---

Poker Video: Misc/Other by Joe Tall (Micro/Small Stakes)

Wow, that's brutal. It's casinos like that that make me happy that I mostly play in a home game with no rake, only tips Oh and free food and drinks, often including homemade snacks from this nice older lady who plays (and always seems to win because people try to bluff her haha).

Time Link to 00:32:39

Is there a subliminal "You Suck" here?

@Tommy/Joe/Chris, would love to hear your thoughts on my thoughts on the speaking up issue.

I agree that our opinion factors into many facets of life, including the law. My contention is that it should not when determining right and wrong.

Um, how do you determine what is right and wrong in the first place? It is defined by a set of cultural norms in the area that you grew up.

In certain asian cultures it is on you, you are the moron, if you don't cut in line and wait for your turn, you aren't doing anything wrong if you can "exploit" the system, even if you are hurting others in the process.

In other cultures it is categorically wrong to sleep with your partner before you're married, or even worse with a partner of the same sex. They would vehemently tell you how wrong you are if you did those things and would not understand how you could even fathom defending the other side.

Bottom line is that every value decision about right and wrong will have inherent judgement decisions in them that are tainted by our cultural values and our life experience. Here is where the different shades of gray come in, the line where something turns from "right" into "wrong" is different for many people.

Tommy's answer was perfect, because he presented two extreme examples where we would definitely stand on different sides of the issue (I'm sorry, but if you're not speaking up if it's your mom at the table - shame on you , and if you are speaking up for your worst enemy, too ). Where the actual crossing lies is different for many people and I have no problem with that.

I think speaking up for your worst enemy shows an incredible amount of integrity and I hope that I would do so. I've spoken up for someone who I didn't particularly like (ok, not my worst enemy, I don't even know who that would be lol) and in doing so it knocked me out of that tournament. I find that to be a mark of integrity, not shame.

As for the extreme example scenario, if we leave everything up to social norms, culture, and whatnot, then what if 1 particular culture, let's call it Culture Y, thinks murder, rape, and child molestation are all "right." Does the fact that it being normal in Culture Y make it right?

I'm not proclaiming to know the answers here. I just hope that we as humans have the ability to use reason and logic to determine right & wrong as opposed to opinions, cultural norms, etc. I feel like accepting something as "right" just because everyone around you is doing it is the same reason slaves exist, Jews were/are persecuted, gays are vilified, etc. At what point do we stop hiding behind gray areas and decide "no, ya know what, murder is not cool."

I will admit my ignorance though when it comes to a lot of other cultures. The fact that certain Asian cultures value someone exploiting a system, even when it means doing harm to others, makes me question their entire belief system. How can one value doing harm to others?

I think the key question in all of this is exactly what you posed. How do we determine right and wrong? The golden rule is a great starting point imo. As for cultures believing in different things, does that mean there simply is no right and wrong? If so, then we must extrapolate that to mean that murder, rape, and child abuse being "wrong" is simply a cultural belief. It just so happens that most cultures share that belief.

I guess my hope is that we somehow figure out a scientific way to help determine these things, but maybe that's impossible. Regardless, I still have yet to see a good reason as to how NOT speaking up is right

Tecmo I don't have a lot of thoughts to add, I think everyone reading recognizes you have an idealist viewpoint. Poker is a predatory game at its very nature, and we all have to sleep ok at night with the choices we make. There are some black and white lines the poker world has agreed upon that are not to be crossed, and there are a lot of gray areas.

The discussion about telling the dealer they didn't take enough rake reminds me of a moral debate I once had with somebody while we were playing Texas holdem Bonus (table game) in vegas, and a lot of the dealers make mistakes reading the board and pay you when you should not be paid. On some level all of the EV in the world that we find ourselves on the right side of is caused by others making errors.

I think speaking up for your worst enemy shows an incredible amount of integrity and I hope that I would do so. I've spoken up for someone who I didn't particularly like (ok, not my worst enemy, I don't even know who that would be lol) and in doing so it knocked me out of that tournament. I find that to be a mark of integrity, not shame.

well, I wouldn't. Sorry if that makes me a "wrong" person in your eyes. And just because something is "right" doesn't mean we should always act on it. Have you never jaywalked in the middle of the night? Told a lie?
My mom is a therapist. Sometimes he needs to test people. One of the first 10 questions is: "If you could get into a concert for free, even though you had to pay and nobody would notice, would you do it?" If you say no, then there are two possibilities, either you are lying and the whole test is nullified or you have a more serious problem, which needs to be investigated further - not saying you're mental or anything, but that the answer is highly atypical if you're telling the truth.

As for the extreme example scenario, if we leave everything up to social norms, culture, and whatnot, then what if 1 particular culture, let's call it Culture Y, thinks murder, rape, and child molestation are all "right." Does the fact that it being normal in Culture Y make it right?

I'm not proclaiming to know the answers here. I just hope that we as humans have the ability to use reason and logic to determine right & wrong as opposed to opinions, cultural norms, etc. I feel like accepting something as "right" just because everyone around you is doing it is the same reason slaves exist, Jews were/are persecuted, gays are vilified, etc. At what point do we stop hiding behind gray areas and decide "no, ya know what, murder is not cool."

bring out the big guns, huh?
Most of the examples are way too extreme for the situation you are talking about, like how could I stand for murder and genocide?!?!?!
I think for the most part humanity shuns people that kill other people, because, you know, they are impeding the species overall. However, we don't shun killing a known killer often (death penalty), even though it is a killing just the same.
Americans think they were on the "right" side of WWII, yet they murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki all in the sake of ending the war?
Would you kill a person to save 100? (e.g. the famous train experiment).
Did you think the murder of Osama bin Laden was: "you know what, not cool"? (?"I'm just glad Obama didn't present the 'There's an unstoppable asteroid heading our way' speech." - huh?)

I mean, I seriously don't want to play devil's advocate for people doing genocide, slavery or child molestation, like way to take what I said out of context. Again, I think the world is shades of grey, but child molestation is just a teint of very very very very very very very very very very dark grey - nah, black.

I will admit my ignorance though when it comes to a lot of other cultures. The fact that certain Asian cultures value someone exploiting a system, even when it means doing harm to others, makes me question their entire belief system. How can one value doing harm to others?

I mean harm as in the other person might not enter the train/movie theater, might not get as much food etc. Not as in you're gonna get hurt!

I think the key question in all of this is exactly what you posed. How do we determine right and wrong? The golden rule is a great starting point imo.

I think this is fair for the most part. I try to live by that, too. Perhaps I fail sometimes or other people fail my expectations, but yeah, its a good starting point.

Since I expect nobody to speak up for me at the poker table, except for relatives and very good friends (like at a homegame), I guess it's ok for me not to speak up, if I feel like it

I did not quote the rest of your stuff, because I am not in the mood of going into child molestation, it sounds too much of "think of the children" type of argument.

Tecmo I don't have a lot of thoughts to add, I think everyone reading recognizes you have an idealist viewpoint.

Guilty! Is that a bad thing?

Poker is a predatory game at its very nature, and we all have to sleep ok at night with the choices we make. There are some black and white lines the poker world has agreed upon that are not to be crossed, and there are a lot of gray areas.

The discussion about telling the dealer they didn't take enough rake reminds me of a moral debate I once had with somebody while we were playing Texas holdem Bonus (table game) in vegas, and a lot of the dealers make mistakes reading the board and pay you when you should not be paid. On some level all of the EV in the world that we find ourselves on the right side of is caused by others making errors.

The difference is that someone willingly accepts the risks of being outplayed by a "predator" in a poker game. What they don't willingly accept is possibly being cheated (and I use that term loosely) by losing money outside the lines of the agreed upon rules. At least, that's how I view it.

Is there a subliminal "You Suck" here?

Yeah that didn't sound like either Tommy or Joe...it sounded like Danzasmack?

"I'm just glad Obama didn't present the 'There's an unstoppable asteroid heading our way' speech." - huh?)

Just had to say that I lol'd at this

Yeah that didn't sound like either Tommy or Joe...it sounded like Danzasmack?

I was thinking Rusty since he produces these videos. Not sure though.

well, I wouldn't. Sorry if that makes me a "wrong" person in your eyes.

Wrong person alert!

Have you never jaywalked in the middle of the night? Told a lie?

You keep acting as if I claim to be perfect for some reason. I only attempt to do the right thing as much as possible. Clearly I don't succeed at all times.

My mom is a therapist. Sometimes he needs to test people. One of the first 10 questions is: "If you could get into a concert for free, even though you had to pay and nobody would notice, would you do it?" If you say no, then there are two possibilities, either you are lying and the whole test is nullified or you have a more serious problem, which needs to be investigated further - not saying you're mental or anything, but that the answer is highly atypical if you're telling the truth.

I like how answering a question atypically implies a serious problem lol. Maybe I'm just a hippie who hates conforming?

I think for the most part humanity shuns people that kill other people, because, you know, they are impeding the species overall. However, we don't shun killing a known killer often (death penalty), even though it is a killing just the same.
Americans think they were on the "right" side of WWII, yet they murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki all in the sake of ending the war?
Would you kill a person to save 100? (e.g. the famous train experiment).
Did you think the murder of Osama bin Laden was: "you know what, not cool"?

At that time, I obv was all like "America! F*ck Yea!" However, when you think about it, if we condemn killing, we should condemn all killing. As Gandhi pointed out, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. That means Hitler was only much worse than America because he killed more people, not because he killed people and we didn't. And that's not much of a moral high ground. "I killed less people than you! I win!" lol I'm not familiar with the train experiment, but it sounds like a situation where you should kill 1 to not kill 100, similar to WW2 imo. Doesn't make the killing right, but if those are you only 2 options, then it sort of becomes right by default. Until of course you reveal hidden door #3, save all of them! Then you look bad.

I mean, I seriously don't want to play devil's advocate for people doing genocide, slavery or child molestation, like way to take what I said out of context. Again, I think the world is shades of grey, but child molestation is just a teint of very very very very very very very very very very dark grey - nah, black.

I didn't mean to imply that you said anything of the sort. I brought those out to serve the point that in a world of grays, child molestation is also gray. But like you said, so gray that you need a special tool to realize it's not black

I mean harm as in the other person might not enter the train/movie theater, might not get as much food etc. Not as in you're gonna get hurt!

More shades of gray imo!

Since I expect nobody to speak up for me at the poker table, except for relatives and very good friends (like at a homegame), I guess it's ok for me not to speak up, if I feel like it.

\
Unless of course Tecmo was there!

I think we've probably exhausted this debate by this point, or at least we're both exhausted by it. gg/nh.

My mom is a therapist. Sometimes he needs to test people.

Can we revoke Tecmo's troll status for not catching this?

Can we revoke Tecmo's troll status for not catching this?

Oh don't worry. I caught it. I let it go though in light of the fact that I've been pestering bellatrix enough

The difference is that someone willingly accepts the risks of being outplayed by a "predator" in a poker game. What they don't willingly accept is possibly being cheated (and I use that term loosely) by losing money outside the lines of the agreed upon rules. At least, that's how I view it.

cliff notes: I think its convenient and egotistical of you to claim to know what others willingly accept as 'part of the game'.

I think how you view it is a quaint rationalization that makes you feel ok about taking money from people of less skill and/or intelligence than yourself. Many many many losing poker players do not think their opponents are 'better' players than them, heck some of them don't think there is any skill in poker whatsoever. There are also many losing players who are simply gambling addicts, they don't think about words like "outplayed", all they know is the feeling they get when they go home with empty pockets, it is an addict's high, a rush, a compulsion, they do not care for one second the circumstances surrounding how they lost the money, poker was just a convenient way to fuel their addiction.

I have seen countless examples of both of the above in live cash games, and online as well, although its easier to ignore what is happening online and think that a guy is just there for the "competition" or something while he's going crazy in chat and frantically trying to make another deposit to his account as quickly as possible to continue fueling his addiction.

I am not saying these things to paint the poker world as a terrible place filled with black hearted thieves taking money from helpless and sick people, but more to say that if you (or anyone) don't recognize that many of your opponents fall into these categories, than you are rationalizing at least as much as the people that wouldn't speak up in some of the situations discussed in this thread.