Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="pogreshilly, post: 748807, member: 34427"] Finally, a reply that doesn't consist only of See-No-Evil-Hear-No-Evil insults or confused BS. But still not up to scratch. I don't believe I mentioned "luck" at all. There is a difference between luck and chance. Luck is a special type of chance that has a consciousness and deliberately favours or disfavours a person from time to time, and it doesn't exist. There is no such thing as luck. In fact, it is belief in the existence of luck that perpetuates problem gambling. But luck is a fallacy. What I was talking about was CHANCE, which is very real. As for your statement that gambling is playing a game that is influenced "primarily," I don't believe that distinction is valid. There is no objective way to establish what is the primary and what is the secondary influence on the outcome of a game. All of the influences have equal weight. And a long ring game session--say 100,000 hands over more than a year's worth of trips to the cardroom, which is tantamount to one long session for evaluative purposes--is still played a single hand at a time. What the player actually does at any one moment *is* gambling. Look, I'm not trying to provide ammunition to those who want to ban poker completely. I'm not even *interested* in people who operate in terms of sound bytes and ignore the bulk of a long, thoughtful discourse if it doesn't serve their vested interests. None of us should be concerned with those people unless you happen to be one of them. Playing their game only degrades you into becoming just like them. I also didn't say anything about "the average player." I said "the player." By that I meant a generic player of any playing quality level who uses the optimal strategy. So we're in agreement on this point. You put $1 into the pot and, because of the rake, you take out 95 cents of that $1. That makes it by definition a sucker game. Yes, you can compensate by taking 10 cents from some other player so that you collect $1.05 of the pot, but there are both practical and ethical difficulties with that. And that wasn't my primary point anyway. The primary point is that if you pay $1 and get no more than 95 cents of your own money back, you're being treated like a sucker by the game administrator. Nothing can change that. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us