u might pawn them at the tables but they might own ur ass in the real world without a tad of sympathy. so just take their $, it could be peanuts to them, what more they already know the risksssss involved.
Notifications
Clear all
General Poker Discussion
30
Posts
16
Users
0
Reactions
3,467
Views
Originally posted by supeyrio
u might pawn them at the tables but they might own ur ass in the real world without a tad of sympathy. so just take their $, it could be peanuts to them, what more they already know the risksssss involved.
If you're dealing with maybes, that's correct. But what if you know for a fact you're taking the last money from an addicted gambler who will commit suicide if he loses it?
Originally posted by belayd
Originally posted by supeyrio
u might pawn them at the tables but they might own ur ass in the real world without a tad of sympathy. so just take their $, it could be peanuts to them, what more they already know the risksssss involved.If you're dealing with maybes, that's correct. But what if you know for a fact you're taking the last money from an addicted gambler who will commit suicide if he loses it?
Hi,
this question reffers to completely different situation then Supeyrio is talking about.
To know anything "for fact" leaves you an oportunity to act in the best possible way. It means, you have choice to make decision based just on clear facts. Then you can legitimately ask questions about morality, justice or consequences of your decision/bahaviour. But if you play online poker - which means against "villain" hidden behind anonymous nick, who could be absolutely anybody - you have no chance to know anything about him "for fact" and that´s why you´re allowed to act in way, which is considered as a standart behaviour in this situation (talking about poker - playing against him and doing your best to get all his money) and nobody could blame you for any possible consequences. You aren´t responsible for him (simply because you can´t be, it´s impossible).
So your question is not fair imo. You can hardly take responsibility for anything you can´t influence.
If you believe in something like "good", which exists as an absolute value independent on our lives, questions like that are obviously legitimate...to be more accurate...they make you feel you can influence smth what is out of your possible reach. But you can´t still change anything concerning our gambler, because your decision not to play poker against him (and I assume it could be the only available decision, you could make): (i) doesn´t make him to stop gamble (what would be crucial for saving his life) and (ii) doesn´t make the other online poker players to stop playing against him (what would take him away the oportunity to gamble). In the end, the only satisfied person would be you, because of your impression, that you did something "good"...
Yeah, my english isn´t good enough to express my thoughts exactly so treat it this way...and it´s just my opinion...
Cheers,
Ondra
It's just a reward for your work at studying the game. There are players who try to earn from the game and there are players who just want to spend some of their free time gambling in poker. 
In every business someone wants to spend and someone wants to gain.
well imo poker is just a game. if ppl chose to play they know the risks. If they lose significant sums of money it is their own fault. Imo alot of buisness is exploitative atleast the exploited in poker have a choice, they can leave the table anytime they want.
Hi, Ondra,
Don't worry about your English. I understood what you were trying to say, and I agree with it. There are reasons why, to put it Biblically, we are not our brother's keeper. Saving every single one of the seven billion people on earth is beyond the abilities of any one person, including any one poker player.
It is, however, true beyond dispute that the pros playing live at the $400 NL cash tables in Vegas dream about playing against someone who is drunk or someone who is an addicted gambler, because that kind of opponent is easiest to win money from. These poker pros are not complex or subtle human beings and can't be if they are to be successful at what they do for a living. (Look at i5bet's reply following yours to get an example of their stunted way of thinking. There's a reason he's a Diamond and I'm a Silver.) And there are many times when I think that, because of my own nature, I not only can never be one of those poker pros but don't WANT to be--same as I would never want to sell used cars for a living. I'm no saint, and I don't set standards for myself that I can't meet, but sometimes I thinbk that certain things about winning at poker are below my standards anyway.
well every poker player in a casino wants a drunk degen to sit beside them. Every successful buisness person exploits others to be successful. Do u know how many ppl die and suffer everyday cuz of sweatshops and how many ppl have lost their fortune on the stock market. Do we blame the CEOs or the successful investors. NO, exploiation is fact of life.
There is definitely an ethical question regarding winning money from other players who may or may not be able to afford it. But I believe that it is their responsibility if they decide to play poker.
Poker is a skill game, and just like any other game you know in advance that there is a chance that you can lose, so to say that being a professional poker player is in a sense unethical or immoral, is the same as saying that playing basketbal is, because your beating the other team to gain the victory.
It just doesn't make any sense.
Hey, take money from fish is like amusement park, you want fun, you must pay for it.
Playing poker is fun for them, we are like amusement park workers, and we give fun and action, but we do it 24/7, we need to live also with some money, so they pay for it, easy game.
If they dont want pay anymore, then they start studyng poker, like we have made lots (and i mean here HUGE AMOUNT) of hours.
Originally posted by Darkzzz
There is definitely an ethical question regarding winning money from other players who may or may not be able to afford it. But I believe that it is their responsibility if they decide to play poker.
You wouldn't happen to be a Libertarian, would you?