As much B.S. as there is in poker, there is at least the comfort of knowing that in the end, it is a pure meritocracy and the better player will win. I compete in other areas, where you have the same scumbags and low-lifes you see at the poker table, but in a different pursuit where rules can't be 100% enforced and so cheating/lying/angleshooting can prevail and often do.

At least playing honestly and with a moral code doesn't hurt you at the poker table, but unfortunately that doesn't apply off the felt.

I'm never going to feel bad taking people's money, there are a lot of scumbags out there.

Interesting view.

I was talking with a friend a few months ago about the necessity of occasionally being a douche. Sometimes life puts you in a position where you must be a scumbag, which is a subjective definition anyways due to the ambiguity of "scummy." Luckily for me, these positions are few and far between. For some others, such as politicians or drug dealers, the opportunity and necessity of being scummy is a daily thing. I don't think this inherently makes them bad people. It's just that they've chosen a path in life that often puts them in such positions.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/3...-hand-1689173/

beginner needs the help of 2+2's best first responders imo. Zomg and Cali, I'm looking in your directions.

Not sure if that OP is serious or not.

That's the funny thing about the beginner forum. First step is giving them the benefit of the doubt. Next step is remembering that even if they're trolling, there's probably someone reading it that is really going through that. Then proceed with caution of course.

I dunno, if you choose a job where have you have to lie/cheat/steal on a daily basis, then I think that makes you a scumbag. It's not like these people didn't have better alternatives. I don't know what it takes to be a successful drug dealer, but I would assume it takes some legitimate skills that could be applied in a better line of work.

Maybe so, or maybe it's bred into them. Just imagine all the drug dealers that learned by watching their dads do it, much like many politicians.

Honestly Hold'em isn't fun anymore, I don't know how you guys play it so consistently. I prefer picking on people at O8/stud games rather than finding an occasional drunk spewer in Hold'em.

Here's a good one from today's 0E game: The game's called down, I put my racks on the table and head off to the men's room, get back and see that I can buy the button which I do. 6 limpers and I get a free look w/ the 9-9-4-2.

Flop:

Q-9-9, two s. I check somebody bets, couple of callers, I call, the players between me and bettor fold.

Turn: Don't remember, but insignificant. I check, player bets again, others fold, I raise, he calls.

River: A. I bet, he calls. I roll over the nuts and he shows A-A.

Guy on my left can't hold it in and asks the Aces-full 'don't you make one raise w/ Aces-full?'
Guy answers 'I knew better.'

W.....T.....F....?

You bought the button as a new player? Did they really make you post both big and small blinds as if you missed the blinds?

It was a brand new game and I would've been the BB if I hadn't gone to the men's room.

I thought that could be it, but it still doesn't seem right to me. If you hadn't even been on the list, you could probably have come in behind for free? Worst case should be you have to post just the big blind behind the button, or post in between if that is allowed.

N
I
T

I missed the first hand of the game, there's no getting around it.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/3...61/?highlight=

Wondering why I can't bump this? Perhaps a glitch resulting from forum reformatting?

This is an overly dim view of drug dealing. A lot of people choose drug dealing rationally rather than irrationally - there's an inelastic demand for drugs and there are few legal career paths. There's a certain blame that should be assigned to drug dealers for their personal decisions but there's also a certain blame for societal decisions that we've made that created an awful economic incentive to make bad decisions.

We tie school funding to parental wealth, cut off poor schools from our political districts so we don't worry about them, and then look at the results 15-20 years later when the achievement gap is greatest and realize there's a problem but it's too big to fix with anything but a total overhaul.

We target the suppliers rather than the demanders, and because inelastic demand drives prices up, it just creates economic incentive for people to join the criminal system. Even in the case of the opioid epidemic where the drugs are legal, people are overly blaming pharmaceutical companies. Sure, they (we!) probably should have done a better job of differentiating acute from chronic pain and the FDA should have come down on them (us!) harder earlier. But fundamentally, looking to tinker with the supply side doesn't work because the demand is inelastic - and as Oxycontin prescriptions have normalized, there's a concurrent rise in heroin use.

If I were to predict some kind of legislation that would have the greatest impact on opioid addiction, it wouldn't be executing dealers or pouring money into a dealer reeducation program. It'd probably be something like subsidizing American lanthanide mining. It's not sexy but it tilts the macroeconomic playing field in the communities struggling most with opioids. Plus it provides a useful product whose demand is growing.

I blame cali.

Seriously though, the problem of drug use in America likely will never go away. If instead of the government waging a war on drugs, they regulated every drug and taxed every sale of every drug, and taxed the drug dealers that are currently hoarding big chunks of the American economy, then maybe the problem will become so mainstream that children, teens, and young adults, will become educated on drug use to the point that people will stop dying at record pace due to overdosing on bad drugs, which are plentiful from coast to coast.

That, or just make everyone watch "basketball diaries" at a young and impressionable age to scare the **** out of em.

Exactly the problem. The powers that be have tried for a long time to persecute their way to American sobriety, but clearly that doesn't work. Remember the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s? Nah me neither I'm only 37, but in retrospect it seems the solution of legalization and regulation was the best thing for the people.

parents teach kids drugs are bad, kids don't do drugs. End of cycle

Kids may be impressionable, but they're not robots that can be programmed to make the right decision. They're going to make mistakes. They're going to **** up. They are people with their own minds and the ability to make their own decisions, good or bad as those decisions may be.

Do you really think there are many parents espousing the idea that drugs are good?

Personally I have never even tried any illicit / illegal drug, and have no interest in using. But if the only thing I ever had to go on was that my parents taught me they were bad, I would be more likely to use them, not less. There are very few people whose opinions I respect less than my parents (and of parents in general).

Probably like 50% of people shouldn't have kids. It's obviously a human right, but people can barely get out of bed and not fall over their own feet, much less be responsible for the well-being of a child.

There's no competency test for having kids, with the expected results. Imagine if there was no requirement for a driver's license to drive on the road.

FYP.

Yes, it's that easy. And when you were a kid apparently you were the first and only who didn't think they were the smartest person in every room.