Quote:
Originally Posted by DOOM@ALL_CAPS
You really think that society would be better if people gambled for more hours? It might be better for them, but for society?
One positive: you provide a deterrent against more people gambling as they know there are pros who are much better than them playing against them.
Horribly worded by me, I apologize (never been a very good writer, so it's common to not explain myself well on forums, lol)
I was more saying, if he played the same amount of time whether I was at the table or not (say his wife said he can play for 3 hours then he must come home for dinner)...by me not being there, and another random taking my place, he'll theoretically lose less, but get the same enjoyment out of the game. (maybe he'll even enjoy it more because his hourly will be less negative, hence it's easier for him to get "lucky" and have a winning session since he doesn't have to get "as lucky" to turn his theoretical average losing session into a winning one, thereby having more frequent winning sessions and more "fun")
I do agree what you said about deterring people could be a positive. But I'd argue it's a very small positive. And maybe even the reverse exists (many of my friends/acquaintances have "tried" to be a pro because of the money I was making...4 have quit their job, failed, then went back to work, for lower pay and lower on the corporate ladder...also 1 friend is now a pro, living in mexico, and it's "because of me")