Very philosophical, but non-responsive.

I had already responded: Because it's good for the game. People who press every edge aren't good for the game.

Try learning something, like the prisoners' dilemma and the tragedy of the commons. The fact that poker is zero-sum doesn't mean it's completely non-cooperative.

Badly,

i think you are looking at this from the wrong standpoint. I think everyone would agree that we need rules that are clear, and are consistently enforced.

You are looking at the rules from the standpoint of 'Are there legitimate and harmless situations that this rule prevents?'. You are using any case where a rule prevents something harmless as a case to invalidate the rule.

Others look at it from the perspective 'Does this rule prevent possible angle shooting or unfair, unethical play?' Even if 99% of the time an action is innocent, if a rule can prevent cheating or unethical play, it is a good rule.

You speak of not pressing edges in order to make new players feel comfortable. Do you not understand that a lot of these rules (rules to prevent regs from colluding, rules to prevent more experienced players from deliberately being ambiguous in their action, rules to prevent more experienced players from tricking new players into revealing information) are there exactly to protect these players?

If the rule is 'Never fold without action to you', then no one will think you are leaning on a fish when you follow the rule.

Dude, take a step back and breath a little. In the context of the rule, no soft play does not mean "press every edge" on every hand.

This all started when you said, "one could legitimately argue that PH Jr. has so many bracelets precisely because he knows how and when to softplay". I would argue that what PH does is pressing his edge by definition - he plays the way he does to win more money.

The others are wrong, and they're FASCISTS. It is better that 99 guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished.

Nevertheless, he does play soft when he believes it is the best line, and that is a critical skill, knowing when a softer line is better.

Here's the difference between what softplay really means to what PH does from time to time:

Softplaying an opponent in the true sense of the word, means, that you deliberately check because you're friends with that particular player(and by "friend" that includes)

A person who you hang out with

Perhaps it's someone who has loaned you money

Perhaps it's someone who has done you a favor and you feel this is your way of repaying him.

whatever it is, it is ALL done due to a personal matter and NOT because that player honestly thinks that checking is the better of all the options.

Whereas when PH does it, it has nothing to do with any of the above; he does it because it's just part of his poker strategy(and as you said) it's a critical SKILL. Again, there's a big difference between using a softer line and softplaying.

Are you really advocating that rules that protect against cheating are unneeded if the majority of people won't cheat?

Now I think you must just be funning us.

Soft play and the best line are non-intersecting sets.

Not necessarily. When I see this happen (which is usually a few times per session), it is a player wanting to go to the bathroom, being utg and not going to be posting his BB because he is taking a short break, going to get some food after the hand, etc. and doesn't feel like wasting another 5 minutes waiting for people to 'hollywood' their actions when he knows he is folding anyway. It usually has very little impact on a game. Again, it is not right, but what are you going to do about it? It is a needle in a haystack issue and no need to get all worked up about. If it was happening continually by the same player and it was not a result of one of the above things, then it becomes an issue and should be addressed.

It usually happens at low limits that have little impact and for issues I stated above. If it were a $10/$25 NL game and someone was doing it somewhat frequently, then yes, it could have some big impact. But again, if someone was doing that at that level, then everyone one else probably wants them at the table irregardless of his poor etiquette. Back to square one again......there are bigger issues to worry about than this.

Do you really not understand that outlawing something because a small minority misuse it to harm others is tyranny? Can you think of something or some process that has never been misused by someone malevolent?

Should we ban urination because someone urinated on the Koran? Or should we ban the Koran?

That's not the point.

Nor was any implication that my list was exhaustive of all possible "benefits to me." Poker or otherwise.

The point is, YOUR mind doesn't get to define or be the judge of what is or isn't a "benefit to me."

So, in your opinion, we should not outlaw murder. Glad we cleared that up.