Jump to content

Washington Post Article And 60 Minutes Tonight


Recommended Posts

Again, in those jobs you are getting something in return, always. Not in poker. That doesn't make it unethical in my opinion, or I wouldn't play. But others think it does and I can understand where they are coming from, even if I don't agree.
Since when do you have to receive something tangible for it to be considered "getting something"?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Since when do you have to receive something tangible for it to be considered "getting something"?
Tons of people lose money that aren't playing for the entertainment. They're playing to gamble, for money.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Tons of people lose money that aren't playing for the entertainment. They're playing to gamble, for money.
LOL, I'm sure you realize why that is funny. I don't really care anymore, we disagree and nothing is going to change our minds.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think hblask is saying that if a person exchanges his money for it, he receives value by definition. After all, who is the authority on what value is? Who has the golden perspective?On that other hand, I think we're selling snake oil. If the big losers knew what exactly what they were getting for exactly what price, many of them would choose not to play poker. (Of course, some of them would be happy to play given all the information.)And furthermore, if I had to form a colony on Mars with a hundred people, I wouldn't choose to take any people along to be our gamblers. Because I don't think they're going to add any real (by my judgment) value.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And furthermore, if I had to form a colony on Mars with a hundred people, I wouldn't choose to take any people along to be our gamblers. Because I don't think they're going to add any real (by my judgment) value.
I suppose, but I don't see how that is relevant to really anything. Just because someone wouldn't "add value" in a primative society doesn't mean they can't be valuable, contributing members of our society. I guess a counter argument were to be they are not really bettering any companies or services that makes our economy go round and round (ie They don't work for McDonalds, which means that company is more likely to fail, which means that people will lose their jobs which means they won't spend at other companies, etc etc), but I'll leave that one to someone smarter than me in the field of economics.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose, but I don't see how that is relevant to really anything. Just because someone wouldn't "add value" in a primitive society doesn't mean they can't be valuable, contributing members of our society.
OK, point taken. Let's make it 100,000. How many gamblers do you want? Imagine it like playing Age of Empires or something, where you play the part of the central planner. You send out some guys to cut down trees, some guys to hunt, some to build houses, and how many to play poker?
Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, point taken. Let's make it 100,000. How many gamblers do you want? Imagine it like playing Age of Empires or something, where you play the part of the central planner. You send out some guys to cut down trees, some guys to hunt, some to build houses, and how many to play poker?
???? But what does this have to do with anything?
Link to post
Share on other sites
???? But what does this have to do with anything?
I'm trying to demonstrate that, from the perspective of a central planner, gambling doesn't create value for the society in the same way that other jobs do.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm trying to demonstrate that, from the perspective of a central planner, gambling doesn't create value for the society in the same way that other jobs do.
Gotcha. So your true point is that a pro gambler doesn't "create" any economic progress since they are merely recycling others money back into society?I guess I was confused since we are now on a completely separate issue than the other one me and RDog were discussing.
Link to post
Share on other sites
LOOOOOOOOOOOOL nice open, "illegal" in this country
sighI guess they just asked the justice department?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dammit, I thought the whole thing was gonna be good for online poker until the last line there by DanDruff.What we didn't need is somebody to insinuate that this could be happening on FT or Stars, which is basically what he did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dammit, I thought the whole thing was gonna be good for online poker until the last line there by DanDruff.What we didn't need is somebody to insinuate that this could be happening on FT or Stars, which is basically what he did.
Yeah, QFMFT
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was fair and better than I expected...but for people who know nothing about online poker I dont think it was detailed enough...it didnt go over the good aspects or good sites in the part of it that I saw.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It was fair and better than I expected...but for people who know nothing about online poker I dont think it was detailed enough...it didnt go over the good aspects or good sites in the part of it that I saw.
I agree. This piece was never going to be positive for online poker. In the end it seemed about as undamaging as it could get. They said everything we expected them to say, but for the most part they stayed super focused on AP and UB. They could have generalized much, much more or dragged FT or PS into it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah the last 30 seconds was pretty awful sounding.......
Is it wrong, though? The only reason these guys were caught it because they were completely retarded about it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It could have been worse imo. Just dont know how that is going to received from the fish we all want
It's OK; the fish were watching America's Funniest Home Videos.
Link to post
Share on other sites

the 60 minutes piece made me yell at the tv a lot. i'll probably write cbs a letter explaining why playing poker and gambling online is not illegal, you know, if you are concerned with the actual way laws are written.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...