What business are poker pros in?
Abdul Jalib
> This essay is probably a little disjointed. But, the basic question for the
> group here is --- what kind of business is a poker pro in?
>
> Is poker a scam to run on unsuspecting dupes?
>
> Or, is poker a form of entertainment for the fish?
I haven't read the 2+2 posts, so if I say anything similar it's just
a coincidence.
You can use different perspectives, without accepting one perspective
as the correct perspective.
The leech perspective:
I am a leech. You won't find me sucking blood, but I do feed slowly
on the money of my hosts. I don't produce any goods or services of
value to society. Instead, I have to rely on those who are brain
surgeons or lawyers or restaurant owners or drug dealers to go make
a lot of money supplying goods and services to society so that I can
make a meaningless existence off a portion of what they earn.
The transfer of money to sustain my existence is very wasteful,
as for every dollar I suck, another dollar leaks into ultimate leeches:
the casinos and the government. The fishies would be better off
without me. So would the casinos, because I take a lot of money out
of the poker economy to support myself. I am a harmful parasite.
The prop perspective:
I am a prop. You won't find me on the casino payrolls, because they
don't pay me anything directly - I'm not a hired prop. But I help get
games started and support short-handed games, which helps the casino
cardroom make money. Sometimes I'm simply the difference between the
casino having N tables and N-1 tables going. My objective is to make
money for myself, but many of the things I do to make money actually
help the cardroom. A healthy cardroom means more money for me, so
I'll even make the occasional sacrifice for the cardroom's benefit.
I am not a parasite; I am a symbiote.
The entertainer perspective:
I am an entertainer. You won't find me in the Las Vegas yellow pages,
but instead at the poker tables. I provide entertainment to the fishies.
I even provide entertainment to my fellow professional poker players.
The casino charges everyone to play. I charge the fishies even more to
play with me, but the charge is hidden in the gambling, just like in
the gambling games out on the main casino floor. The fishies usually
suspect they are paying some extra charges on average to me, but they
also know they have a shot at taking my money. And they are happy to
have a game, which I help provide. I try to keep them happy by chatting
with them, even talking strategy with them if they want. If they ask
if I'm a professional, I'll tell them the truth. If a pot is pushed
incorrectly to me, I'll push it to the fishy who can't read his hand
any better than the dealer - cardspeak, after all. I can be honest
and give them assistance; they are still going to pay me for their
entertainment, and in the long run they'll keep coming back for more
if they are happy that everything is honest. I am a good host.
The gambler perspective:
I am a gambler. You won't find me playing keno, because I'm a poker
player. But I'm not making any apologies to the fishies, because
sometimes I'm the fish. There is no way to mathematically prove I
am playing with an advantage. Even if I'm a superior player, it's
possible for the rest of the table to conspire, either intentionally
or unintentionally, to make me play at a disadvantage at any time,
no matter what my past track record. There is no optimal poker
strategy - how to best play depends on how your opponents are playing,
and it can be *impossible* for you to avoid losing on average edge
against certain configurations of "suboptimal" opponents. Also, I
know with 100% confidence that some players cheat, especially
some that look all the world like total fish - that is one case in
which I become the fish. I'm betting that I am playing with an
overall edge, but it's inherently a gamble, and so there is not a sharp
line between winners and losers, professionals and fish. I fear
deep down I am a problem gambler.
The wise guy perspective:
I am a wise guy. You won't find me doing hits for the mafia, because
I'm too busy running my own racket at the poker tables. De marks brings
the monies to play cards, and I send dem home brokes, see? Dey are
suckers who *want* to lose their monies. If it wasn't me to take it
from them, it would be some odder wise guy to take it from them. If
it takes a few moves to ensure dat the suckers lose deir monies to
me before some other wise guy, well, den, it takes a few moves. A
wise guy should never wise up a sucker, of course, or let dem know
dey've been had. Some wise guys have a few scams dey run at the
tables to get even more out of the suckers, like selling international
calling cards dat don't work. I gotta get in on dat action too. I
am the con man dat Doug Grant says I am.
I am a leech, prop, entertainer, gambler, and wise guy, and in that
order, so I'm mostly leech and I have hardly any wise guy in me.
--
Abdul Jalib wearing the hat of | Hold still so I can get a grip with my teeth!
Professional Degenerate Gambler|
Abd...@PosEV.com |
gary_...@my-dejanews.com
"It takes too long to explain here, but in poker it is important not to let
recreational players get the idea that there is more to this game than it
appears ..."
What's really interesting about the comment is that Mason thinks it's hard to
explain the idea of "don't educate the fish". But, that's not what the thread
is about. The thread is about his apparent slam/disdain for recreational
players.
Some 2+2 readers where offended. Most jumped to the hero's defense, saying he
didn't really mean that.
But, I think the whole thing is interesting because I think it illustrates why
most pros always seem so unhappy and frustrated.
What kind of business are professional poker players in? The sentiments
expressed in the quote from MM are, common sentiments among pros, and suggest
an attitude that playing poker professionally is akin to operating some kind
of confidence game.
When I was playing poker for a living, that's not the way I looked at it. I
thought of myself as in the entertianment business. It was my job to
entertian folks, to give them a good time, to provide them with a reason to
give me their money. I think I gave value for the money.
I think it might depend on where you play. In LV or Los Angeles, you don't
have to depend on regular players to get a game up -- LA has lots of
population, LV has lots of visitors. But, out in the boondocks, a pro has to
ensure that the supply of players doesn't dry up.
I never wanted to see my opponents just lose all their money quickly. If
you've got a table where most of your opponents just lose money slowly,
they'll keep coming forever, and eventually you'll just get it all.
I've always tried to help any opponent who wanted help. That doesn't mean
offering unsolicited comments at the table. But, I don't hesitate to offer a
thought if it's asked for. And, I'll even explain the reasons for my own play
if I'm asked (I'll do that away from the table).
It's seldom hurt my action at all to do any of that. In fact, most of the
time I think it helps me, cause then I know what a particular opponent thinks
I have.
This essay is probably a little disjointed. But, the basic question for the
group here is --- what kind of business is a poker pro in?
Is poker a scam to run on unsuspecting dupes?
Or, is poker a form of entertainment for the fish?
Gary Carson
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Liveone
I can relate to your mindset at the poker table
liveone
Kev
>gary_...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>> --- what kind of business is a poker pro in?
>> Is poker a scam to run on unsuspecting dupes?
>> Or, is poker a form of entertainment for the fish?
>Abdul Jalib <Abd...@PosEV.com> wrote:
>You can use different perspectives,
>
>The leech perspective:
>The prop perspective:
>The entertainer perspective:
>The gambler perspective:
>The wise guy perspective:
>
>I am a leech, prop, entertainer, gambler, and wise guy, and in that
>order, so I'm mostly leech and I have hardly any wise guy in me.
>
>Abdul Jalib wearing the hat of | Hold still so I can get a grip with my teeth!
>Professional Degenerate Gambler|
>Abd...@PosEV.com |
there are lots more perspectives too.
my personal one is more comfortable for me than those suggested
yet in this short but philosophically critical thread. (i.e. what the
heck are we all doing playing poker when we could be using
our considerable talents making goods and providing services for
the whole of society?)
being a poker professional is a competition. whether we succeed or
not, a case can be made that we are involved in an intellectual/
strategic pursuit to win in a very complex and interesting game.
This competion doesn't strike me as any different than pro sports,
chess, auto racing, Pillsbury bake-offs, or anything else that on the
surface seems to provide little benefit to society but is a healthy
competition to determine, at any given time, who the "best" is.
Poker tournaments, of course , can clearly represent this.
Like tennis players, we travel, compete, have good days and bad, get
"ranked" based on our performance and achievements, and the few
successful ones are financially rewarded while on top.
In cash games, all players sit down thinking that they just may be
"the best" that night, and despite most of us succeeding at this from
time to time, some through the glory of overcoming amazing odds to
beat the favorite, the fact (accepted by most of us), is that the
participants in poker who are the wisest, healthiest, experienced,
disciplined and clever will be "ranked" above the amateurs.
We show a profit. We are winners.
Poker is about winning and if someone plays poker successfully as a
career, that is the goal and the reward. Anyone who sits in a poker
game accepts that and the concurrent financial risks. Face it, money
is most often what we win, so if we perform better than someone else,
we end up with their money.
Hopefully, in this context of competition, we can maintain a level of
integrity and honesty and "sportsmanship" becoming to any respectable
competition. Unfortunately, these qualities are often lacking in a
majority of human pursuits and interactions, including poker.
But, when I win, I never feel like a leech, wiseguy, gambler, or for
that matter, much of an entertainer either. We pay the cardrooms a
decent amount to provide the forum for our competition, we try to
prepare ourselves for victory, the smart ones try to enjoy ourselves
while we are "at work". We encourage the amateurs to participate for
the sustenance of the competition.
(BTW, observe how many top competitors began as amateurs).
When we win, we feel like we did a good "job." the losers/amateurs
learn and get better, or they don't and they don't. When they can't
afford to compete they don't. When we can afford to compete, the
"best" ones normally end up on top.
Money won playing poker doesn't need to go into a black hole.
I can and do use my winnings to improve the quality of life for those
I care about. Society does benefit.
What business are poker pros in?
Poker is a competition.
keV
_______________________________________________________
Life is a tragedy for those who feel,
and a comedy for those who think.
gary_...@my-dejanews.com
Gary Carson
<snip most of it
>
> I am a leech, prop, entertainer, gambler, and wise guy, and in that
> order, so I'm mostly leech and I have hardly any wise guy in me.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Alan Bostick
gary_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
[snip everything except the final summary]
> This essay is probably a little disjointed. But, the basic question for the
> group here is --- what kind of business is a poker pro in?
>
> Is poker a scam to run on unsuspecting dupes?
>
> Or, is poker a form of entertainment for the fish?
Is that there photon a particle or is it a wave?
I think the answer to your twin questions is "Yes".
(How many confidence tricksters think of their livelihoods as duping
suckers, and how many as bringing romance and excitement into their
lives. And there is the well-known distain that traditional circus
and traveling carnival folk (entertainers if anyone is) have for the
"marks".
--
Alan Bostick | "Juggling is an art!" "No, it's a science!"
mailto:abos...@netcom.com | "You're both wrong! It's a trick!"
news:alt.grelb | The Flying Karamazov Brothers
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick
Maverick
> What's really interesting about the comment is that Mason thinks it's hard to
> explain the idea of "don't educate the fish". But, that's not what the thread
I don't think this will matter to the real fish. They are playing for
entertainment and/or usually too superstitious to think reading a book
would help enough to be worth their time. I've never seen a designated
fish so much as care about a book.
> is about. The thread is about his apparent slam/disdain for recreational
> players.
Oh that's just Mason's disposition in general. I might have to
go post in 2+2 and cheer him up someday.
> Some 2+2 readers where offended. Most jumped to the hero's defense, saying he
> didn't really mean that.
I think Mason is borderline manic along with an insecure elitist's
complex that rears it's ugly head whenever you challenge his numbers.
But...all this does create for him an interesting poker figure to listen
to. I have a couple of his books...and it's fun taunting other players by
deceptively telling them what group your hand is on occasion when you get
heads up with them.
> But, I think the whole thing is interesting because I think it illustrates why
> most pros always seem so unhappy and frustrated.
Because being a poker pro defeates the constructive purpose of life.
To be healthy, a person has to be productive building a life he can be
proud of and look back on his accomplishments. Only thing poker pros have
is tournament wins and notoriety in cardplayer/card rooms...and money
taken from productive people...and a life spent in a smoky card room
filled with hateful people with mostly no lives who say the same dumb
poker sayings each day.
I can never take playing poker too many days in a row...I think it's this
atmosphere that makes me want to put the regulars on tilt.
> What kind of business are professional poker players in? The sentiments
> expressed in the quote from MM are, common sentiments among pros, and suggest
> an attitude that playing poker professionally is akin to operating some kind
> of confidence game.
No..poker pros offer a form of entertainment similar to prostitution.
Prostitutes take alot of John's money and give most of it to the pimp.
Poker pros take alot of fish money and give most of it to the drop.
Prostitutes have low self esteem...and so do alot of poker pros who don't
do anything with their life but hustle chips from fish.
> give me their money. I think I gave value for the money.
So do prostitutes...sometimes giving you more than you paid for.
> I never wanted to see my opponents just lose all their money quickly. If
I do. That way I can get home early and do something fun that night.
> you've got a table where most of your opponents just lose money slowly,
> they'll keep coming forever, and eventually you'll just get it all.
This only matters in small rooms where the loss of a couple fish can dry
up a game quick. In small rooms, you sometimes really have to worry about
knocking just one player out of the game completely if the players are
paranoid about playing a game that's short. My local room got closed down
when a player named "Bullet" took over and proceeded to play in his own
game and raise all the time...which made one player rich, quickly busted
out most people including Bullet himself...thus making every game end
quickly and bullet running himself out of business in two months.
As you might guess....Bullet is named Bullet because of his speed in
raising.
> I've always tried to help any opponent who wanted help. That doesn't mean
> offering unsolicited comments at the table. But, I don't hesitate to offer a
> thought if it's asked for. And, I'll even explain the reasons for my own play
We don't care you commenting about the hand the fish played. Just make
damn sure you aren't identifying to the fish how he should be playing
against us individually and why he shouldn't be calling us.
You'll end up forcing me to bluff you a few times to loosen the game back
up if I overhear any of that.
> It's seldom hurt my action at all to do any of that. In fact, most of the
> time I think it helps me, cause then I know what a particular opponent thinks
Well, obviously, you should be giving correct advice and then misplaying
your hands such that he'll misinterpret your hands. Poker advice is often
like a golf lesson. Nothing is more sure to ruin your golf game than an
hour lesson with the golf pro to correct your swing.
> This essay is probably a little disjointed. But, the basic question for the
> group here is --- what kind of business is a poker pro in?
Entertainment, Therapy, Pawnshop/Personal Loans, Babysitting and amateur
political Commentator, pointless trivia expert, and Anti IRS advocate.
This is the funniest part of my post and I bet most readers never made it
this far. What a shame.
> Is poker a scam to run on unsuspecting dupes?
Hopefully. That's what smart poker pros are aiming for.
Heldar
"To be healthy, a person has to be productive building a life he can be
proud of and look back on his accomplishments."
Why Maverick, just when I think you're *always* full of it, you ruin my
theory by coming out with an insight like this. :-)
You are of course correct. And the fact that they are in their own little
world where this isn't possible probably is indeed what frustrates so many
poker pros. It is also, I suspect, a reason why some of them write books
and teach -- so they *can* be productive and leave something behind.
Ever read John LeCarre? His spies are constantly weaving their convoluted,
complex, life-or-death webs around one another, while the rest of the world
is totally oblivious to, and more importantly, totally unaffected by what
they are doing. It's not just that they're in their own little world.
Rather, it's that their own little world which they think is so incredibly
important, is pretty much irrelevant to everyone else. LeCarre is
completely self-aware of this: read "The Spy Who Came In From the Cold",
and understand what LeCarre means by "in from the cold", and you'll see what
I mean.
andras nagy
I have had some talk with a 'friend' who is a lawyer. She asked me
if I see any social benefit to poker. Mind you that I am a contract
engineer during the day. At 6-7 pm I take that hat off. I looked at
her a bit funny. Since she is doing death penalty defense and owes
someone about 40k which she has no intention on paying back... and she
points fingers about social responsibility. This whole agenda is
utter total bullshit !! The US is full of lawyers, brokers, other
types of 'carreeres' of no merit whatsoevever. What harm is to
ad poker ??????????
On Thu, 04 Feb 1999 02:32:50 GMT, gary_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>There is a thread on 2+2 right now about a comment my hero MM made
>
>"It takes too long to explain here, but in poker it is important not to let
>recreational players get the idea that there is more to this game than it
>appears ..."
>
>What's really interesting about the comment is that Mason thinks it's hard to
>explain the idea of "don't educate the fish". But, that's not what the thread
>is about. The thread is about his apparent slam/disdain for recreational
>players.
>
>Some 2+2 readers where offended. Most jumped to the hero's defense, saying he
>didn't really mean that.
>
>But, I think the whole thing is interesting because I think it illustrates why
>most pros always seem so unhappy and frustrated.
>
>What kind of business are professional poker players in? The sentiments
>expressed in the quote from MM are, common sentiments among pros, and suggest
>an attitude that playing poker professionally is akin to operating some kind
>of confidence game.
>
>When I was playing poker for a living, that's not the way I looked at it. I
>thought of myself as in the entertianment business. It was my job to
>entertian folks, to give them a good time, to provide them with a reason to
>give me their money. I think I gave value for the money.
>
>I think it might depend on where you play. In LV or Los Angeles, you don't
>have to depend on regular players to get a game up -- LA has lots of
>population, LV has lots of visitors. But, out in the boondocks, a pro has to
>ensure that the supply of players doesn't dry up.
>
>I never wanted to see my opponents just lose all their money quickly. If
>you've got a table where most of your opponents just lose money slowly,
>they'll keep coming forever, and eventually you'll just get it all.
>
>I've always tried to help any opponent who wanted help. That doesn't mean
>offering unsolicited comments at the table. But, I don't hesitate to offer a
>thought if it's asked for. And, I'll even explain the reasons for my own play
>if I'm asked (I'll do that away from the table).
>
>It's seldom hurt my action at all to do any of that. In fact, most of the
>time I think it helps me, cause then I know what a particular opponent thinks
>I have.
>
>This essay is probably a little disjointed. But, the basic question for the
>group here is --- what kind of business is a poker pro in?
>
>Is poker a scam to run on unsuspecting dupes?
>
>Or, is poker a form of entertainment for the fish?
>
>Gary Carson
gary_...@my-dejanews.com
kev...@NOSPAMmindspring.com wrote:
>
> But, when I win, I never feel like a leech, wiseguy, gambler, or for
> that matter, much of an entertainer either. We pay the cardrooms a
> decent amount to provide the forum for our competition, we try to
> prepare ourselves for victory, the smart ones try to enjoy ourselves
> while we are "at work". We encourage the amateurs to participate for
> the sustenance of the competition.
I'm curious Kev. Do you play for a living? I don't mean that questin as a
slam. It's just that I've never actually meet a poker pro who, at some time
or another, hasn't worried about his compulsive gambling urges. Or hasn't
felt like a leech when he sees someone take a 20 minute break to go rob a
bank for more chips, or sell his car in the bar adjacent to the poker room,
or take out a 2nd mortage on his home in the poker room with an investor/loan
shark, or sell his business at the table, or conduct home invasions during
the day to get money to play poker -- all to get more chips. I've seen all
those things happen at AJ's btw.
> (BTW, observe how many top competitors began as amateurs).
Every poker pro began as an amateur.
Chris K.
into me. My bank roll is my progressive jackpot. Put me on tilt and you can have it.
Chris K.
-- --- *veni, vedi, velcro* "I came, I saw, I stuck around."
Alan Bostick
age of Gardena 5-card draw cardrooms, Hayano makes the argument that
gambling (and hence the professional gambler) plays the socioeconomic
role of intensifying production.
Here's how it seems to work: Gambling costs people money. Sometimes it
costs them a lot of money. They work harder to earn that money so they
can continue to gamble -- and to continue to otherwise make ends meet.
I dunno whether or not I actually buy that argument. For a non-winning
player a poker game looks to me like it is an economic inefficiency. A
leak in the system.
If the losing player spends so many dollars a month on poker that she
otherwise would save, then that money is going to be spent by the
winning players rather than being available (through the bank where it
is saved) for capital investment, mortgages, etc. On the other hand,
at least some fraction of the poker pros taking money away from the
losing players are going to be playing off of bankrolls, and some
fraction of those bankrolls is going to be parked in banks or other
investments.
Do pro poker bankrolls represent a net gain or loss in the overall
savings rate? I dunno. It depends, I should think, on how much of the
losing players' contributions would in fact be saved if not put into the
game rather than being spent on ballgames, stereo equipment, beer, etc.
Or on whether Hayano is right and that some of those contributions
represent the fruit of increased production by the losing players.
Next time someone calls you a leech, tell 'em you are helping keep
America strong by strengthening industrial production!
--
Alan Bostick |
mailto:abos...@netcom.com | "But sex *is* politics!" -- Gore Vidal
news:alt.grelb |
http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~abostick
HitTheFlop
gary_...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> Or hasn't
>felt like a leech when he sees someone take a 20 minute break to go rob a
>bank for more chips, or sell his car in the bar adjacent to the poker room,
>or take out a 2nd mortage on his home in the poker room with an investor/loan
>shark, or sell his business at the table, or conduct home invasions during
>the day to get money to play poker -- all to get more chips.
If i quit playing and winning from these folks will their behavoir
change? No, they will still ruin the world around them in order
to gamble. I choose to take my share since it will be gifted to
someone. Why not me?
Best Luck,
Ed (no, not that Ed!)
Whenever I suspect the human race of developing
the slightest shred of intelligence, I read Clinton's
latest popularity poll and realize that my fears
are unfounded.
Maverick
> Here's how it seems to work: Gambling costs people money. Sometimes it
> costs them a lot of money. They work harder to earn that money so they
> can continue to gamble -- and to continue to otherwise make ends meet.
I disagree completely. Better scenario...gambling cost people money...not
only does their productivity suffer at work from late stressed out nights
gambling, but the money they could have been using to buy products has now
been transferred to people who don't produce any material goods with the
money. This reduction in demand for material goods causes a chain reaction
throughout the rest of companies that produce material goods resulting in
a diminished GNP.
> I dunno whether or not I actually buy that argument. For a non-winning
> player a poker game looks to me like it is an economic inefficiency. A
> leak in the system.
Yes...all the card room employees and poker pros could be out working
producing necessary goods rather than siphon Billions from the Country's
GNP.
John Moser
derived the fuel to continue our various pursuits from the belief that our work
was meaningful, only to learn later that it really didn't mean much in the big
picture. Who we are is much greater quantity than the answer to the question:
What do we do?!
Sometimes we play cards very seriously, sometimes not.
If a pro is unhappy then he should do something else. If he can't, perhaps he
plays cards because he doesn't know how not to. If this is the case, I can
imagine he must be very unhappy, and especially disdainful of all those happy
tourists choosing to come and go as they please.
Heldar wrote:
> Maverick wrote:
>
> "To be healthy, a person has to be productive building a life he can be
> proud of and look back on his accomplishments."
>
gary_...@my-dejanews.com
<Pine.HPP.3.95.990204...@dagger.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
Maverick <bret...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
> Yes...all the card room employees and poker pros could be out working
> producing necessary goods rather than siphon Billions from the Country's
> GNP.
>
>
Well, maybe those that wouldn't be busy running 3-card monte games in the back
of a CTA bus.
TBill
>
> If i quit playing and winning from these folks will their behavoir
> change? No, they will still ruin the world around them in order
> to gamble. I choose to take my share since it will be gifted to
> someone. Why not me?
>
> Best Luck,
> Ed (no, not that Ed!)
>
Not a whole lot of people understand what gambling is all about. Benny Binion
did, and built a sucessful casino around it. No showgirls, no fancy rooms, just a
good gamble.
You hang around with bookies, card players, option traders, etc you begin to think
everyone is this way. You breath, therefore you must gamble.
I read a study that said gambling was good for you. Obviously, you can do too
much of a good thing, but betting a note on the superbowl or throwing off some at
a poker game actually improves your outlook on life.
So, what we are doing at the poker table is providing the best action in the
casino for the bettor, and getting the same.
We really are no different than pro golfers, except they have sponsors. Or option
traders and commodity scalpers. We compete for money.
TBill
***The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.***
Bill
Maverick <bret...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.HPP.3.95.990204...@dagger.ecst.csuchico.edu...
>On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Alan Bostick wrote:
>> Here's how it seems to work: Gambling costs people money. Sometimes it
>> costs them a lot of money. They work harder to earn that money so they
>> can continue to gamble -- and to continue to otherwise make ends meet.
>
>I disagree completely. Better scenario...gambling cost people money...not
>only does their productivity suffer at work from late stressed out nights
>gambling, but the money they could have been using to buy products has now
>been transferred to people who don't produce any material goods with the
>money. This reduction in demand for material goods causes a chain reaction
>throughout the rest of companies that produce material goods resulting in
>a diminished GNP.
>
>> I dunno whether or not I actually buy that argument. For a non-winning
>> player a poker game looks to me like it is an economic inefficiency. A
>> leak in the system.
>
>producing necessary goods rather than siphon Billions from the Country's
>GNP.
But the poker pros are providing a "service", and as you know service is
what the American economy is about these days. It is an indication of
the material wealth of our society that so many of its citizens participate
in activities that, at the margin, produce little of value - either material
or
services - and yet are highly compensated. In this cateogory I would place
lawyers, stock-market day-traders, and the 250th NBA draft pick. In this
context, the poker pro is no more or less a societal parasite.
By what means does a poker pro earn his keep? He does not get much
money from you, me, or any other reasonably adept player. He gets it from
newbies and "fish". Newbies become skillful players or more fish. Fish may
be tourists looking for gambling entertainment (for which poker is just
something to do along with craps, blackjack, slots), pleasantly buzzed
occasionals, socially marginized individuals desparate for the human
interactions of card rooms and casinos, and gambling addicts.
I believe that newbies and tourists are few and far between, at least here
in California. Even in Vegas, after an absence of 2 years I can recognize
more than half the denizens of the Mirage card room. I suspect that
well-off regulars supply most of the pro's income; the pro is being paid
to provide gambling entertainment. In this sense, he can be compared
to Lotto sellers, bookies, and pool-sharks.
On the other hand, as a amateur regular winning Bay-area player, I don't
feel a moral superiority to pros who have no other source of income. Like
them (and probably you), I get most of my gains from regulars
who show up week after week to satisfy their gambling cravings. In fact,
in my regular games of 6-12 and 20-40 hold'em at Lucky Chances, I have
not seen a face I had not seen before in one of the SF area card rooms.
Bill
Heldar
"Do pro poker bankrolls represent a net gain or loss in the overall
savings rate? I dunno. It depends, I should think, on how much of the
losing players' contributions would in fact be saved if not put into the
game rather than being spent on ballgames, stereo equipment, beer, etc."
Considering how many poker pros have wound up broke, dead, drug-addicted,
etc. I doubt many of them are putting their winnings into the bank. They
are recycling the money through the economy. On the other hand, the casinos
that are the big winners in all this do invest some of their money, I'm
sure.
gj bart
> Gary,
> I have had some talk with a 'friend' who is a lawyer. She asked me
>if I see any social benefit to poker. Mind you that I am a contract
>engineer during the day. At 6-7 pm I take that hat off. I looked at
>her a bit funny. Since she is doing death penalty defense and owes
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Uh, what exactly do you find "socially irresponsible" about this?
Should we just execute everybody charged with a capital crime?
gj
Asha34
>
>Or, is poker a form of entertainment for the fish?
Poker is a small business. You do what you need to at the table to make a
profit. To those who stay to be entertained you are an entertainer; to the
unsuspecting you are profitting from their ignorance; from the other pros you
are a competitor; to the students you are a teacher.
Ashley
Asha34
>change? No, they will still ruin the world around them in order
>to gamble. I choose to take my share since it will be gifted to
>someone. Why not me?
>
No disrespect to you intended, but this response is a bad answer. You could
say that someone who sells arms to a terrible dictatorship would just be
replaced by someone else if he stopped; or a person buying child porn would not
make a difference to the pornographer if he stopped because someone else would
buy it.
I think we have to take responsibility for what we do -- whether it is right or
wrong. Even if you know that some else will steal your neighbor's car at 10:00
PM, that is not permission for you to steal it at 9:00 PM.
Do you think there is something wrong with taking money from fellow poker
players...if you were the only one who did it?
Ashley
Wayne D. Cowey
gj bart wrote:
> andrasn...@yahoo.com (andras nagy) writes:
>
> > Gary,
>
> > I have had some talk with a 'friend' who is a lawyer. She asked me
> >if I see any social benefit to poker. Mind you that I am a contract
> >engineer during the day. At 6-7 pm I take that hat off. I looked at
> >her a bit funny. Since she is doing death penalty defense and owes
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Uh, what exactly do you find "socially irresponsible" about this?
> Should we just execute everybody charged with a capital crime?
My understanding of this is that she is trying to get people off of death
row *after* they have been convicted and sentenced. Many of these idealists
have great compassion for any and all murderers, regardless of how horrible
the crime they have committed is. Yes, I am a hard liner who thinks the
death penalty would be an effective deterrent if it was applied swiftly,
instead of 10 to 15 years later. In 1933 a guy took a shot at FDR, missed
him and killed a governor. In 33 days he was fairly tried, sentenced and
executed. That's justice.
Wayne
John Harkness
The death penalty has never proven to be a deterrent. In Renaissance England,
back when they had public hangings, the busiest people at hangings were
pickpockets, despite the fact that they were committing a capitol crime.
It is a highly effective form of revenge, however.
John
gary_...@my-dejanews.com
"Wayne D. Cowey" <wdc...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> gj bart wrote:
>
> > andrasn...@yahoo.com (andras nagy) writes:
> >
> > > Gary,
> >
> > > I have had some talk with a 'friend' who is a lawyer. She asked me
> > >if I see any social benefit to poker. Mind you that I am a contract
> > >engineer during the day. At 6-7 pm I take that hat off. I looked at
> > >her a bit funny. Since she is doing death penalty defense and owes
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Uh, what exactly do you find "socially irresponsible" about this?
> > Should we just execute everybody charged with a capital crime?
>
> My understanding of this is that she is trying to get people off of death
> row *after* they have been convicted and sentenced. Many of these idealists
> have great compassion for any and all murderers, regardless of how horrible
> the crime they have committed is. Yes, I am a hard liner who thinks the
> death penalty would be an effective deterrent if it was applied swiftly,
> instead of 10 to 15 years later. In 1933 a guy took a shot at FDR, missed
> him and killed a governor. In 33 days he was fairly tried, sentenced and
> executed. That's justice.
>
> Wayne
Come on Wayne. At the recent conference on death penalty law in Chicago I
think the number of special guests they had was 33. All people who have been
sentenced and later found to be innocent, luckily before the execution. Our
government kills a lot of innocent people Wayne. A whole lot.
Kev
keV jumps back in ...
*** It's all about competition. ***
[mega snippage]
keV originally wrote:
>> But, when I win, I never feel like a leech, wiseguy, gambler, or for
>> that matter, much of an entertainer either. We pay the cardrooms a
>> decent amount to provide the forum for our competition, we try to
>> prepare ourselves for victory, the smart ones try to enjoy ourselves
>> while we are "at work". We encourage the amateurs to participate for
>> the sustenance of the competition.
> gary_...@my-dejanews.com wrote
>
> I'm curious Kev. Do you play for a living? I don't mean that questin as a
> slam. It's just that I've never actually meet a poker pro who, at some time
> or another, hasn't worried about his compulsive gambling urges. Or hasn't
> felt like a leech when he sees someone take a 20 minute break to go rob a
> bank for more chips, or sell his car in the bar adjacent to the poker room,
> or take out a 2nd mortage on his home in the poker room with an
> investor/loan shark, or sell his business at the table, or conduct home
> invasions during the day to get money to play poker -- all to get more
> chips. I've seen all those things happen at AJ's btw.
yes, i'm a pro. i do alright.
(on 2-2-99 i won the Crystal Park Challenge #2)
although i don't really think of myself as a "poker player"
other things are more important to me.
poker is not my life, it is my current source of income.
if you meet me,
i may prove to be an exception to those pros you've met so far.
(i'd LIKE to think i am an exception, even if you DON'T meet me. --
i'm not all that fond of poker pros, in general)
i don't believe i have compulsive gambling urges. i am not addicted.
i truly don't feel like i am gambling at all. i compete in poker
games where i have an edge (resulting from my acquired skill).
although EVERYTHING is relative, and personal beliefs do differ
wildly, i abhor a tremendous amount of human behaviour.
i approve of selfishness and self-sufficiency.
i disapprove harming others.
my jury is hung on self-destructive behaviour.
i don't approve of it for myself, but frankly,
self-destructive behaviour in others is a lot easier to accept !
it's a sad fact of life, but i believe it is often a choice.
if you choose to kill yourself, i
only ask if you were successful or not.
if someone chooses to take out a 2nd mortgage,
_I_ don't have a problem with that. i'd prefer we all took
responsibility for our own lives and actions. the ugly human
behaviours you've witnessed at AJ's
have little to do with poker, IMO, they have to do with human choices.
i don't do those things, and i don't facilitate those who might.
i don't borrow or lend money in a casino. i don't cheat or steal.
i try to prevent these types of things from happening in my personal
environment, including the poker games i compete in.
but these things still happen. way too regularly. humans suck.
but let's get back to poker.
if someone sits in my game with money, it may have come from a dowry,
a drug sale, bank robbery, ransom, pai gow winnings, a cash advance,
or in extreme cases, a players' paycheck or poker bankroll.
outside the game, i may disapprove of the activities persued
to get this money. or i may not. i wouldn't do it, but i may not
care if someone skims money from their employer, raids their kids'
college fund, borrows $100 from mom for "food", or gambles with the
rent money.
i'm not going to judge if everyone else is living up to my standards.
they're probably not. but when they sit down at the poker table . . .
*** It's all about competition. ***
>> (BTW, observe how many top competitors began as amateurs).
>Every poker pro began as an amateur.
>Gary Carson
I knew that. And I meant that to apply to all competitive endeavors,
not just poker. My point was that we've all paid our dues,
and the best will prosper. there will always be amateurs.
very few of them will become successful pros. those who win
should not feel any remorse over this. we all compete
and the "best" will prevail. Amateurs, keep coming at us, and
we'll defeat the vast majority of you, but some of you will
learn, succeed, and kick the butts of the current winners.
*** It's all about competition. ***
-----------------------------
> John Moser <mos...@execpc.com> wrote:
> For many of us have derived the fuel to continue our various pursuits
> from the belief that our work was meaningful, only to learn later
> that it really didn't mean much in the big picture.
> Who we are is much greater quantity than the answer to the question:
> What do we do?!
Hear Hear!
-----------------------------
> Heldar wrote:
> Maverick is of course correct (in saying)
>> "To be healthy, a person has to be productive building a life he can be
>> proud of and look back on his accomplishments."
> the fact that they are in their own little world where this
> isn't possible probably is indeed what frustrates so many poker pros.
One's accomplishments do NOT need to be in the form of
goods and services to look back and be proud.
Besides, nearly all people, not just poker pros,
are in their own little world, leading lives of quiet desperation.
I am not frustrated by my choices. i may always choose differently.
------------------------------
> gary_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> Maverick <bret...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>> Yes...all the card room employees and poker pros could be out working
>> producing necessary goods rather than siphon Billions from the Country's
>> GNP.
> Well, maybe those that wouldn't be busy running 3-card monte games
> in the back of a CTA bus.
precisely.
it's really not about poker.
----------------------------------------
> "Bill" <wc...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> It is an indication of the material wealth of our society that
> so many of its citizens participate in activities that,
> at the margin, produce little of value - either material or services -
> and yet are highly compensated. In this cateogory I would place lawyers,
> stock-market day-traders, and the 250th NBA draft pick.
> In this context, the poker pro is no more or less a societal parasite.
a similarly valid point.
ask yourself which people, or which professions
produce the most good, or value to society.
then ask your neighbor.
the answers won't be the same.
keV also originally wrote:
Money won playing poker doesn't need to go into a black hole.
I can and do use my winnings to improve the quality of life for
those I care about. Society does benefit.
------------------------------------------
> ash...@aol.com (Asha34) wrote:
>> Is poker a scam to run on unsuspecting dupes?
>
>> Or, is poker a form of entertainment for the fish?
> Poker is a small business. You do what you need to at the table to make a
> profit. To those who stay to be entertained you are an entertainer; to the
> unsuspecting you are profitting from their ignorance; from the other pros
> you are a competitor; to the students you are a teacher.
a) Not everyone is entertained.
b) Even the ignorant profit some of the time.
c) Few "students" learn.
BUT, in a real sense, all of us are competitors.
*** It's all about competition. ***
that's all for now
------------------------------------------
Heldar
"Yes, I am a hard liner who thinks the death penalty would be an effective
deterrent if it was applied swiftly,
instead of 10 to 15 years later."
Wayne, I love your insights on the game of poker and on The Unmentionable
One. But the death penalty is subject to far too many emotional beliefs
that are not back up by the facts.
For example, a study done at Tufts University showed that, in the month
after an execution, murders increased, not decreased. The death penalty is
not a deterrent. On the contrary, it appears to encourage people to "take
the law into their own hands", presumably because there's some SOB who, in
their humble opinion, deserves to die just like that guy the state just
offed. So if we're going to have a death penalty, we need a different
rationale from "deterrence".
The death penalty doesn't save money -- if you take all the costs of trial
and appeals (and I hope no one is suggesting we do away with either of
those, considering how many innocent people go to death row -- ever see The
Thin Blue Line?), it is more expensive to execute someone, that to lock them
up and throw away the key. So if we're going to have a death penalty,
instead of life without parole, we need a different rationale from
"economics".
The death penalty doesn't prevent recidivism. A convicted burglar is far
more likely to commit a murder after getting out of prison, than is a
convicted murderer. I presume no one is suggesting that we execute the
burglars just to make sure they never kill anyone.
The only "valid" (if you consider this valid) reason for the death penalty
is that it satisfies the urge for revenge. If you believe that satisfying
the urge for revenge has enough value to outweigh all the prices society
pays for having a death penalty, then by all means support it. because for
you it has positive EV. Otherwise, you should oppose it, because for
society, it has negative EV.
P.S. See how cleverly I worked poker in at the end, sort of?
andr...@my-dejanews.com
just self righteous for free ;-)
In article <broncoF...@netcom.com>,
bro...@netcom.com (gj bart) wrote:
> andrasn...@yahoo.com (andras nagy) writes:
>
> > Gary,
>
> > I have had some talk with a 'friend' who is a lawyer. She asked me
> >if I see any social benefit to poker. Mind you that I am a contract
> >engineer during the day. At 6-7 pm I take that hat off. I looked at
> >her a bit funny. Since she is doing death penalty defense and owes
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Uh, what exactly do you find "socially irresponsible" about this?
> Should we just execute everybody charged with a capital crime?
>
>
> >someone about 40k which she has no intention on paying back... and she
> >points fingers about social responsibility. This whole agenda is
> >utter total bullshit !! The US is full of lawyers, brokers, other
> >types of 'carreeres' of no merit whatsoevever. What harm is to
> >ad poker ??????????
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
andr...@my-dejanews.com
John,
I respect people's opinions as long as they respect mine !!!!!
The one reason you forgot from your list as for the death penalty
- is that that person executed can't and won't do the crime again !
Proponents of the death penalty don't (always) care about 'deterent' factor.
We just don't want the same murderer come out in 10 years and do the same
thing over again. Which happens at alarming frequency as well.
I pay taxes to society to protect me - not from Sadam but some asshole
junkie down the street. I don't want the innocent to die but the holes
in the justice system can't be the reason to exclude the death penalty.
There are too many 'busy-bodies' in the US (like my lawyer) who has some
mental imballance and loves the crazy MF'ers on death row.(regardless of
what their did prior) - do let it happen to you ;-)
In article <36BAB331...@netcom.ca>,
John Harkness <j...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> Wayne D. Cowey wrote:
>
> > gj bart wrote:
> >
> > > andrasn...@yahoo.com (andras nagy) writes:
> > >
> > > > Gary,
> > >
> > > > I have had some talk with a 'friend' who is a lawyer. She asked me
> > > >if I see any social benefit to poker. Mind you that I am a contract
> > > >engineer during the day. At 6-7 pm I take that hat off. I looked at
> > > >her a bit funny. Since she is doing death penalty defense and owes
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > Uh, what exactly do you find "socially irresponsible" about this?
> > > Should we just execute everybody charged with a capital crime?
> >
> > My understanding of this is that she is trying to get people off of death
> > row *after* they have been convicted and sentenced. Many of these idealists
> > have great compassion for any and all murderers, regardless of how horrible
> > the crime they have committed is. Yes, I am a hard liner who thinks the
> > death penalty would be an effective deterrent if it was applied swiftly,
> > instead of 10 to 15 years later. In 1933 a guy took a shot at FDR, missed
> > him and killed a governor. In 33 days he was fairly tried, sentenced and
> > executed. That's justice.
> >
> > Wayne
>
> The death penalty has never proven to be a deterrent. In Renaissance
England,
> back when they had public hangings, the busiest people at hangings were
> pickpockets, despite the fact that they were committing a capitol crime.
>
> It is a highly effective form of revenge, however.
>
> John
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
she...@pcisys.net
kev...@NOSPAMmindspring.com wrote:
> if someone sits in my game with money, it may have come from a dowry,
> a drug sale, bank robbery, ransom, pai gow winnings, a cash advance,
> or in extreme cases, a players' paycheck or poker bankroll.
Thanks for this last post, Kevin. It was interesting. I am serious
about the bankroll part and my comments follow. I fully realize that
for most individuals a bankroll is essential and rightfully so.
I have a savings account that I put money into and retrieve money from
when I want to do something. Essentially, I am playing from my paycheck.
In October I had a separate bankroll but now I have some new clothes,
two new belt buckles, etc. Presently I don't have a bankroll, but I take
what I can afford from my paychecks after the bills and savings. Then I
play poker and enjoy a day out. If I win, the money goes into the savings
account. I will again put the winnings in the separate savings account in
the near future, but so far my losses have offset my winnings so the
winning account is zero (except for the required fee).
Am I doing this backwards? Comments welcome.
Thanks;
Sherman Willden
she...@pcisys.net
Alan Bostick
Maverick <bret...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
> Because being a poker pro defeates the constructive purpose of life.
> To be healthy, a person has to be productive building a life he can be
> proud of and look back on his accomplishments. Only thing poker pros have
> is tournament wins and notoriety in cardplayer/card rooms...and money
> taken from productive people...and a life spent in a smoky card room
> filled with hateful people with mostly no lives who say the same dumb
> poker sayings each day.
It's a small view of life that holds that the only place one can find purpose
and accomplishment is in one's job.
For example, who has led a richer life: the person who went to college,
got a great job as a software engineer, made major contributions to
several hit applications, received the accolades of her peers, and
bought a big house in Los Altos Hills; or the person who raised up a
child to be strong, wise, and moral, and while doing so paid for that
child's food and clothing and shelter with money won at card tables?
Then there are the poker 'pros' for whom playing is a means to an end --
keeping body and soul together and raising money while trying to break
into movies, or while trying to write the novel or screenplay that will
make it big.
If a dear friend calls in the middle of the night in despair and
eventually gets off the phone with a smile in her voice ready to finally
get some sleep and face the next day, it doesn't matter one whit whether
I'm a poker pro, a brain surgeon, a prison guard, or a drug dealer; the
friend's heartsease is worth more than gold, and I've made the world a
little bit better.
John Harkness
andr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> John,
> I respect people's opinions as long as they respect mine !!!!!
> The one reason you forgot from your list as for the death penalty
> - is that that person executed can't and won't do the crime again !
> Proponents of the death penalty don't (always) care about 'deterent' factor.
> We just don't want the same murderer come out in 10 years and do the same
> thing over again.
Then the problem is with sentencing laws, isn't it?
John
Heldar
innocent, you can let them out.
Glace
>
> In article <36bafea9....@news.mindspring.com>,
> kev...@NOSPAMmindspring.com wrote:
> > a drug sale, bank robbery, ransom, pai gow winnings, a cash advance,
> > or in extreme cases, a players' paycheck or poker bankroll.
>
> about the bankroll part and my comments follow. I fully realize that
> for most individuals a bankroll is essential and rightfully so.
>
> I have a savings account that I put money into and retrieve money from
> when I want to do something. Essentially, I am playing from my paycheck.
> In October I had a separate bankroll but now I have some new clothes,
> two new belt buckles, etc. Presently I don't have a bankroll, but I take
> what I can afford from my paychecks after the bills and savings. Then I
> play poker and enjoy a day out. If I win, the money goes into the savings
> account. I will again put the winnings in the separate savings account in
> the near future, but so far my losses have offset my winnings so the
> winning account is zero (except for the required fee).
>
> Am I doing this backwards? Comments welcome.
>
> Thanks;
>
> Sherman Willden
> she...@pcisys.net
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
A well known degenerate gambler goes up to his best friend. "I need
$1000.00 for my wifes operation" he says. "oh no" his buddy says "I know
you and you just want to go play poker and need a bankroll".."Bullshit"
the gambler says "I already HAVE that money"...
gary_...@my-dejanews.com
andr...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
> John,
> I respect people's opinions as long as they respect mine !!!!!
> The one reason you forgot from your list as for the death penalty
> - is that that person executed can't and won't do the crime again !
> Proponents of the death penalty don't (always) care about 'deterent' factor.
> We just don't want the same murderer come out in 10 years and do the same
Besides the rather uncomfortable fact that we often convict people who are
innocent of the crime, murder has the lowest recidivism of any crime. A
large scale "natural experiment" was done here in Texas when we had to
release 100 or so people from death row back in the 70's. One did commit
another murder, and that's pretty bad. But, only one. Think about a similar
group of rapists or burglarers.
> I pay taxes to society to protect me -
LOL
No you don't. The SC has ruled many times that the governemt has no duty
whatsoever to protect any individual from anything. Hundreds (thousands?) of
failure to protect lawuits against government agencies have failed over the
years.
Gary Carson
Asha34
It seems that you want to punish murderers swiftly and permanently so they
can't come back into society to kill again. The deterrent works by keeping
THEM from killing again. I understand and respect this argument.
You also do not seem too concerned about the occasional (let's be honest: RARE)
person who is wrongfully executed. Probably, if you added them all up they
would not amount to one tenth of the people who were murdered by convicted
murderers who were let out on parole or pardon or furlough. If the net amount
of lives lost by wrongful convictions is fewer than the lives saved by
preventing murderers from killing again than maybe capital punishment is
justified.
Would you agree?
If so, then consider this. Why not just execute accused murderers without a
full trial. Have the police present the case immediately to a judge and have
him sentence the accused right away. And carry out the sentence immediately.
It's true there would be more innocent people convicted and executed. But in
the long run I'm sure you'd end up saving lives.
Think of all of the lives taken by accused murders who really did it but who
get off because of some clever lawyer. Think of the people they kill. Think
of all of the lives we would save if we executed them. Our highly touted
criminal justice system just works to keep them free so they can kill again.
Why not just truncate and simplify the process. True, a few more innocent
people would die but everything has a cost.
One last thing. If we're going to have a death sentence I'm opposed to making
it look painless and humane. I think we should make it look as gruesome and
horrible as it is -- and in the process maybe do some good.
Since we're going to take their life anyway, we might as well get the most bang
for the buck so to speak.
First off, televise it on pay per view and give the money to the victim's
family. How many millions of people would pay to watch that show? Turn their
morbid interest into real dollars that could assist the victim's family.
Secondly, really have the murderer give back to society by taking his organs
for donations. And, if it's deterrent you want, do it on the pay per view show
with no anesthesia. Pretty terrible, no? But then, why not? Better than
pretending that executions are somehow humane.
Ashley
McCrays
snip > Why not just execute accused murderers without a
>full trial.
It seems somebody is WAY off topic.
Rein it in boys.
Rick M
"What a winner doesn't know, a gambler understands"
-Heart
Wayne D. Cowey
Heldar wrote:
> Life without parole solves this problem. Then if you find out they were
> innocent, you can let them out.
But "Life without parole" isn't life without parole. The same bleeding
hearts that want to get the scumbag off death row then have great sympathy
for the guy wasting away in his cell and with new pleadings get his sentence
reduced, commuted, etc. and finally he gets out. If "life without parole"
was actually, genuinely, no fooling, for real, sit-in-the-cell-till-you-die,
even if you live to be 120, then I could accept that as a reasonable
alternative to the death penalty. But it isn't.
Wayne
Wayne D. Cowey
Asha34 wrote:
> It seems that you want to punish murderers swiftly and permanently so they
> can't come back into society to kill again. The deterrent works by keeping
> THEM from killing again. I understand and respect this argument.
Yes.
> You also do not seem too concerned about the occasional (let's be honest: RARE)
> person who is wrongfully executed. Probably, if you added them all up they
> would not amount to one tenth of the people who were murdered by convicted
> murderers who were let out on parole or pardon or furlough. If the net amount
> of lives lost by wrongful convictions is fewer than the lives saved by
> preventing murderers from killing again than maybe capital punishment is
> justified.
>
> Would you agree?
Yes. I have long maintained that the question of which cost fewer innocent lives
is a valid arguement.
> If so, then consider this. Why not just execute accused murderers without a
> full trial. Have the police present the case immediately to a judge and have
> him sentence the accused right away. And carry out the sentence immediately.
> It's true there would be more innocent people convicted and executed. But in
> the long run I'm sure you'd end up saving lives.
No. This would end up costing more innocent lives. Giving too much power to the
government will always be abused, and turned against the citizens. Examples are
numerous in history. BTW, 18 years ago, I worked as an armed plain-clothes store
detective, and we had a number of retired cops working for the store in the same
capacity. I was "accepted" as somebody they could talk in front of and heard at
least two stories of police street executions. In one case the greaseball murdered
an elderly Cstore clerk. A few minutes later the cops, who had seen him run out of
the store, cornered him, still carrying the bag of money and the gun. Gball throws
down gun, cop says, "Like Hell." In the other, two cops arrive at a Cstore
robbery in progress. Crook has a two-shot .22 caliber derringer. He fires both
shots at the cops, wounding one. Other one fires back, misses due to being
stressed and excited. Realizes that crook is empty, regains control, doesn't miss.
> Think of all of the lives taken by accused murders who really did it but who
> get off because of some clever lawyer.
Like OJ.
> Think of the people they kill. Think
> of all of the lives we would save if we executed them. Our highly touted
> criminal justice system just works to keep them free so they can kill again.
The system is strongly out of balance. It needs to be balanced, but not put out of
balance in the other direction.
> Why not just truncate and simplify the process. True, a few more innocent
> people would die but everything has a cost.
See above argument about giving the government too much power.
> One last thing. If we're going to have a death sentence I'm opposed to making
> it look painless and humane. I think we should make it look as gruesome and
> horrible as it is -- and in the process maybe do some good.
No point in cruelty.
> Secondly, really have the murderer give back to society by taking his organs
> for donations.
Why not? I get tired of reading the defense attorney's argument at sentencing
which always seems to say, "If executing (insert name of slimeball) would bring
(innocent victim) back then I would pull the switch myself, but it can't, so
don't." That way the bad guy can save a number of lives. Preferred method of
execution would be by blood tap. Anesthesia couldn't be used because you don't
want that in the blood, but it would be painless, except for the needle prick in
the arm. There is no pain to death by blood loss. The person just gets very light
headed, then exits. Medical types then hurriedly harvest the organs. Recipients
could already be tissue matched in advance. I see no moral problem. Let he/she
who wrongfully took innocent human life, give their own life to save other lives.
And yes, I have read Larry Niven. Love his work
> And, if it's deterrent you want, do it on the pay per view show
> with no anesthesia.
It is a shameful necessity. We close the door when we go to the toilet.
> Pretty terrible, no? But then, why not? Better than
> pretending that executions are somehow humane.
See above. Yes, I am a hard-liner. I have lost all sympathy for the earthly lives
of certain elements of society. Their souls is another matter. But this is way
way too far afield of poker, so I won't go into that. BTW, Sklansky, in Card
Player, in his column, "Fighting Fuzzy Thinking" had some words on capital
punishment.
I hereby drop the subject.
If anybody wants to talk to me about it by email, that's OK.
Wayne
Asha34
No more posts on this subject.
Ashley
James L. Hankins
Wayne,
I do not know which state you live in, but I can assure you that in the
federal system and in the state of Oklahoma where I live and practice
criminal defense, life without parole really is life in prison until the
day the defendant dies. No shit.
Of course, the legislature can change the law at some point in the
future or the Supreme Court could interpret the constitution in such a
way that would affect these sentences, but those events are always
possible no matter what the sentence is -- even death.
I do not have all the answers either, but in some jurisdictions, LWOP
means what it stands for.
James L. Hankins
gj bart
>Wayne, I couldn't resist responding to your post.
>It seems that you want to punish murderers swiftly and permanently so they
>can't come back into society to kill again. The deterrent works by keeping
>THEM from killing again. I understand and respect this argument.
>You also do not seem too concerned about the occasional (let's be honest: RARE)
>person who is wrongfully executed. Probably, if you added them all up they
>would not amount to one tenth of the people who were murdered by convicted
>murderers who were let out on parole or pardon or furlough. If the net amount
>of lives lost by wrongful convictions is fewer than the lives saved by
>preventing murderers from killing again than maybe capital punishment is
>justified.
I don't know this is all that rare. Today's paper reports of a man
just released after 17 years on Death Row, after another's confession.
He was almost executed, saved only by one of those famous "technicalities".
There have been "at least 75 death row reversals and 513
executions", so the odds of making the ultimate FUBAR are higher than
a pocket pair making a set on the flop.
gj
Topset
So? Why should deterrence be at issue. You execute people for the same reason
you shoot a mad dog; not to deter other mad dogs, but to get rid of the mad
dog.
Insofar as there are innocents being executed, perhaps a stricter set of
guidelines should be drawn to prevent faulty executions.
Greg Gensicki
I'm not live, it only looks like I play that way.