duhh otherwise it'd be boringg

As a famous star said in a scene, "I try to keep the gambling to a minimum."

Well, now you have another grey line - lets say i give you 2.1 (11/10 to us brits, +110 to you americans) on a single coin flip but insist you do it for 100% of your NET Worth. You'd have the best side of the bet but would be some of the most reckless gambling possible.

Keep it simples, if you are risking money and there's a chance to lose, you're gambling, **** what other people think if they don't understand either explain yourself of leave them in ignorance. Gambling is an inevitable part of human life, people have been doing it for millenniums, the Romans gambled, medievel english kings gambled, still in 2019 many countries make gambling illegal and everyone there still gambles.

Most important is that even if we decide to call gambling with an edge something else than gambling, that would not change how people judge you. You can give your fancy term for being a poker player if that makes you sleep better thinking that makes a made up person happy but people will still think playing poker is bad. If we got everyone in the world to call +ev gambling 'super duper intelligent totally not gambling but use of skill', they still think you're a degenerate gambler.

The question isn't what we should call +ev gambling, it's what should also be referred to as gambling that everyone else does. Putting money in your own business is gambling, but many people do it and people encourage it. "Well at least you took your shot". Nobody tells their aunt to go to GA because they bought a ton of lottery tickets for new year, because that 'gambling' is just "some fun for new year". Often you need people to realize they do something themselves that they judge others for before they stop judging.

That would be degenerate gambling right? haha. you can have nitty gambles, small gambles, big gambles, gambles where you have a huge edge (AA on AA3r vs 54s thats drawing to runner runner straight flush)

but jeez well said 100

If I told someone +EV gambling is "super duper intelligent totally not gambling but use of skill" and they think im a degenerate gambler because of that, come on haha my statement was so explicit so if they infer the opposite id chalk it up as they think im just full of sh*t or they are delusional.

Overall for now I agree with the other guy, i like a brief explanation then leaving them in their beliefs after that, im tired of deep explanations and debating with stubborn people =(

Remember all those guys who appeared on High Stakes Poker back in the day? If you'd asked me at the time, I'd have said "They aren't really gambling -- they're advantage players, and they're the best of the best. That's how they get to play for such high stakes -- because the poker economy is like a pyramid and the money flows up."

Today though, I watch those shows and I can't help but think of how many of them have been outed on NVG as being busto. Does the roll call of the busto outstretch those who we'd still regard as winners? Half of them could feature in a remake of Poker Bustouts.

I disagree with your disagreement. There’s a distinction between investment and gambling, although one can ‘invest’ in a manner which is indistinguishable from gambling.

A second opinion.

There should only be one "d" in Abbaddabba's screen name.

My understanding of investing is risking money in something that wont guarantee profit (thats gambling)

Im pretty sure some are still bellagio regs like jen harman and antonio? As i have heard

But i think they just fell behind the times, they didnt study GTO, poker got alot more studied and players got wayyyyyyyy better. So they were winning players then but as competition got tougher they lost

not really a gambler. im risk averse and only got into poker because of the strategy aspect

There’s no investment that’s risk free. Consequently, all investment is gambling if you extend the definition far enough. Say you buy bonds issued by the government of a developed nation, by this definition of ‘investment’, that’s ‘gambling’, but in fact your money is safer than being deposited in a typical bank. Kind of strange to call that gambling.

Ill remember the run you over =D

Buying a stock that doesn't pay dividends should be called a "speculation", the buyer has reasons to expect the purchase to be profitable but there is no extent of guarantee(I'm using this term loosely) of a return or of the principle, therefore it should not be called an investment.

I would say a secured loan is an investment as is dividend yielding stock but less so.

Buying a stock should not be considered gambling unless one selected the stock randomly, unless we are back to the point of calling all risk, gambling.

Farming is a gamble cuz you will lose next to them ***** ass monsanto farms. Get yo **** straight you ****ing fool!!!!!

Also how the **** can you not use curse words in this ***** ass degen forum? Just wtf?

Sure. I didn't mean to imply that they were all busto. Just that the ones that are busto are probably degenerate gamblers rather than the astute businessmen and investors that I'd originally imagined them to be.

Of course, when you think back on some of the plays -- Benjamine vs Laliberte, Brad Booth vs Phil Ivey, etc. it astonishes me that I didn't have this read on them at the time.

Times where different hahaha :’)

High stakes poker was what reality TV today is to real life, it was entertaining though

I too was fooled as were most. ESPN did an absolutely brilliant job with framing a card game as something glorious and creating hero’s out of degenerates. Some seriously studious scene selection and editing was happening

View PostUnread Today, 02:38 PM
Remove user from ignore listbumpnrun
This message is hidden because bumpnrun is on your ignore list.

And think back to how we booed anybody who *did* play in the type of manner that was more likely to ensure a good return on investment. We jeered at them for being nits as we swooned over the reckless plays of Tom Dwan, insisting that the man was obviously a genius who could see into the future.

Variance? Schmariance!

Even today, I'm emotionally reluctant to acknowledge that Hellmuth was probably right

it's a good thing you're reluctant because he wasn't right

You're objectively wrong.

The act of purchasing stocks clearly matches a variety of entries in any dictionary.

ie:

verb (used without object), gam·bled, gam·bling.
1) to play at any game of chance for money or other stakes.
2) to stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance:


It can accurately be said that when you buy stocks you ARE gambling. But that doesn't mean that the act itself IS gambling because that presupposes that it isn't serving some other function. In cases where people are making prudent financial decisions it's more appropriate to say that the act itself involves gambling.

The same basically is true of poker except that it's a lot more difficult for a lay person to imagine a scenario where a persons intent behind playing poker is strictly for a reasonable expectation of profit and not at all for the enjoyment of a game / the thrill of winning and losing, and so it seems more reasonable to call them gamblers even though it isn't true in some small number of cases.