed to keep their money. they're only harming themselves by choosing to effectively give their money away, its their own damn fault theyre fish and just see it as gambling and trying to beat the odds. it's ridiculous to say its the winning player harms the losing player.
Even if that person is rich as hell and you're not harming him you are not benefiting society in any way you are just using it's goods for your pleasure.
Muhweli's post sums it up to a tee. To use the goods of society _IS_ benefitting the society. It's not like you decide to walk into town after a profitable day playing poker and celebrate by mugging people and stealing stuff, you pay money for the goods you use. money the suppliers of the goods will more than happily take in exchange for the goods they provide (after all, that is their living - you fulfill their goal). then they can use that money you gave them to buy things that make them and their families happy, and so on ad infinutim; in effect all you do is redistribute money, and help the local economy in Seoul or wherever you are by injecting foreign money into their local economy.
I was talking last night with a friend, Daniel Lykins aka ilnp, and he made a very interesting point. "Poker money equals freedom. Yet it's just too much freedom. Almost everyone I know who is successful at poker is dangling in neutrality or worse off because they can't handle that freedom. Only a very very select few out of successful poker players are mature enough to handle all the immaturity that being a poker pro allows." He's very right. Sure you're a poker god and you drive a corvette and have a huge house. Your life is only about one thing. Material possession. Does that make you happy? If you really think so then keep going as a poker pro I guess. But lets do a little math: Roughly 20% of people who play poker are winning players I'm guessing. Out of that 20% Roughly 10% can handle it and truly enjoy ever moment of their life at the same time. 2%, 1 out of 50, 40% of your chances to hit a backdoor runner runner flush draw. Do you like your odds?
are you serious? ridiculous analogy, the main flaw being people don't have any control of the community cards the shuffling/dealing algorithms draw but should have full control of their goals, aims, aspirations, attitude and outlook on life. if you're unable to handle all the immaturity that being a poker pro allows that's a flaw in your character but one you can mend (as you seem to want to start doing now); you can't say "well only 10% can handle the immaturity im getting bad odds lolzzlzlzlzlzoz". sounds like you're just shifting the blame on how you've chosen to live your life on your profession by implicitly implying the lifestyle must necessarily come with the profession on the shoddy grounds that most people who share your profession live the similar lifestyle you now have come to loathe.
I completely agree with "You can do anything with your life just have fun and make sure you are happy in every moment and don't harm other people" and "Helping people makes me happy" and share the same view. And if you think getting back into education with the aspiration of a career in law enforcement / national security, then best of luck to you.
just as an afterthought, it'd be a shame to waste the skills and bankroll your hard work has got you, it sounds like your earning was greatly in surplus of what you'd call necessary to live a fairly comfortable life, meaning you could very easily devote much much less time to playing poker, and spend that time doing good with your money, and DIRECTLY helping people. you'd have money AND time to give. both necessary funds for projects, and volunteer work. it's not possible to help people more directly and significantly than that. if you can do that, and achieve the right balance between personal enjoyment and variety in life, and making the most of every day, and having a sense of purpose being fulfilled in helping your fellow man, then you truly will be happy and you truly will be free.
I do agree with Bill's post though, poker is from the less productive end of the spectrum, but it doesn't make it wrong now does it. I bet many hardworking people also love what they do and doing better by doing less shouldn't make them unhappy by any means. It's like saying stock millionnaires are bad people (they probably are) for their stocks going up and them getting rich without means of hard work. The fact is that most normal jobs don't even provide possibility for huge luxury and even though many points have been given on the questionable moral behind poker as a profession, I see more envy than actual concern for the person not contributing to society. There's no such thing as altruism, everything is ultimately motivated by own interest, just depends how far you're willing to take that concept. I bet even Mother Theresa got some mental pleasure for giving her belongings to the poor.
It's always the same when a question like this comes up. Those who don't play poker or so, become hard working saints who make the world a better place to live. Is this just a co-incidence or is majority of TL.net some Red Cross live savers who give their earthly posession to the poor? I bet those who say poker is evil and shouldn't be used as a mean of income have either been unsuccessful in their trial for the game or have never even played.
Let's take another example:
Professional sports Professional sports, including athletics, mhmhm let's say Formula 1, etc etc. Are they morally correct? These guys just spend their life building up their own body. They jump over some barrier with a pole, run around circle a few times or drive around some enormously expensive track and get paid what, gazillions? Also there are very few who make it to the top. They get their money from the people that go see them do this silly shit. They work hard for their game, sport or whatever, however they only contribute the entertainment value to the world that pays to get it. Some of these "players" make ridiculous sums of money and yet it's not considered to be evil. Poker is also a game of competition where the good prevail and the bad fail, yet because the money is not handed to them on a silver plate but their performance determines the amount they'll get, it suddendly becomes evil, morally questionable and not acceptable. What's this thing about?
Just like muh I have a job, go to university and besides that I play poker. I enjoy it a lot most of the times( except the losing parts which at his turn keeps the game fun and exciting) I really dont see anything that is wrong with this? Im making a little money and some people lose that, so what. Its their choice to play poker. If they go to a cinema they pay too, should the guy who sells ticket feel bad because they lose money? As long as you dont push people into playing poker or cheat the game there is no reason to feel bad and if you think there is any you are being plain stupid(excuse me) Poker is fun overal and makes me a lot of friends too. If you say this cant be a social thing then you are totally wrong. At first I was just playing online, now im playing 3 or 4 times a week at a bar here with a lot of people who slowly become friends. Overal poker is just a good experience for me and I would like to try to go to WSOP, just like every muslim wants to go to mekka. And I would like Muhweli to be there too! If this is a waste of my life then I dont care. In my opinion there is nothing usefull to do anyway. Helping society so someone else can fuck it up? no thx.
On September 02 2005 09:24 Bill307 wrote: A very insightful and thought-provoking topic, this has become.
After much thinking, here is what I can say with confidence: it is not enough that some of the rich man's money makes its way back into the hands of the hardworker. Working from Muhweli's example, isn't there something obviously wrong with comparing the situations of Mr. Rek and John Doe? One is living a much more luxurious lifestyle than the other, despite SOME of the money finding its way back to hardworking John.
Part of the problem with getting rich through poker and then spending the money selfishly is that by virtue of having so much wealth and luxury, you increase the gap between rich and poor. Ultimately, the more wealth you have, the less wealth some poor person will have.
The other aspect is that your contribution to society through your work is minor or trivial compared to "hardworking" jobs. I mean, you can really stretch it and say that you're providing a means for John Doe to entertain himself or to practice to try and improve, while also supporting Pokerstars.com, etc. Now compare that to the other extreme: a paramedic who saves lives. Clearly different jobs will contribute varying amounts to society. And pro poker is clearly hovering around the less-helpful end of the spectrum.
1. How does this differ from any other job? Hell, if you work a shitty job at McDonalds you may be working your ass off but in the end all you're doing is making this society more and more unhealthy. Should poor scrubs therefor refuse to work at McDonalds? Hardworking jobs contribute more my ass. I doubt people suffering from hunger in Africa care about whether or not you work hard. When a person becomes rich and donates $200,000 to those people he is the one helping them, not you nor any other hardworking citizen.
2. One of my contributions is this website where every day 5000 people gather for whatever reason they may have. Who are you to judge how much I, as a poker player, contribute to society? I dare to go as far to say that playing poker makes me contribute more to society than I would have been able to otherwise.
I don't play BW...just am off of work today and no school, waiting for my FF draft to happen :D. I just enjoy reading what's happening in the BW scene once in a while.
As Muhweli said, I don't see how playing Poker is any different from professional sports. From your post a person like Shaq is no better than a poker pro. I agree with with many points you made, but also disagree with the moral corruption points. Poker can be a job like any other, but there just happens to be a lot more money in it.
Anyhoo, I think everyone's pretty much covered the arguments. Nice post though.
On September 02 2005 05:58 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: Any commercial job is harming people, unfortunately. So many non-profit jobs are harmful to others as well. You think of a job and I'll tell you what bad it does to the world. Poker makes it more obvious because there's no medium in between.
My social responsibility is to take money from rich Americans and do something with the money that I hope to be more useful than what others would have done with it.
*cough* self-serving bullshit *cough*
that's about as convincing as the silicosis lawyer who claims he's making the world a better place by filing those me-too lawsuits.
edit: no doubt many lawyers are thus able to afford to spend time on "worthy" pursuits too. that doesn't change the fact that they are parasites.
On September 02 2005 10:22 RowdierBob wrote: As Muhweli said, I don't see how playing Poker is any different from professional sports. From your post a person like Shaq is no better than a poker pro.
Except Shaq's salary doesn't come out of the pockets of the other people on the floor with him.
Except Shaq's salary doesn't come out of the pockets of the other people on the floor with him.
Ok what about say tennis players whose success directly hurts their competition? If there is a prize paid out to first and 2nd and you beat a guy to take first arent you directly taking money from him? So are tennis players evil parasites of society?
Except Shaq's salary doesn't come out of the pockets of the other people on the floor with him.
Ok what about say tennis players whose success directly hurts their competition? If there is a prize paid out to first and 2nd and you beat a guy to take first arent you directly taking money from him? So are tennis players evil parasites of society?
Tennis prize money isn't provided by the players.
Duh?
Edit: to spell it out: 1P isn't taking money from 2P since the prize money was never 2P's to begin with; it was provided by the sponsors, who, presumably, feel they are getting what they paid for in terms of exposure/advertising
On September 02 2005 11:02 {ToT}Strafe wrote: How about golf? There it is. Besides dont be a saint, if a new orleans hits you, you will be the first guy to loot, snipe and rape fucker.
That's right, because anyone who doesn't agree with your infantile ravings must be a hypocrite.
On September 02 2005 11:00 expostfacto wrote: Tennis prize money isn't provided by the players.
Duh?
Edit: to spell it out: 1P isn't taking money from 2P since the prize money was never 2P's to begin with; it was provided by the sponsors, who, presumably, feel they are getting what they paid for in terms of exposure/advertising
Tennis prize money comes from companies looking to sell more of their products. The money they have to invest comes from the people on the street.
I'm not saying one thing is better than the other, but there's always a downside for anything we choose to do with our lifes.
On September 02 2005 10:39 expostfacto wrote: Except Shaq's salary doesn't come out of the pockets of the other people on the floor with him.
His salery comes from those willing to pay for it. The people who enjoy watching the game. In poker they actually get to play themselves, how is that different - both cases it is them who choose this will be their way to spend money.
Don't get me wrong I don't feel good about making money from other people either (which would still be the case for any job I can think of). But the things money allows me to do offer enough perspective to be happy with that.
Except Shaq's salary doesn't come out of the pockets of the other people on the floor with him.
Ok what about say tennis players whose success directly hurts their competition? If there is a prize paid out to first and 2nd and you beat a guy to take first arent you directly taking money from him? So are tennis players evil parasites of society?
Tennis prize money isn't provided by the players.
Duh?
Edit: to spell it out: 1P isn't taking money from 2P since the prize money was never 2P's to begin with; it was provided by the sponsors, who, presumably, feel they are getting what they paid for in terms of exposure/advertising
So the fact that the losing player can't pay his bills and will starve to death doesn't worry you at all? And they're still being "given" money for no apparent reason. The money comes from somewhere - ultimately from the society, the people who actually go watch it.
On September 02 2005 11:02 {ToT}Strafe wrote: How about golf? There it is. Besides dont be a saint, if a new orleans hits you, you will be the first guy to loot, snipe and rape fucker.
That's right, because anyone who doesn't agree with your infantile ravings must be a hypocrite.
QED.
I bet you're just pissed cuz you're one of the fat rich americans he's getting his poker winnings from <3
All of them Nazgul TwistedEcho and Muhweli made very good posts and I agree with them.If I won't take money from one guy somebody else will do it there is no shame in it,I did not steal anything I risked the same amount of money that I won I could be a loser too. Losing players think of it as a fun and pay for it the same as they would bay for footaball matches/cinema/whatever else.
1. If everyone played poker, there would BE no goods to buy. Society would produce nothing to buy. Playing poker contributes none of the things that people can buy with their earnings. So the ridiculous trickle-down Reaganomics argument that "hey, the money evenetually ends up in the pocket of some hard-working guy" is even more ridiculous in this case. I could use the same argument to argue that I should be made absolute dictator of America and all your money should come to me by executive decision, where I will spend it as I see fit.
2. If you are comparing being a pro poker player to big-money pro sports, I agree that there's a good comparison there. That being said, do you really want to push a lifestyle which is similar to that of pro sports? This reminds of when Tucker Carlson was comparing Crossfire to the Daily Show and Jon Stewart reminded him that one show is supposed to be news and the other is comedy. In particular, do you want to encourage people to take up being a poker player? Would you encourage your kids that the way to go is to devote themselve to being a basketball player to support themselves?
3. If you justify your argument by saying that "well someone else will do it anyway, so it is okay" do you really even deserve to have a say? Apply that same argument to the looters in New Orleans and let me know what the conclusion is.
4. Contrary to what some people think, not everyone can win at poker. As people have mentioned, if a situation really exists now where any "half intelligent" person can win at poker, the inevitable outcome is that better players will flock to this "no-risk investment" until the situation stabilizes. There is no free lunch, people (forgive me for sounding like Ironmentality...)
1. If everyone played poker, there would BE no goods to buy. Society would produce nothing to buy. Playing poker contributes none of the things that people can buy with their earnings.
How can you say such a thing? If everyone was a firefighter would it be any different?
2. If you are comparing being a pro poker player to big-money pro sports, I agree that there's a good comparison there. That being said, do you really want to push a lifestyle which is similar to that of pro sports? This reminds of when Tucker Carlson was comparing Crossfire to the Daily Show and Jon Stewart reminded him that one show is supposed to be news and the other is comedy. In particular, do you want to encourage people to take up being a poker player? Would you encourage your kids that the way to go is to devote themselve to being a basketball player to support themselves?
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.
3. If you justify your argument by saying that "well someone else will do it anyway, so it is okay" do you really even deserve to have a say? Apply that same argument to the looters in New Orleans and let me know what the conclusion is.
Imagine a place where everyone is rich and prosperous, where poverty is completely non-existent, where kids receive state-subsidized day care and world-class education almost from birth, and where the majority of the populace doesn't even need to work at all to support this. Sounds mythical, maybe too good to be true, right? Well, such a place does exist - the city-state of Dubai, perched on the oil-rich waters of the Persian Gulf. And at first glance, while it seems like it would be paradise (certainly by the freedom = paradise definition), it isn't. The aura of happiness is but superficial - because of the hedonistic and unproductive lives the Dubaians lead, there's a prevailing ethos of pointlessness and boredom in the city. In this way, the oil is not a windfall, but a curse - the petrodollars are more or less drowning the city in its extreme opulence, robbing its citizens of the chance of a productive and meaningful life. Anyways, the way I see it, the Dubaians have a lifestyle not unlike those of professional poker players - sure, you're rich and free to do whatever you want, but what purpose do you have in life, besides making more money or training Arabian racehorses? There needs to be something else that makes you feel useful and happy. Anyone else notice how the happiest players on the WPT seem to be those who have other lives, whether it be as college students, businessmen, or husbands/parents? Surely this is no mistake - there's no way one can identify oneself solely as a "professional poker player" and still feel like a happy, productive, and fulfilled person. That being said, there's nothing wrong with financial security, so your (Rek's) plan of making some more money and then finding a "real" job to do sounds a-ok to me. Freshman year of high school, my history teacher was a retired real-estate businessman with tons of money, and he fulfilled himself by teaching and travelling the world with his wife, among other things. He was one of the most laid-back and contented people that I knew - it seemed as if he had truly found happiness, two decades after making his millions. In any event, may life be so kind to you!
1. If everyone played poker, there would BE no goods to buy. Society would produce nothing to buy. Playing poker contributes none of the things that people can buy with their earnings.
How can you say such a thing? If everyone was a firefighter would it be any different?
Yes we would be called "firefighters" not "poker players" !!!!
There are lots of people who gamble even though they get hurt in the long run finacially, socially and maybe even worse. They know it yet they can't stop because humans are sometimes weak and irrational. Now if you think they get what they deserve, thats fine but don't pretend it's not a problem.
There are lots of people who gamble even though they get hurt in the long run finacially, socially and maybe even worse. They know it yet they can't stop because humans are sometimes weak and irrational. Now if you think they get what they deserve, thats fine but don't pretend it's not a problem.
It's not fine, it's not what they deserve, and it is a problem.
However, are you going to tell the same story to a bartender who serves people alcoholic drinks, because there's people addicted to alcohol? Or the supermarket employee because some fat lady keeps purchasing pizza's?
There are lots of people who gamble even though they get hurt in the long run finacially, socially and maybe even worse. They know it yet they can't stop because humans are sometimes weak and irrational. Now if you think they get what they deserve, thats fine but don't pretend it's not a problem.
It's not fine, it's not what they deserve, and it is a problem.
However, are you going to tell the same story to a bartender who serves people alcoholic drinks, because there's people addicted to alcohol? Or the supermarket employee because some fat lady keeps purchasing pizza's?
You have a point, I don't mean that poker players are bad people. Just that it is a burden for society.
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.
3. I don't think I would use the "everyone else is doing it" argument with poker. I think it's obviously crappy. Of course it can go as a joke "Somebody's getting the money from the fish anyway so why wouldn't it be me", but I don't think this can be used in serious context.
4. I don't think there are many groups of people with average or above IQ that couldn't do well in poker. Of course stupid people can't make it necessarily, but not all people can be scientists, programmers or such anyway so I don't think it makes a valid point. And even for the winning players, it doesn't come "free". People do practice, study etc. to improve their game, it's not like they were born with the talent to be a winning player. Becoming a winning player also requires work...
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.
Codditer, you might want to divide your post into paragraphs, just looking at it makes my head ache so I can't read it, sorry. I'm sure it was something very sentimental and sweet! <3
Finally quiting poker ? Well I'd knew one of you guys would come to your senses soon, money does not bring happiness. Ofcourse most ppl will never find that that out or will be disappointed once they have all the money they desire.
Do what you want, gl with university. Sounds like a pretty interesting thing to do.
... Not as interesting as being a surgeon tho ! In about 6 or 8 years everyone here who needs surgery can get a discount @ me !
I knew you were wise rekrul, although your bad drinking habits kinda disappointed me.
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
1. If everyone played poker, there would BE no goods to buy. Society would produce nothing to buy. Playing poker contributes none of the things that people can buy with their earnings.
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".
2. If you are comparing being a pro poker player to big-money pro sports, I agree that there's a good comparison there. That being said, do you really want to push a lifestyle which is similar to that of pro sports? This reminds of when Tucker Carlson was comparing Crossfire to the Daily Show and Jon Stewart reminded him that one show is supposed to be news and the other is comedy. In particular, do you want to encourage people to take up being a poker player? Would you encourage your kids that the way to go is to devote themselve to being a basketball player to support themselves?
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.
3. If you justify your argument by saying that "well someone else will do it anyway, so it is okay" do you really even deserve to have a say? Apply that same argument to the looters in New Orleans and let me know what the conclusion is.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
what's this argument whether or not poker is needed by society (of course it's not). 99,9% of the jobs we have created in this world aren't needed by society?
.............................
please don't bring that up again
edit: reading the post above; are you trolling or something?
Gaagh, I'd want a hot dog now, but I doubt there are any available at this hour... probably cuz they've given up making them for poker.. Luckily there are enough firefighters to fend off the potential fires the unattended hot dog carts can set off... or are there?
how is 99.9% of the jobs in the world not needed by society, nazgul? 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
if having lots of money from playing poker makes you feel like a parasite, why not use that money to benefit others? you could use it to fight illiteracy, AIDS, or a million other things. or are you just making an unusually good living at playing poker?
On September 02 2005 14:44 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: what's this argument whether or not poker is needed by society (of course it's not). 99,9% of the jobs we have created in this world aren't needed by society?
It's not a matter of being "needed." It's, "are you contributing something to society, or are you a parasite."
A doctor helps sick people. A carpenter builds. An artist creates. In each of these cases, he adds value to the world by exercising his skills.
Playing poker just moves money from some players to other players. No value is created.
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
Everyone reaches a point where they realize money in and of itself isn't enough to bring happiness. You can try to subdue that feeling with alcohol or drugs or sex, but those who are honest with themselves will admit it and start searching for deeper meaning.
Most people don't reach this point until they are well past the teenage years, though. So it doesn't surprise me that you're not there yet.
Some thoughts on the topics, some have already been said:
1. Poker vs Sports: Professional athletes are paid with endorsements and salaries. Poker pros aren't except for an elite few with endorsements. You really can't compare the two.
2. Is Pro Poker stealing from rich or poor?: From rich. Anyone whos actually been to a casino and observes who they are up against knows this. One hundred dollar bills are like quarters for a lot of people.
3. Is being a poker pro harming society?: Yes it is. Society is harmed every time a new poker pro comes on the scene, all he's doing is draining money from other players (except better pros). If every other pro except myself suddenly quit poker I would be a lot happier (or at least I would make a lot more money). However, all you have to do is give money to charity and this problem is solved. You're robbing the rich and giving to the poor, thus balancing the gap between the two in a favorable way and helping society. A decent pro giving just a small fraction of his winnings to charity will do more for society than someone who joins red cross or the peace corps.
4. How badly do poker pros harm society?: Practically not at all. There are maybe a few thousands pros in the US, and we couldn't make a dent on any kind of economic chart if we tried. Stock trading, which is similar to poker in that you are strategically moving money around for your own personal benefit, is different. An increase in the number of daytraders in the late nineties helped bring the US into a recession. In theory pro poker is bad, but it just isn't significant enough to cause any real damage, and it might possibly even help the economy if the idea of the "poker pro" encourages more people to play poker which eventually creates more jobs for cities with casinos.
5. Should people drop out of school and become pro poker players?: Please don't. You'll just be taking up seats at my tables that fish could occupy.
6. Is becoming a pro and playing poker 24/7 pathetic? Poker pros don't have to restrict themselves to a schedule like 95% of other professions do. If you're pro all it means is that you play to support yourself. If you're good enough you can afford to play 1 day a month and do something more socially, physically, and intellectually stimulating with the rest of your time. If you wanted to...
7. Can poker really be called a profession? According to most governments the answer is yes, as professional gamblers can receive tax benefits if they register themselves correctly (though I'm not sure of the details and have yet to try this myself). I personally however don't consider it a "job" because its not exactly working. Although its definitely an "occupation" just as a student or homemaker is an occupation.
8. Is pro poker just selfish acquisition of money? Yes it is. Again, you can compensate for this selfishness with contributions to charity if you choose.
Poker is merely a way to make a lot of money in a relatively short amount of time. How you spend that money and how often you play are entirely up to you, and are questions that have little or nothing to do with poker itself.
I don't really see how Poker is leeching from society or is a bad thing for society, all poker players are in it for the same goal: To make money. If people lose over and over they should find a new hobby/occupation. Ket's (VdP]Epiphany) post summed it all up pretty well.
Also, im sure there are lots of people outside of poker who don't give to charity or who wear some form of brand trainer. Always a downside to everything as Naz said.
1. If everyone played poker, there would BE no goods to buy. Society would produce nothing to buy. Playing poker contributes none of the things that people can buy with their earnings.
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".
2. If you are comparing being a pro poker player to big-money pro sports, I agree that there's a good comparison there. That being said, do you really want to push a lifestyle which is similar to that of pro sports? This reminds of when Tucker Carlson was comparing Crossfire to the Daily Show and Jon Stewart reminded him that one show is supposed to be news and the other is comedy. In particular, do you want to encourage people to take up being a poker player? Would you encourage your kids that the way to go is to devote themselve to being a basketball player to support themselves?
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.
3. If you justify your argument by saying that "well someone else will do it anyway, so it is okay" do you really even deserve to have a say? Apply that same argument to the looters in New Orleans and let me know what the conclusion is.
I agree with this.
[/QUOTE]
There will a market for poker. If 10% solely plays poker then 5.5% will have to go back to work to bring new money in. The cars wont get more expensive. That reasoning of you is total bullshit.
You say the world has no need for poker players, well we dont have a need for; McDonalds or any fast food company, gokarting, formula1 driving, NFL, NHL, etc..........? All those people working there should quit.
You shouldnt care for people being productive. A fair share of the people will remain to be so. People will always need certain services and those services will always be provided, no matter how many people play poker. The point that you hate the fact that people play poker for fun or hobby doesn't make sense and its probably because you are drilled a certain way by your parents. You should encourage people to not live a traditional life. I mean you should encourage people to actually live all day and not in a 9 to 5 day.
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.
Your story about the island is incorrect. In the situation you provided us, there is no way there will be a poker player. Who the fuck will he play poker with? The farmer? what are they betting for corn? the world as today allows people to play poker. So basicly there is no need for them to do anything else. You wouldnt notice them when they are watching tv all day and accepting welfare. But if they are on ESPN playing poker you go goddamn gambler! Jealous cough
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
Everyone reaches a point where they realize money in and of itself isn't enough to bring happiness. You can try to subdue that feeling with alcohol or drugs or sex, but those who are honest with themselves will admit it and start searching for deeper meaning.
Most people don't reach this point until they are well past the teenage years, though. So it doesn't surprise me that you're not there yet.
You are an idiot. Sorry if I offend you, but if you dont want to be offended you should learn to read better. STRIVING for money can make you happy. If you are always trying to get there and have fun in what you do, that can be the essential part of your happynes. If you like to deny that, go ahead, you will probably find this outwhen you are mature enough to admit the truth.
On September 02 2005 14:44 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: what's this argument whether or not poker is needed by society (of course it's not). 99,9% of the jobs we have created in this world aren't needed by society?
It's not a matter of being "needed." It's, "are you contributing something to society, or are you a parasite."
A doctor helps sick people. A carpenter builds. An artist creates. In each of these cases, he adds value to the world by exercising his skills.
Playing poker just moves money from some players to other players. No value is created.
99,99% is 'duh' not a real figure. 80% would be more likely. I dont need artists, I dont need painters, I dont need carpenters, I dont need docters..........
They create ugly stuff, id still be breathing without them. I can build my own house and then paint it. I just live a little less whitout a doctor. Id die without poker.
I probably dont need to bring up that moviestars, broodwar pro gamers, singers pretty much anything in entertainment are just as useless?
I'm sorry, i dont have enough time reading all the comments :/ Well anyway, i agree with alot of the points rekrul is making. i mean, how much are pokerplayers contributing to the sociaty?(spelling?) they arnt doing shit to make the world better. thats the problem with poker. if everyone was playing poker the world would be a pile of shit, luckaly, everyone isnt, and everyone cant win at it.
at the same time, im a lazy bastard who wouldnt mind making my living at poker, i guess that makes me a hypocrite aswell(spelling again? ;/)
therefore its very hard for me to take a stand at this. since i want to be a rich fuck playing poker, but at the same time i dont want everyone to do it. what would happen if everyone would earn there living through poker? think about it. it wouldnt work out.
in other words, poker is nice money, for yourself, but its not good for humanity in general.
sorry for spelling mistakes and other shit, im drunk ;/
The song is right. You are a slave to money then you die. Might as well get it doing something you enjoy. If you don't enjoy poker anymore, then be a cop. You are in a good position in that you have a huge chunk of money already.
I agree with you that Scott Fischman, Antonio Esfandiari and the like are huge douchers, but I disagree that poker players are that much of a disservice to society. They may not really add too much, but the stealing rich people's money argument is bogus in my opinion. It is a choice to play online poker. In choosing to play online poker you are risking losing your money. If people do not know that going in then they deserve to lose their money.
I am also with you though on trying to help society. Hearing about all these college kids dropping out to play poker professionally is hilarious to me. First of all, I want to hear about all the kids that drop out and go broke. Second of all, why even drop out? I know they figure they have their proffession ahead of them, but seriously, if you have all that money, why not stay? College is a blast, you are only at classes for like 3 hrs. a day, and if you know you want to play poker professionally you could just get Cs in all your classes and get a degree.
For me personally, I am trying to be a teacher or a lawyer (probably should of figured this out by now but what are you gonna do), and poker is just an extremely fun strategic game that can fill in the down time just like BW or any other game (comparable in strategy or mindless i.e. D2). Plus, it is not only the most fun to try and master (imo), it has real life crossover. Not only in making money online, but hell, you can clean up in any college games and any employment games in the future, and can play it pretty much forever.
i think poker has it's place in your life, and you shouldn't give it up entirely
i just started playing, partly because I enjoyed home games and partly because I hoped to have a fraction of the success you had experienced.
however, i think that ultimately, poker is a hobby, something to do on top of your current career. otherwise i can see how you can turn into a money-grubbing fiend.
the question is, however, would you be happy living a normal life? like your parents? living in the suburbs, working your ass off for a shitty check, solely for the gain of others?
in a regular nine to five job, unless you are an executive or something along those lines, there are things which you would like to do but due to financial constraints cannot; ie own a summer home, or travel more often than normal. money lets you do these things, it's why we associate money with freedom
i don't know it's all too complicated to think about, there is a balance there
to have gotten as good as you are at poker you must have some love for the game, it would be good for you to continue to play. however, you definitely shouldn't focus all of your energy into it, just make it like a hobby. and if you continue to win, even as little as $300 a week (sounds easy at your stakes, huh?) that's enough money to make a significant difference in your life. then you can enjoy the financial freedom you desire without having to worry about living as a leech
life aint fair and communism doesnt work because humans arent made for it^^. some guys will always get more $ than they deserve(bill gates), and others less (some guy that works at a supermarket or so)
entertainment has its value =) if a person chooses to play poker and lose on average xx/hour and have fun with it, its his choice. for the same money he could have gone out gokarting or so. considering poker is pretty hyped up lately its obvious that the less talented will give it a try(or more too) and become clueless fishes.
everyone has its personal values of what they rate as important in life. if one can accomplish those by playing poker its okay i guess, its just not my choice^^
the more useful machines are invented, the more stupid/lazy people get. i guess thats where the sudden hype comes from
In my opinion, i think that after you spend the same amount of time in the career field of your choice as you did with poker you will feel that having this 9-5 job will not make you any more happy. Most people are miserable due to their jobs and have far less freedom than someone making alot of money on poker. I don't really disagree or feel surprised that you've gotten to a point where poker does not make you happy, but I also don't think working for some company will make you happy either. Most jobs where you're doing something "positive" that helps the world out and where you arent working for yourself.... you are a slave to the people which you work for. Your pay depends on what they are paying you, your promotions are decided by if they decide to promote you, and theres pretty much a glass ceiling in terms of success in most of these jobs. I think happiness in life comes from having balance in most other areas of life and that just from a "job/career" perspective poker can provide more benefits contributing to happiness than other jobs. But maybe you actually would be more happy in life to be a teacher and helping out students learnings compared to playing poker.
There are people however who would feel happy just from the money they are making that gives them the financial freedom and extra time to work on other aspects of their life which make them happy. For example, poker players that make alot of money get to work when they chose to and this can lead to spending more time developing your social life and spending time with family which are other things that contribute to happiness. Also, playing poker can give more time for self improvement such as lifting weights.... it also can give you the money to take trips to exotic places with family/friends. I guess what im saying is that the benefits associated with playing poker at the level you were playing it can contribute to happiness in life in ways other than the ethical issues involved, and that a job that helps out society can make you feel good about yourself but is limited in other regards in terms of balancing life. If you however would genuinely be more happy at a 9-5 job then really thats all that matters. If i got to the point where I felt a 9-5 job that helped society is what would make me happy then thats what I would do as well.
I think the happiness provided solely from a job basis (happiness comes from alot more than your job) is greater in poker (more financial freedom, time to spend with family, working your own hours) than with the happinesss provided by having a job where you feel you are contributing to society. Poker provides time to improve on other things which contribute to happiness in life while the happiness derived from a 9-5 is feeling good about what you do for a living. Also i think feeling happy based solely on what you do for a living would run out after a while... there needs to be balance. Someone happy working at a 9-5 job.... the reason they are happy is likely not because they are an active member of society, its other aspects of their life too... and if they are happy with a 9-5, then they probably can be happy with poker as well, granted all other aspects of their life are the same and the only difference is the moral issues they have with what they do for a living.
Hey rek, if you're interested in criminalogy and profiling/etc read these two books: Mindhunter and Journey into Darkness. They're both by the same author, one of the world's foremost experts on criminal profiling. I'm kinda intersted in this kinda stuff too. Check these books out.
Both books are pretty macabre, but if you really wanna feel substantial, I think this would be a perfect line of work for you.
Are basketball players helping society? They "steal" money from rich people (who come to the game). Do they give any real benefit to society? Only entertainment. So if you say that entertainment has no value or that stealing money from people who know they are putting it at risk is wrong, and does not help society, basketball players are evil too.
On September 02 2005 02:32 Rekrul wrote: I really had hoped I could convey more of my thoughts than this but it's all I got without writing a book that gets all deep and philosophical, but take it for what it's worth please
Cause it's a bittersweet symphony, that's life. Tryin to make ends meet you're a slave to money and then you die. Between 20 and 3 years ago I was a very humble (don't let my old rampages on tl.net fool you), modest, generous, and philosophical person. From birth my parents raised me to be compassionate for my fellow man and always keep perspective of what really matters in life. They didn't specifically teach me things by sitting me down and talking to me but things like my dad coming home from a day of hard work in a shitty Honda worth about 50$ with a huge smile on his face asking me if I wanted to play catch conveyed those things to me. When I was a little boy I wanted to be a police officer...I ran around the house with various kinds of guns sometimes pretending to be Rambo or whoever was needed to save the day from the imaginary bad guys. Well guess what: If you're a professional poker player you're that bad guy.
Anyways, that genuine person was buried under a pile of money. I went to Korea and through a series of events you all already know I got rich quick. For a while year I did not once bother to think about life, philosophy, and all the things I did on an hourly basis the previous 19 years of my life. I was a drunken party animal every night buzzed up and on the hunt. It was the first time I had ever experienced such pleasurable things on a daily basis without sacrifice. None of my childhood dreams of being a police officer were at any point emitting any pleasurable aroma for my soul to sniff. The only thing I had was that wallet with two grand in it at all times emitting the noxious yet irresistible scent of freedom and fun. But was I really free?
I was talking last night with a friend, Daniel Lykins aka ilnp, and he made a very interesting point. "Poker money equals freedom. Yet it's just too much freedom. Almost everyone I know who is successful at poker is dangling in neutrality or worse off because they can't handle that freedom. Only a very very select few out of successful poker players are mature enough to handle all the immaturity that being a poker pro allows." He's very right. Sure you're a poker god and you drive a corvette and have a huge house. Your life is only about one thing. Material possession. Does that make you happy? If you really think so then keep going as a poker pro I guess. But lets do a little math: Roughly 20% of people who play poker are winning players I'm guessing. Out of that 20% Roughly 10% can handle it and truly enjoy ever moment of their life at the same time. 2%, 1 out of 50, 40% of your chances to hit a backdoor runner runner flush draw. Do you like your odds?
All the thoughts that I'm trying and convey in this article were instantly triggered a little while ago as I sat and watched a WSOP (World Series of Poker) episode that I downloaded onto my computer. I was watching and instantly hated Scott Fischmann. This guy is a very young and successful poker player who is now doing very well in the poker world. Like the very first hand he was already talking in third person, that short little frumpy fuck who plays cards is sitting there saying "Scott Fischmann is about to fold the best hand. Scott Fischmann has the best hand," as if he is something. Sure, maybe he's a nice guy but this just pissed me off. Then they did a little interlude segment for him where he talks about bankroll management and that he didn't finish college (I think) because he decided to pursue a career in poker. Thats when stuff started jumbling around in my brain. I was confused. I sat there watching, half naked in my 1800$/month apartment thinking..."Do I see myself in Vegas at that final table? Would I enjoy that? Do I want to be on ESPN telling the world how cool of a 'poker pro' I am?" For the last year of my life money really did make me happy. But now I'm burnt out and let me tell you now I find people who take great satisfaction and pride in having a bulging wallet and a monstrous bank account quite pathetic. Money cannot make me happy. Do I really want to be a poker pro?
No, I do not. All this money even corrupted me to a point where I was actually considering a career in business to maximize the money I could possibly make off poker through investments and such. I am literally laughing out loud as I think about how much of a fool I was not so long ago. Most people struggle really hard all their life to get by...yet when I walk by the Subway Sanwhich place near my house and see the 35-ish year old scrubby couple working there every day for atleast 12 hours and we exchange waves I see a truly genuine smile on their faces that can seriously warm the heart. They work so hard, they have no freedom because of financial issues yet they are truly happy. Happiness equals freedom. Not money. Is the business man who works 10+ hours a day making phone calls non-stop, writing up business plans, and meeting people that don't really give a shit about him a free soul? Well I guess if he enjoys what all that gives him (the ability to go to the most expensive hooker at night and the feeling of being someone known and important) then I cannot slander his lifestyle. But lets face it...odds are he probably does not truly enjoy that.
I suppose I'm trying to act like I have been enlightened but I'm still just an animal who has certain values. But my values are much different from most poker pros. They value money and intellectual domination of their fellow man. I value four things with the fourth being the most important: 1. Intellectual domination - Lets face it I enjoy being superior in strategy, mathematic, and intuition based games and things. 2. Bodily Domination - This I have just recently started but I want to get in great shape and take a little bit of martial arts. 3. Ability Domination - Having the experience and knowledge to take advantage of certain things and certain situations where I would normally be clueless. 4. Never ever using any of those three things to harm anyone financially or physically or emotionally but only to benefit my friends, myself, and any average random joe who is in dire need of help. Poker only satisifes one of those four things...the intellectual angle...but even there it only satisfies the gaming angle. So it satisfies like 30% of the intellectual angle, and 0% of everything else. So thats like 30% of one divided by the four others (I'm trying to be funny and serious at the same time help) is 7.5% of what I want to be. Odds are being a poker pro will make me into seven point five percent of what I want to be and do. Thats pretty bad EV.
All this being said I am going to change my life. I will have to be a hypocrite and maintain my current poker playing status for another year maybe in order to finance my life with ease (wow i'm a hypocrite!) but after that I'm done for good from a professional standpoint. But I might play for fun in college games once I get back to university. I'm pretty sure that I want to go back and fulfill my childhood dream. I shall study psychology or criminal justice, maybe combined and pursue a career from that angle. Maybe a cop? Maybe FBI? Maybe CIA? Who knows but I know I love that shit. Helping people makes me happy. And you all know banning people makes me happy (or does it!?!?!). But for the next year I shall workout, study Korean rigorously, and save money to prepare myself. I guess I'll have a little fun too...I'm only 20 afterall.
I still stand by all my points in my other articles. You don't have to go to college. You can do anything with your life just have fun and make sure you are happy in every moment and don't harm other people. If you play poker and you're losing you won't be happy. If you play poker and you're winning sure you'll be happy but you are harming other people. I used to think 'sure, it's their choice if they want to gamble I'm giving them fun!' but now I totally disagree with that. Even if that person is rich as hell and you're not harming him you are not benefiting society in any way you are just using it's goods for your pleasure. Owning rich people in poker and getting rich your self to me is the exact equivalent to some some spoiled brat living off his parents his whole life with no job. He is a waste of space. I'll go ahead and apologize to all the people I will take money from in my next year of poker playing but rest assured I will put it to good use in the future .
In summary: Winning at poker will not give you true freedom. Stop acting like you're cool wearing sunglasses indoors and get a job you fat fucks.
Thank you for reading, Rekrul
Your an idiot. First you go to korea to become a progamer and you fail. Then you come on this forum and write a fat bitch fest about how its crap and you shouldnt bother to try it because you dont get paid well or whatever... Then you try to become a pro poker player and your still bitching about how thats a shit career path aswell. What the fuck man? Asif you didnt already know dedicating your life to poker or a stupid game that was made like 10 years ago was a fucking stupid career path. What annoys me the most is when you said and i quote "Stop acting like you're cool wearing sunglasses indoors and get a job you fat fucks." <--- This apply's to you the most you wanker, asif you even think about directing it towards other people when your the loser whos been trying to make it big playing poker, or playinng starcraft 20+ a day? You are just another hipocrite who thinks hes better than the rest well guess what, your not.
On September 02 2005 14:44 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: what's this argument whether or not poker is needed by society (of course it's not). 99,9% of the jobs we have created in this world aren't needed by society?
It's not a matter of being "needed." It's, "are you contributing something to society, or are you a parasite."
A doctor helps sick people. A carpenter builds. An artist creates. In each of these cases, he adds value to the world by exercising his skills.
Playing poker just moves money from some players to other players. No value is created.
it is if you make it an enjoyable environment for the people who are there to have fun.
how is 99.9% of the jobs in the world not needed by society, nazgul? 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
you don't need entertainers? (poker players fall into this category for the most part) let people get bored to death and go crazy? Imagine a world with no forms of entertainment whatsoever. How would you like it if there were no more movies or artists out there in the world because they felt that "providing entertainment" was not as important as saving lives. Entertainment is a big part of some peoples happiness in lives as it helps to relieve strses and enjoy their free time.... contributing to their overall well being.
Take away peoples forms of entertainment and I think this is having a negative effect on society, yes? People who are gambling for entertainment are doing it because they CHOSE to... and the fact that some players actually win during this form of entertainment doesnt change the fact that people are doing it because they want to. Would a more "fair" way to play poker be for just everyone to lose the same amount of money and let the poker sites rake it all up? Part of the entertainment from people comes from the competition and taking out the win/loss this is in essence taking out the entertainment. Who would have fun playing poker by just dealing out the cards and there being no exchange of money? Even if some people would, more entertainment comes from the gambling aspect.
A month ago or so I was having lunch with Tom, Sarah, and Tony and was wondering what the fuck Rekrul had been up to all of this time, and they told me what you were doing and how much $$$ you were raking in, and felt kind of proud for you, but I knew that wouldn't be the direction you would ultimately end up in.
Your gift, I think, is how introspective and self critical you are. You're lucky to be intelligent and mature enough to handle whatever situation you find yourself in, because you know you won't end up like those who are not.
Personally I have the greatest respect for those that know what they want to do, and they go for it. Even if it's being a poker pro, which is obviously a goal you've already achieved. I think the most important thing in general is do whatever makes you happy and fulfilled, fulfilled being the key word. I dropped out of school to pursue that as well, but I plan on finishing it sometime in the upcoming years.
Buka. Let's change this topic to be about Brood War pro-gamers, they're such leeches to the society, getting paid for playing some dumb game, shouldn't they give all their schmuck to charity? That'd balance it out.
(Awaiting to hear that "but they don't make as much money" comment)
Rekrul, how much money are you making playing poker? I'm not a poker player, I don't know the potential for monetary gain... could you really make a consistent living by playing poker online?!
EDIT: When I hear people talk about how much they've won online, I usually assume it's with fake money... Sorry for being ignorant, I'm actually quite curious about how lucrative poker could be. How much time do you spend on it daily, and how much do you usually walk away with?
On September 03 2005 03:26 HeadBangaa wrote: I'm totally stunned by your response.... making at least $600 in a day is typical for you?
Are there just a bunch of suckers out there throwing money at you, or is the competition fierce? This is easy money (for you)??
hmm competition is fierce but i have reached a point where i own them. there are some horrible horrible players but not often. and there were many many days where i didnt play, but yeah on average 600 a day sounds about right, prolly 220-230 on the year due to 4 super hot months (down 20 this month so it was like 250)
Wow, just... wow. It makes me want to trade in my C++ books for a "Poker for Dummies" book.
Contributing to your original post, it's refreshing to see someone like you trying to ground yourself. Of course, when someone is so successful at such a young age, it seems like they might be ungrateful and can't appreciate the character that a hard-earned life builds. Like, I think I know exactly how you felt watching "Scott" of the WSOP being made out to be some sort of prodigy.
Anyways, money versus happiness? I think as long as you keep money in perspective, it won't negatively affect you. Just remember that money is a means to an end, not vice versa. You could use your poker skills to financially support a career in something you'd actually love. That's the kind of freedom your friend was probably talking about, and I think that's great advice. You're on the right path to avoid managing your finances as a career!
Did you know that Phil Gordon and some other poker pros have put up a charity program called "Put a bad beat on cancer" and they donate like 1% of everything they make at poker for helping cure cancer?
Just to point out all players aren't evil. And before you say "duh it's just one % duh", it can easily be thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per big tournament sooo.... probably more than the nickle you tossed in to the red cross.
The people themselves are not automatically horrible people. No one ever said that so I don't see why you're trying to make such a statement. What they do with their money is irrelevant for the discussion that this has turned into. The point is there is a fundamental flaw in the way that many people attain money, but for the sake of the topic there is a huge ethical flaw in the way poker players attain their money.
On September 03 2005 03:21 Rekrul wrote: this year i probably averaged 3-4 hours of play per day with an average salary 2-2.5x better than a lawyer ... how much do they make? 100$ / hour?
Reputable lawers in major cities can easily charge you 1000 dollars an hour or more.
Reputable doctors will charge you anywhere from 500 - 1000 dollars per visit in private practice, and some of these visits are barely 15 minutes.
On September 03 2005 03:21 Rekrul wrote: this year i probably averaged 3-4 hours of play per day with an average salary 2-2.5x better than a lawyer ... how much do they make? 100$ / hour?
Reputable lawers in major cities can easily charge you 1000 dollars an hour or more.
Reputable doctors will charge you anywhere from 500 - 1000 dollars per visit in private practice, and some of these visits are barely 15 minutes.
To understand the ethical flaw you mention: the law that someone must lose for another to win? Like, for every notch you go up, someone else must go down? And you find it unethical to use your inherent abilities to almost always be the one going up, thus forcing others down?
Is that the flaw you're talking about? Do you feel guilty when you pwn n00bz at poker?
The flaw is you are gaining, your opponent is losing, and society is gaining nothing. It is selfishness. I have seen idiots here posting that oh if you go and spend that money on a car then society benefits, but they are morons for realizing that money would have been spent by the people who have it in the first place anyways, you're not helping society you're just helping yourself.
If you continue gambling, you could commit yourself to donating to a charity of your choice, or fund a local school program, meanwhile getting your name in the papers for being a generous semaritan? Think about it, "Rekrul's Music Awareness Program". I mean, if you are rolling in that kind of dough, I don't see why not.
Hmm, let's say you gain a large amount of money in a day, like $1,000. You most certainly did not take it all from a single person (or if you did, it was from pots they had previously won from many different people, for the sake of the example). So let's say your winnings of $1,000 caused one-hundred people to lose $10 each. If you redistribute that money how you see fit (ie, "Rek's Adult Literacy Program", etc) then society is benefiting at an acceptable aggregate cost. It's almost as if you are collecting taxes for social welfare programs, which almost makes you like a government entity. Except better.
But, I want to state that there are many many many ways this selfishness applies to parts of our society, its just the way we are...so I'm not hugely against poker, because if I was I'd have to be against many other things and I'd spiral down a pessimistic tube until I commit suicide. I'd like to accept all of it and be content but I just can't and since poker applies to my point in the highest degree I don't want to play it much.
anyways this debate could really get deep, a good philosopher could write a gigantic book about this, actually i'm quite sure theres much material on the subject already, but, fuck that
On September 03 2005 04:37 HeadBangaa wrote: If you continue gambling, you could commit yourself to donating to a charity of your choice, or fund a local school program, meanwhile getting your name in the papers for being a generous semaritan? Think about it, "Rekrul's Music Awareness Program". I mean, if you are rolling in that kind of dough, I don't see why not.
Hmm, let's say you gain a large amount of money in a day, like $1,000. You most certainly did not take it all from a single person (or if you did, it was from pots they had previously won from many different people, for the sake of the example). So let's say your winnings of $1,000 caused one-hundred people to lose $10 each. If you redistribute that money how you see fit (ie, "Rek's Adult Literacy Program", etc) then society is benefiting at an acceptable aggregate cost. It's almost as if you are collecting taxes for social welfare programs, which almost makes you like a government entity. Except better.
Yes this is perfectly fine, nothing against someone who does that..they are certainly benefiting society. But that kind of indirect help would not satisfy me, I guess getting my name in the papers would a little bit..as we all know I am an attention whore. But it's just not the path I want to take.
Hmm, Plan B: Win the biggest televised tourney in Vegas, be a total attention whore and let the media love on you, let the poker noobs idolize you. Then throw it all away. Abandoning your promising poker career, you move into a log cabin in northern california and hunt deer for sustenance, and use satellite internet to monitor the world. You could leave a career-suicide note on a well-frequented poker forum explaining how you find the self-lavishing lifestyle to be detestable, and seek to master other pursuits. See, this way, you disappear at the top of your game, kind of like Kurt Kobain, to be forever idolized as the wealthy, enigmatic, impossible-to-understand mastermind, who is surpisingly transcendental in his world view.
And after like 6 months or so, you could slide back into society under the media radar, grow some facial hair, and start all over using a different alias. Then when you win the tourney again, BAM! You reveal that you are actually Rekrul smurfing as some hairy guy. Then you'll get like 3 pages of glory detailing the legacy of "Rekrul" in Wikipedia.
don't get me wrong anyone, I most certainly understand why people would play poker. it's really really easy money and well, it's fun as well, and those who are good make more money than they can possibly otherwise do at their age.
and a sad fact of life is that money is pretty important at least for most people. and I can't deny that I enjoyed hardly spending a dollar in holland. I'm really not judging people for playing poker and it doesn't make me lose respect or whatever for people who do.
BUT, I think the extreme upswing in poker players we have seen in the past 5 years is a very, very negative trend that to me symbolizes the extreme greed in our society today which I find a very bad thing.
I usually act by the think globally act locally rule of thumb. due to that, a reasoning such as "if I didn't take it someone else would" is to me, very flawed. if everyone has the same mindset that if you don't take it someone else will, then yes, someone else will. if nobody has that mindset, nobody will. being addicted to gambling can have just as harmful an effect as being addicted to drugs. I'm not comparing poker players or poker dealers with drug dealers heavens no, but.. well, I'd personally feel really shitty knowing that some poor idiot just gave me his entire welfare check or maybe he even robbed his grandmother so he could give me money. sure someone else would take it if I didn't, but only because the if I don't take it someone else will take it thought is such a common one.
gotta fix myself before I can fix others. and if everyone capable of making money through playing poker started doing that, then our society would crumble. :[
I could never play poker for a living. I've always thought it a lie that money makes the world go round (or at least not much more than a bromide)
In fact I admit a slight contempt for those who can achieve a high social status unsupported by a corresponding responsibility, maturity and cultivation. Two hundred years ago Edmund Burke delivered his famous criticism of the East India Company in Parliament, of the new corruption of the India merchants, their purchase of parliamentary seats, their intermarriage into the families of the aristocracy, turning the ancient dignity of wealth into nothing more than a consequence of greed and exploitation. If we are to view the objects of his contempt today, we should confound ourselves at this piece of anachronistic extremity, but so has our society changed.
Overall though, I think greed is a myth. People don't want money, they want so spend money. They spend money on SUVs and designer clothing and two storey homes. They do this because they want respectability. There are very few people who prefer to horde money rather than display outward signs of class vanity.
Seriously Rek, who has ever became anything without being at least a bit selfish and ambitious, it's not like it's a crime. It is true that poker players aren't necessarily the most productive group of people but many "professionals" are actually semi-pros doing some other shit as well. Either way, it's silly to assume all professionals do it for the greed. You should do what you enjoy and if that's ripping of people who do something they can't do and are unable or unwilling to learn then why feel bad duuuhh. This is all so sentimental bullshit I'm gonna go puke.
Call it what you will. Respectability used to mean that one belonged to a certain class, that one can provide the necessary material evidence to accomodate one's claims to a certain circles predicated on morals and manners. (For example in Jane Austen's Emma it states that Mrs. and Miss Bates had to depend on the charity of their neighbours to maintain claims to gentility.)
I'd say you would certainly be right in arguing both the material evidences and morals and manners have largely collapsed as a consequence of the bulging of the middle class and the elimination of the gentry though modern social mobility. Still, ask yourself what wealthy people purchase: gold watches and expensive paintings, antique furnature and private cars. Some things have not changed so much after all. These are people who attempt to reap the respectability of a class whom they have helped eliminate.
“One must not blind oneself to the fact that democratic institutions most successfully develop sentiments of envy in the human heart. This is not because they provide the means for everybody to rise to the level of everybody else but because these means are constantly proving inadequate in the hands of those using them. Democratic institutions awaken and flatter the passion for equality without ever being able to satisfy it entirely.”
On September 03 2005 09:04 MoltkeWarding wrote: Call it what you will. Respectability used to mean that one belonged to a certain class, that one can provide the necessary material evidence to accomodate one's claims to a certain circles predicated on morals and manners. (For example in Jane Austen's Emma it states that Mrs. and Miss Bates had to depend on the charity of their neighbours to maintain claims to gentility.)
I'd say you would certainly be right in arguing both the material evidences and morals and manners have largely collapsed as a consequence of the bulging of the middle class and the elimination of the gentry though modern social mobility. Still, ask yourself what wealthy people purchase: gold watches and expensive paintings, antique furnature and private cars. Some things have not changed so much after all. These are people who attempt to reap the respectability of a class whom they have helped eliminate.
You go right ahead and live in a world where people merely purchase because they want to be respected. In the meantime I'll keep using my computer (which I think looks nice), bed (which I think looks nice), TV (which I think looks nice) without giving a fuck what anyone else thinks about them. In fact if any of the things I own somehow makes people respect me (more) I'm not so sure I want to be friends with those people.
Nazgul, he's not talking about ALL people. Sure we are naturally inclined to be like Moltke is saying but you sir are a very smart individual, which puts you above the average rich joe. Please understand this and then you'll get his point which is basically saying their attempts to look luxurious and rich are no different than the strongest wolf pissing on the treestump to mark his territory. People are animals.
I prefer to drive a nice car, because I think it looks cool. Sure I rather have that other people think it looks nice too(my friends for example) but if they dont thats fine too. I dont buy it for respect but for myself. Actually I try to drive a nice car as possible so that people dont think im a dork in a hyundai and that hyundai sucks but whatever im getting drunk too!
People don't want money, they want so spend money.
They do this because they want respectability.
Everyone purchases some things with their aim on looking good or whatever. Also half the population purchases a beer every now and then, that doesn't mean 'people spend money because they want alcohol'. There's so much more to consumer behavior than this simplistic statement.
On September 03 2005 11:09 {ToT}Strafe wrote: I prefer to drive a nice car, because I think it looks cool. Sure I rather have that other people think it looks nice too(my friends for example) but if they dont thats fine too. I dont buy it for respect but for myself. Actually I try to drive a nice car as possible so that people dont think im a dork in a hyundai and that hyundai sucks but whatever im getting drunk too!
You consciously think you are buying it for yourself, but at the end of the day as the sun is going down and you're cruising through the streets on after a hot summer day just relaxing and you pass two hotties who smile at you and feel good about it look up tl.net on your twenty thousand dollar car internet screen and re-read his post and you'll comprehend the general point he's getting across. I promise you and nazgul if he devoted more time into writing what he wrote it would make much more sense and you guys would not be able to nit-pick his post as you are.
99.99 percent comment was funny. Naz your comment would be true if it was 14th century since most of the jobs that exist today wouldn't have existed. The requirements to maintain a basic standard of the living change over time.. I.e is does the car sales person meet today's criteria of needs? most definitely. A car is not a want it's a 'need'. How many people would go by without a car? A person who helps you guide and buy the car according to your needs? It's a need. Sure you could survive without them, but doesn't mean they're not needed. An insurance worker is a 'need' by today's standard of living. Imagine a world without insurance. Again, sure you can survive very well without it, but does that mean it's not needed? Your statement would be true if people would be happy to just go by with breathing fresh air, eat fruits off the trees and shit/urinate on grasses. An advertising person? you may argue that person is not needed and society can go on very well without em. Imagine globally succesful car company fails to promote its new product and goes bankrupt. it's 80,000 employees would be left without a job. The jobs today were created in accordance with the implementation of technology, democratic society and increasement of population etc, in other words, evolution of the society. If evolution not a necessity? I usually ignore strafe's comment but your comment saying you could breathe without doctors is just ridiculous, while this is true, how would you cure if you get chicken pox?
However, there are few things that does not change at the speed of the evolution of societies. Principles. Though Gambling has existed for thousands of years unlike other activities, it has never been cherished/appreiated by society. It was often regarded criminal activity throughout the history. Today, it is still regarded as criminal activity in many societies or often regarded as addiction. (Gambling in Korea is illegal in many cases unless you're a foreigner - excluding things like horserace)
Anyway long story cut short, I was just disagreeing with naz's comment. I don't agree with rek on many occasions in this particular thread it's somewhat paradoxical but I can see where he's coming from and I admire his ethics. It would be better to have a perception like his so at least people use easy money to a good use.
Queens and Nines Rekrul: true Rekrul: lol Rekrul: anyawys fossil i saw ur interviews and u seem like a very level headed guy Dealer: bballew22 has a straight, Seven to Jack Rekrul: i'd like ur input since u have accomplishments Dealer: Game #2489456317: bballew22 wins pot ($727) with a straight, Seven to Jack FossilMan: ty; just glanced through your post FossilMan: as long as you're happy, that is the biggest thing Dealer: Game #2489462739: bballew22 wins pot ($20) Rekrul: ya FossilMan: but why "get it", and then taunt us here online? Rekrul: like i said Rekrul: poker drastically changed my life, i am in a certain place with certain responsibilities Dealer: Game #2489465967: x_Pack_x wins pot ($187) Rekrul: sure i could throw it all away and change my life and quit poker Administrator: $380 EPT Baden Qualifier starts in 9 minutes. 1 Seat Guaranteed. To register see T11764851 under the Events/EPT/Cash Satellites tab. FossilMan: just because the money made you materialistic, and because many are, you shouldn't assume any one of us has that issue Rekrul: but i'm too selfish to do that for now, so i will continue playing for a year Rekrul: i taunt you only because im drunk Rekrul: lol Rekrul: indeed you are correct Dealer: Game #2489470785: Rekrul wins pot ($50) FossilMan: just because something is true for you, doesn't mean it has any relevance to the next guy Rekrul: but the general trend i see in poker players that is the case Rekrul: you see it differently? FossilMan: I see each person for who they are, or at least I try FossilMan: generalizations are irrelevant when you're dealing with one person Dealer: Mr.Matrix007 has two pair, Queens and Jacks FossilMan: gotta do something, brb Rekrul: very true but then again you also need to consider a general view of society and what is good and bad for it, though that discussion is far too deep and philosophical so lets not Dealer: Game #2489475180: Mr.Matrix007 wins pot ($77) with two pair, Queens and Jacks xxTHEJOKERxx: the most important and indisputable point is: scott fischman is a tool Rekrul: JOKER I AGREE Rekrul: such a tool Rekrul: omg xxTHEJOKERxx: lol Dealer: Game #2489483171: Mr.Matrix007 wins pot ($67) Rekrul: i can see that ****er in a club Rekrul: drunk as hell Rekrul: telling some hooker he's a poker pro Rekrul: and feeling good about himself xxTHEJOKERxx: lol Rekrul: **** that makes me angry wheni'm drunk Rekrul: when im sober id ont rly care Rekrul: lol
i played poker drunk tonight, i talked to raymer WOW I AM COOL, i also lost my chat for life (4th time chat banned 1 week 1 month 6 months now life t.t)
it all seems immature but if u heard what they said it was funny
25242245 Rekrul yo ufcking dutch scumbag 2 9/3/2005 4:06:40 PM 25242245 Rekrul a fucking 2 9/3/2005 4:07:26 PM 25242245 Rekrul homo 2 9/3/2005 4:07:26 PM 25242245 Rekrul h o m O 2 9/3/2005 4:07:30 PM 25242245 Rekrul h O m O ! ! ! !~ @! ~~ 2 9/3/2005 4:07:36 PM 25242245 Rekrul my fucking c O ck is the big essnese 2 9/3/2005 4:08:01 PM 25242245 Rekrul IM BACK BITCHES 2 9/3/2005 4:08:25 PM 25242245 Rekrul fucking Lee Jones 2 9/3/2005 4:09:01 PM 25242245 Rekrul mucvk bitch 2 9/3/2005 4:12:07 PM 25242245 Rekrul scott fischmann is a fucking geek faggot 2 9/3/2005 4:16:05 PM 25242245 Rekrul u ugly no good son of a bitch 2 9/3/2005 4:16:46 PM 25242245 Rekrul suck it 2 9/3/2005 4:21:29 PM 25242245 Rekrul you fucking clown 2 9/3/2005 4:22:37 PM 25242245 Rekrul you fucking Jack Five shi t fish 2 9/3/2005 4:27:31 PM 25242245 Rekrul chiefs ur a hom0 2 9/3/2005 4:33:31 PM 25242245 Rekrul u had a pair of tiny balls
We have received a complaint regarding your use of inappropriate language at our tables. After reviewing the chat log (see below), and based on your prior warnings and/or revocations, it was decided to permanently remove your chat privileges. Your language was highly offensive and completely unacceptable.
Geez Rekrul, you're sooooo highly offensive and completely unacceptable. Saying stuff like "balls" or "shit" or "homo" in a chatroom.
Half of those comments were obvious jokes too, that sucks :D, notice how you can not actually get banned, just your chat removed because if they did ban you then you couldn't make those pathetic losers a real tiny little amount of extra money anymore !
tssk ... "u had a pair of tiny balls" ....I mean how disturbing can you get, are there no bounds to the horrible comments....
Everyone purchases some things with their aim on looking good or whatever.
Yes. I said: "There are very few people who prefer to horde money rather than display outward signs of class vanity."
Also half the population purchases a beer every now and then, that doesn't mean 'people spend money because they want alcohol'.
Of course I was referring to the hierarchy of consumer products, but there does exist a differentiation here too, between classy champagne and six packs, and not for the taste either (both are awful)
I am having incredible difficulty synthesizing the meaning your comments. Maybe you can simplify your position with a broader summary.
Sorry I missed that. I have to say guardedly yes. Let me tell you what I do not strive for: popularity. And respectability and popularity are not the same things. Indeed, as Nazgul pointed out, a person who judges others solely by material factors is simple indeed. However material culture, like art, is also a form of communication. It is rarely mere simple materialism. One might object that material ownerships should not predominate our judgements about other peoples, but until we have arrived at a stage of human development where the dual-existance of body and soul has been eliminated, leaving body irrelevant and soul predominant, I am content to acquiesce in this strange fact of civilization that history has brought us to.
On September 02 2005 10:01 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: 1. How does this differ from any other job? Hell, if you work a shitty job at McDonalds you may be working your ass off but in the end all you're doing is making this society more and more unhealthy. Should poor scrubs therefor refuse to work at McDonalds? Hardworking jobs contribute more my ass. I doubt people suffering from hunger in Africa care about whether or not you work hard. When a person becomes rich and donates $200,000 to those people he is the one helping them, not you nor any other hardworking citizen.
2. One of my contributions is this website where every day 5000 people gather for whatever reason they may have. Who are you to judge how much I, as a poker player, contribute to society? I dare to go as far to say that playing poker makes me contribute more to society than I would have been able to otherwise.
Well firstly, I was talking about people who spend their wealth selfishly. Mainly in response to travis's comment about wanting to live selfishly without harming anyone else, which is either very difficult or impossible. Also, I'm under the impression that many or most poker pros spend their money selfishly. And I believe that this is immoral.
If you win money from poker and put most of it to good use, then I would call that a good thing. Some jobs pay you for contributing something to society, but in this case you will be contributing through the money that you've earned (as you already know; just stating it for others). Poker is, in itself, a bad profession for the reasons that Rek has mentioned, but in this case I would say the benefits (money for the poor) outweigh the drawbacks (bad aspects of poker).
After reading this I have to say that I've never been more conflicted logically than I am now. Let me explain why:
I truely believe that productivity cannot be boiled down like some of you are trying to make it seem. Money is passed in transactions and whether you think it contributed to society or not is irrelavent because a person makes a conscious decision to gamble and whether you are "damaging" them or not isn't the point. A person has the right to gamble and having that right alone is important regardless of the consequences. So you can't blame a system's productivity when it's restiction would be a far worse thing for your freedom as a person.
However, I just recently went to a casino for the first time, and I can say in all honesty that I've never seen a more depressing place in my entire life. There's something that it just so disgusting to me seeing a row of 12 65 year old women pulling a lever for 5 hours a day. I didn't play one game, I just stood there with my beer and watched my friends lose money all night. The place made me sick.
So while I think the whole "this job or that job is bad for society" is bullshit, I can see how a person can become jaded after living a life that is consumed by gambling.
I hope you find your way to a lifestyle that makes you happy Dan. The irony is that we all value our freedom so much, but what most of us really want is to have something to be responsible for.
On September 03 2005 07:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: don't get me wrong anyone, I most certainly understand why people would play poker. it's really really easy money and well, it's fun as well, and those who are good make more money than they can possibly otherwise do at their age.
and a sad fact of life is that money is pretty important at least for most people. and I can't deny that I enjoyed hardly spending a dollar in holland. I'm really not judging people for playing poker and it doesn't make me lose respect or whatever for people who do.
BUT, I think the extreme upswing in poker players we have seen in the past 5 years is a very, very negative trend that to me symbolizes the extreme greed in our society today which I find a very bad thing.
This is how I feel. Especially the last paragraph... maybe Naz won't think I'm trolling if I just quote it
Very interesting post as usual Rekrul. I'd like to weigh in on the money/happiness issue.
I was raised in a fairly wealthy household, for most of my life I have been extremely well provided for. I've always had the best private schools (although I did my last years of highschool in public school), have been driven in some of the best cars, have lived in beautiful homes and have travelled the world. I know what it is to have money.
I remember one day, my father and I had just gone to a store to get something, and I was still in my school uniform. In the town we were in, my school is known for being a rich kid playground (tuition was as much as a top university). There was a lady and her daughter sitting in their car, eating. They saw me and my dad getting into his very nice, expensive car. I was able to lip read exactly what was said as they both looked us, me in my prep school uniform, my dad in a bespoke italian suit; Daughter (paraphrased) "Wow, must be nice to be rich like them". Mom (immediately after) "Yea, but they might not be happy".
I hate this, and I think it is a fallacy that needs to be corrected. A lot of people with little income or personal wealth like to make themselves feel better about having less by assuming and convincing themselves that wealthy people are unhappy (just like how some rich people like to think they are better than "poor" people on the basis that they have more money, which is also BS). I know a lot of wealthy people, ranging from comfortably wealthy to people you find on lists of the world's most wealthiest individuals. Among all of those people, there are the same amount of happy and unhappy people as there would be if you sampled the many people of normal income/wealth that I know.
Wealth and happiness are two different things that affect each other based on how you obtain your wealth. If you were born into it, you might have personal fulfillment problems, because you feel you never earned it. Being a trust fund baby gets old fast, I have seen it happen. Lawyers and CEOs sometimes work themselves to death to maintain to their wealth. In that case, they may not be happy. With more wealth comes more stress over certain issues, but that doesn't automatically mean unhappiness.
I am taking a different path than my parents. I saw them unhappy at one stage for about 2-3 years, when my dad was working 9-9 almost every day, and often had to work on christmas and other holidays (the only day he refused to work was on my mom's birthday). When my mother started working again, and they both agreed to keep hours to a minimum (home for dinner by 4:30), I can honestly say that they are two very happy people. Funny enough, this happened when I left for university... I was always a handful, but I do hope that my absence is not the reason for their happiness.
If you want to be happy and wealthy, you need to decide what makes you happy, and what you consider wealth to be. Many people in the 200,000-1,000,000 yearly income range work 71% of their lives (5 days a week) to actually "live" for only 2 days. That can get very taxing. So, in order for them to balance out everything, they need to buy ultra luxurious homes, and cars beyond their means. Not to mention cottages, summer homes, and all those things.
My dad explained to me, and I very much agree, that if you actually really love what you do, you require less income. I will admit that I would probably become depressed if I couldn't continue to live the life to which I have grown accustomed to, but in the current path I'm taking, I won't need as much money as my parents. Most business people, lawyers, doctors etc... go into their jobs loving it. Some have idealistic reasons for doing it. However, if you work in the private sector, it's dollars you're ultimately after. After a while, and I have seen few exceptions to this, work becomes work. You cease to actually enjoy it, and you'd rather go on vacation than go to work. Luckily if you're wealthy, the small amount of time you aren't working can be very relaxing and rewarding.
I am going into the music business, because I really enjoy music more than anything else. There is hard work, but at the end of the day, I'd be doing what I love. Would I love a measure of financial success? Yes, but I do believe that one can live a fairly lavish lifestyle on a low 6 figure income, which is quite possible in what I am going to do.
So in the end, decide what you really want. Money will not buy happiness, but my family and I were broke as hell when we came to Canada, after having lived in the lap of luxury in our home country. I know what it's like on both ends (although I've never lived a life of abject poverty, nor a life of a total jet setter billionaire), and I can tell you that money helps. It's just a question of finding a good balance.
On September 03 2005 07:59 Liquid`Drone wrote: don't get me wrong anyone, I most certainly understand why people would play poker. it's really really easy money and well, it's fun as well, and those who are good make more money than they can possibly otherwise do at their age.
and a sad fact of life is that money is pretty important at least for most people. and I can't deny that I enjoyed hardly spending a dollar in holland. I'm really not judging people for playing poker and it doesn't make me lose respect or whatever for people who do.
BUT, I think the extreme upswing in poker players we have seen in the past 5 years is a very, very negative trend that to me symbolizes the extreme greed in our society today which I find a very bad thing.
This is how I feel. Especially the last paragraph... maybe Naz won't think I'm trolling if I just quote it
And I, for the most part, agree with that. The fact that there's more poker players doesn't mean society becomes more greedy though. It simply means us greedy fuckers have found a new means to obtain wealth. Nothing new there, society is as fucked up as it always has been.
Greed at the same time shows humans care about money. The fact that we're all greedy is old news. It's why communism failed in Russia, and at the same time the reason why our current society has survived. Capitalism should (in my opinion) be combined with socialism, which is why we pay taxes. Now do everyone a favor and make sure America gets a decent welfare system. That's a whole lot more important than some card game.
Well to be fair, communism failed in Russia because of widespread disillusionment with the Communist oligarchy, coupled with the power conflict between the political networks of the USSR and the Russian Federation. The actuality of economic policy had little to do with this disillusionment, as material conditions were far better in the USSR than the post-Soviet Russian Federation. It failed because of the collapse of faith in the system following the liberalization of the country. Had Gorbachev never implemented Glasnost and Perestroika, there is no reason to think that the USSR would have collapsed at all, even if they may have withdrawn their stranglehold over Eastern Europe eventually.
I think it is a mistake the condense the argument to Western greed > Eastern socialism. Besides the fact that greed will never be morally superior to generosity, there is no reason to believe that it is more common in human nature either.
P.S. I just realized the above made me sound like a Red sympathizer. I suppose I should not care about small vanities like this, but just to add: I am not. I just dislike the generic interpretation of the collapse of the Soviet Union as the triumph of human greed (or worse, of capitalism)
Many people in the 200,000-1,000,000 yearly income range work 71% of their lives (5 days a week) to actually "live" for only 2 days. That can get very taxing. So, in order for them to balance out everything, they need to buy ultra luxurious homes, and cars beyond their means. Not to mention cottages, summer homes, and all those things.
I am going into the music business, because I really enjoy music more than anything else. There is hard work, but at the end of the day, I'd be doing what I love. Would I love a measure of financial success? Yes, but I do believe that one can live a fairly lavish lifestyle on a low 6 figure income, which is quite possible in what I am going to do.
Throughout your post, Storm_Liquid, I got the impression that you're trying to say having luxuries makes one a happier person than the individual with fewer luxuries and a more modest lifestyle. I disagree with this, as does the research.
(if you didn't intend that at all, well at least this post will be informative for those who do think that way)
Did you know that people in the US are making more than twice as much money (inflation taken into account) now than they did 50 years ago, on average? Do you think that this has made them happier as well, on average? It has not: people still rate their happiness the same as they did 50 years ago, on average (actually it's a little lower now than it was back then).
The same effect can be seen spread across many countries of varying wealth: those with more wealth and more luxuries still rated their happiness the same as those with less. There is an obvious exception though: people with not enough money to sustain themselves (e.g. broke) are much less happy. But above that level of poverty, money does not affect happiness.
Each person has a "neutral" level of happiness and their level of happiness always tends towards it. Buy a new bigscreen TV and your level of happiness rises quickly, then slowly falls until it's back to where it was before you made your purchase. You simply get used to luxuries over time, requiring you to continually buy new things in order to sustain your elevated level of happiness.
Lastly, there is one more thing I would like to note: a person's level of happiness if affected by the surrounding people, and whether they are better-off or worse off than said person. Two people with the same level of income will feel vastly different levels of happiness if one compares himself to rich people and the other compares herself to poor people.
So, what can we conclude from all of this? Living a lavish lifestyle won't make you any happier than the mid-5-figure income family and their modest lifestyle, on average. Furthermore, most people (this isn't fact but I'm guessing it's true) maintain an elevated level of happiness by continually buying new, relatively-better things. The modest family's vacations or new things aren't nearly as expensive as those of the lavish family, but the modest family's typical day is also filled with less expensive things. Similarly, the modest family is likely surrounded by other modest families, so they compare themselves to other people of a modest income, whereas the lavish family compares themselves to people of a lavish income. In the end, the fact that these new vacations and new toys are better relative to their usual lifestyle is all that matters, not the price tag.
Spending money on luxuries is like smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol: the more you do it, the bigger amounts you need to use in order to achieve the same effect. So in a way, being rich is actually a vice. Ever notice how easy babies and young children are to entertain? Wouldn't it be empowering to be so easily entertained at our own age? You would never need to buy anything even close to "luxurious" and still be a very happy individual. This extends to upper class vs middle class as well: the upper class individual pays orders of magnitude more than the middle class individual yet achieves an equivalent boost in happiness. And as I said in one of my earlier posts, hoarding all that wealth utlimately hurts those in poverty, so there IS a good reason to be able to maintain the same level of happiness for a lower cost.
My dad explained to me, and I very much agree, that if you actually really love what you do, you require less income.
In contrast to what your father said, if you have fewer, less expensive possessions then you will require less income. I think that if you, Storm_Liquid, try to live a lifestyle that is more modest than the one you're accustomed to, then yes it will feel depressing at first, but over time, as long as you don't keep comparing it to the way your life was before, you will grow accustomed to it and in the long run you'll feel just the same. I strongly agree that having an enjoyable job will make your life much happier, but I disagree with the idea that you can somehow compensate for having a boring job by buying more expensive things. If a person picks a boring occupation, then they're screwed no matter how much money they make.
An already happy person will be happier with luxuries. That is all I am saying. You have to be happy in the first place. But I do believe that a few nice things or conveniences can make your life better, if even marginally.
I disagree about workhorses not being able to compensate with luxuries. I realize that this is anecdotal, but I know scores of word hard, play hard CEOs who maximize their off time by having every toy imaginable. It's hard to really plot how happy/unhappy one is.
I see what you are saying about cutting down, but to me it isn't about materialism as much as it is an appreciation of certain things. I could do without a lot of things, but that doesn't mean if I could have them that I'd refuse.
Now do everyone a favor and make sure America gets a decent welfare system. That's a whole lot more important than some card game.
I know, I know, I am doing whatever I can. Unfortunately, stupid people breed faster than smart ones, so I can't seem to help enough to get any of my fellow libs to win an election But hey, I didn't know you cared so much about the welfare of Americans... aren't we just here to win money off?
you are! but one must find its balance. so while we are taking your money you must also get a good welfare system. thats what we give you in return for your $
lemme tell you something i learned back in nam, money takes away all your problems. Without problems you have nothing left to do other than look at yourself, and then you realise how fucked up you are.
poker is a legitamite way for those born without certain socioeconomic advantages (read: not white and male and in north america) to circumvent oppression by redistributing wealth in a broken (hi cayman islands), but more advantageous manner to themselves
how many CEOs of fortune 500 companies are asian
to what extent are they under-represented in senior management
consider the degree by which they are emasculated on a daily basis by women who subconsciously (arguably instinctively) refuse to relinquish the ability to cheat with ease
most women don't cheat, but they don't want to give up the option to do so as it's a method by which they solicit compliance from a mate
i have the capacity to do anything i want with my life and choose to not play their broken game
i love writing but it's far too painful a process for me i'm too senstive to subject myself to the direct pain of others (law enforcement, medical work etc) the grind of office works kills me inside
so i play a broken game of my choosing and fully embrace the risks involved
i'd rather run a brokerage or consult
i can't do that now, or in the forseeable future and it's probable that any available career path chosen will not lead to the desired favorable outcome
money fixes alot of problems while creating others i'm learning how to manage the problems i'm creating
what i'm attempting to do is definitely possible. it's also exceedingly rare and insanely difficult.
On September 02 2005 03:40 travis wrote: i don't believe in social responsibility, that's total bullshit.
I believe in ethics, but suggesting that when you are born you're in debt to society is retarded.
you can't believe in ethics when u're playing poker, that's the problem of this game. There are three kind of peoples in poker, people who play for fun, people who are playing serious poker and loosing, people who are playing serious poker and taking money for the first two categories.
Being a last categorie guy is not ethical, u're giving more problems to some guys that don't need it... When a loosing player is on tilt, going all the time allin, when u just push with aces, u're taking profit from him.. They are really stupid guys that play poker, loose money in it, and take loans to try to win.. is it ethical to keep playing against them?
it's not. But who would still be here playing poker, trying to improve his strategies if there were nothing to win? poker is not ethical
Some stuff here is ridiculous, i'll point out a few of my problems with this:
People are comparing things in life such as professional sports to poker, poker does involve an element of risk (you cannot deny this because people lose too, even the best). However, overall they win.
In professional sports which do not involve money so much (i.e. football and so on), this is much different because these people are paid because of 1. Fans LOVE watching them play and buy tickets and various items to show their love for the club. And of course, 2. TV Broadcasting companies want to show their shows on TV, so they pay for the rights to show the games on their channel, which is funded by advertisements from other companies.
For the individual player in these sports its not about winning or losing, they get paid and its basically a job. Poker is much different because there is always the possibility you will lose your money. This possibility is real since its a gamble (even though its very unlikely with proper risk/bankroll management). Also, football and other such sports arent based on 'good cards' and so on. They gain money all the time.
Another thing i find ridiculous is the notion that we could turn everyone into poker players. This simply wouldn't work for obvious reasons, namely people need to hunt for food and so on. Also, people going along with this forget that its totally flawed because a poker player isnt like a single use appliance in that its only got one use. Im sure poker players can do more things than just play poker. Hunting is instictive as are many other things which are BASIC for our survival. Anyone can do this (assuming well people). Poker is leisure. No matter what anyone says this is the case and you simply must accept it. The idea behind gambling is that you have money which you enjoy SPENDING by taking risks. If you win, its an added bonus.
Personally i don't share this view, but it is the correct one. I look at poker from a pure skill perspective, if i lost all the money i had tomorrow i would be angry for a while sure but i would accept it because of all i had learned about psychology, reading people and most of all how compulsive people act in situations.
Also, If everyone was a firefighter it wouldn't matter because:
1. There would be no fires to put out
and of course,
2. What would there be to gain from being a firefighter?
They would have two options in life, which are:
1. Remain an obsolte firefighter
OR
2. Find something else to do (eventually it would lead to a society that we have right now, which is of course the most natural and logical to us and one which works).
The two ideas are similar because both situations would lead to a total rebuild of society, however they don't apply for this very same reason.
Also, most people here are forgetting that firefighers, police officers and doctors etc... public services if we trace them back to when they first became, we can say that these were because people needed fires to be put out, people to be kept in line and doctors to help people to heal.
Through time, methods have been made which help people to fight fires, police people and heal people.
My view on poker is simple:
Your simply there to skim a bit off the top, if you understand.
You aren't there to make anyone unhappy or stop anyones fun with gambling, your simply there to win a few pots every now and again then you can do something with the money. Its less risky this way, there are of course nutters who play this game and it is most definitely not a 'sport' in the regular sense of the word. It's a game.
im sorry to bump such an old thread, but the fact that rekrul just recently won a WSOP event and earned 425k$ cash is too much of an irony to ignore. I guess now the title "Bittersweet Symphony" really makes sense.