Why are most APs conservative and most poker pros liberal?

As you guys know, I'm part of both the poker pro and AP community, though I'm more closely aligned with the poker side.

However, in conversations about politics with both APs and poker pros, along with my observations of their social media, I've come to the following conclusion:

Most APs are conservative. Most poker pros are liberal.

I've been trying to figure out the reason for this. Both are individualistic, capitalistic pursuits. Both are using better knowledge and skill to take money from the ploppies -- whether directly or indirectly, many of whom can't afford it.

I think it's because of the nature of the game. APs are indirectly beating the ploppies (the ploppies lose to the casinos, the APs beat the casinos for some of that money), whereas poker pros are directly taking the money from the ploppies. Thus, APs walk away with zero feelings of guilt (they're beating heartless corporations which seek to extract money from addicted gamblers), whereas poker pros often feel bad that they are beating others who don't really have a shot.

This causes poker pros to skew liberal, because they (erroneously) feel that voting Democrat and supporting leftist causes will negate the societal harm they're doing by taking money from gambling-addicted ploppies.

APs, on the other hand, constantly see their careers as a battle between the individual (the AP) and the collective (the casino), and thus the individualistic nature of conservatism appeals to them.

I doubt that many think about it this deeply, but I believe these are the subconscious forces at play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I think it's because of the nature of the game. APs are indirectly beating the ploppies (the ploppies lose to the casinos, the APs beat the casinos for some of that money), whereas poker pros are directly taking the money from the ploppies. Thus, APs walk away with zero feelings of guilt (they're beating heartless corporations which seek to extract money from addicted gamblers), whereas poker pros often feel bad that they are beating others who don't really have a shot.

This causes poker pros to skew liberal, because they (erroneously) feel that voting Democrat and supporting leftist causes will negate the societal harm they're doing by taking money from gambling-addicted ploppies.

---

Dan, it seems like that you are implying that poker pros have consciences, please, they are no different than vampires. If they lean more to the left it is only because they hope that the government will give out more free programs giving ploppies more opportunities to head to the casino.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoSox

Dan, it seems like that you are implying that poker pros have consciences, please, they are no different than vampires. If they lean more to the left it is only because they hope that the government will give out more free programs giving ploppies more opportunities to head to the casino.

---

My favorite one to scoff at is Annie Duke running around barefoot and pregnant.
MickeyCrimm may know her well as she is from his area and Crystal Palace.
I used to deal to her suckers as she would sweat their action.
They paid her to give them advice on how to play after each hand was finished.
Talk about a literal vampire right in front of me as she was basically on their necks.
She got into that whole world of selling boot camps.
Plenty of other scams to talk about in poker but why bother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoSox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I think it's because of the nature of the game. APs are indirectly beating the ploppies (the ploppies lose to the casinos, the APs beat the casinos for some of that money), whereas poker pros are directly taking the money from the ploppies. Thus, APs walk away with zero feelings of guilt (they're beating heartless corporations which seek to extract money from addicted gamblers), whereas poker pros often feel bad that they are beating others who don't really have a shot.

This causes poker pros to skew liberal, because they (erroneously) feel that voting Democrat and supporting leftist causes will negate the societal harm they're doing by taking money from gambling-addicted ploppies.

---

Dan, it seems like that you are implying that poker pros have consciences, please, they are no different than vampires. If they lean more to the left it is only because they hope that the government will give out more free programs giving ploppies more opportunities to head to the casino.

---

You must have misunderstood my post.

I am a conservative, despite being a poker pro. I've been a conservative ever since I was 12 years old.

I find that poker pros who are liberal tend to be hypocrites -- of the limousine liberal variety. They want to take money from ploppies and live the good life, while patting themselves on the back with the belief that they're still great people. Voting Democrat allows them to do that.

I always find it curious when people in a completely capitalist game, where only the best survive, want anti-capitalist policies for everything else in life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoSox

Dan, it seems like that you are implying that poker pros have consciences, please, they are no different than vampires. If they lean more to the left it is only because they hope that the government will give out more free programs giving ploppies more opportunities to head to the casino.

---

My favorite one to scoff at is Annie Duke running around barefoot and pregnant.
MickeyCrimm may know her well as she is from his area and Crystal Palace.
I used to deal to her suckers as she would sweat their action.
They paid her to give them advice on how to play after each hand was finished.
Talk about a literal vampire right in front of me as she was basically on their necks.
She got into that whole world of selling boot camps.
Plenty of other scams to talk about in poker but why bother.

---

Annie was a reprehensible person who has since quit poker, and now makes money on the public speaking circuit.

She was involved in two major poker scandals. First, she was a part-owner of UB, which cheated customers TWICE, and was shamefully promoting them up until the very end.

Second, she ran a poker tournament league called "Epic Poker League", which promised a million dollar freeroll tournament to the top 27 players that year, as determined by points earned. The company shut down shortly before that million dollar freeroll was to take place, and everyone got stiffed. But Annie had no problem keeping her $400k salary for the whole thing.

Awful woman. She's also very unpleasant at the table, which I got to experience personally.

She dated actor Joe Reitman after he and Shannon Elizabeth split up. Shannon was 31 at the time and still hot. Reitman moving on to Annie might be one of the biggest downgrades in human history. (Shannon actually still looks very good for her age, now 47, by the way.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

You must have misunderstood my post.

I am a conservative, despite being a poker pro. I've been a conservative ever since I was 12 years old.

I find that poker pros who are liberal tend to be hypocrites -- of the limousine liberal variety. They want to take money from ploppies and live the good life, while patting themselves on the back with the belief that they're still great people. Voting Democrat allows them to do that.

I always find it curious when people in a completely capitalist game, where only the best survive, want anti-capitalist policies for everything else in life.

---

Are you kidding?
Most of them and most people don't know what they want.
Most of it is Bullshit and most of us are dead in the center because it is impossible to live in America and not be corrupted.
The whole thing is just an Ego Stroke-Fest.
People want to belong and have a feeling of belonging to a group.
They choose a side and fight to the death because they gain approval from their so called friends or party members.
In the end everything boils down to money and how to accumulate more of it.
In the end most of us are a product of our environment.
We are the Product and we are being Conditioned.

I'm Conservative/Republican as well but I do plenty of things in my life that are contradictory to the ideology.
Hopefully, Yahweh will forgive and save us all.
He is One you know!?
Even Pentecostal Christians can sing this song.
Although, now I think they prefer to be called "Word of Faith Christians" which is a complete scam.
Catchy Song though... makes you want to dance and break plates or is that a Greek thing?

Are you allowed to gamble on the NBA or the MLB on the Sabbath??
I'm sure God doesn't mind that infraction these days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVM8ooyFBGs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

Annie Duke...They paid her to give them advice on how to play after each hand was finished.

---

Wrong! Ding ding ding!

The only time a man should give a woman money is for sex.

--- Leykis 101

Joan Rivers always had nice things to say about Annie Duke.

Because most poker “pros” are frauds and/or scammers?

Anyways, you’re the boss man, but did you consider putting this in the politics subforum? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcap

Because most poker “pros” are frauds and/or scammers?

Anyways, you’re the boss man, but did you consider putting this in the politics subforum? :)

---

This post will soon be deleted as if it never happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoSox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I think it's because of the nature of the game. APs are indirectly beating the ploppies (the ploppies lose to the casinos, the APs beat the casinos for some of that money), whereas poker pros are directly taking the money from the ploppies. Thus, APs walk away with zero feelings of guilt (they're beating heartless corporations which seek to extract money from addicted gamblers), whereas poker pros often feel bad that they are beating others who don't really have a shot.

This causes poker pros to skew liberal, because they (erroneously) feel that voting Democrat and supporting leftist causes will negate the societal harm they're doing by taking money from gambling-addicted ploppies.

---

Dan, it seems like that you are implying that poker pros have consciences, please, they are no different than vampires. If they lean more to the left it is only because they hope that the government will give out more free programs giving ploppies more opportunities to head to the casino.

---

You must have misunderstood my post.

I am a conservative, despite being a poker pro. I've been a conservative ever since I was 12 years old.

I find that poker pros who are liberal tend to be hypocrites -- of the limousine liberal variety. They want to take money from ploppies and live the good life, while patting themselves on the back with the belief that they're still great people. Voting Democrat allows them to do that.

I always find it curious when people in a completely capitalist game, where only the best survive, want anti-capitalist policies for everything else in life.

---

Well so far we have three conservatives in the thread and I agree with you about some of the hypocrisy that the left exhibits evidentially including some left-leaning poker pros. For instance, the left is all for open borders, okay that is their choice but they are also pro raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Where is the logic in all of this crap?

The same question elsewhere. (Some poster called, Madcap.)

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/for...e-liberal.html

It has to have something to do with level of education. Look at the way Monet, Axelwolf, and Crimm write. The "I seen ..." stuff. Look how long it took Box to figure out how to use the quotations here. Moreover, it seems that the only way they can deal with things, the facts, is to stick their heads in the sand, and, clown, etc, around.

I imagine that most so-called AP's are failed poker players. Trump was into the usual cult thing, to do with one's problems, supposedly, all caused by the outside "world". As if isolating from some outside "world" can make one's own "world" pure, and, then, of course, purely good.

Attention span is another issue.

I recall the same problem in Germany not too long ago.
Two Party System in constant deadlock.
A third party rises up and eventually destroys the other two.
That wasn't good enough so they made a deal with Russia to invade Poland.
After they got Poland they backstabbed Russia and decided to shoot for world domination.
Damn this sounds just like my Civ IV, Civ V and Civ VI video game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

I recall the same problem in Germany not too long ago.

---

WWII was a close thing for the Allies.

Had Hitler not invaded Russia, and had he allowed his generals to direct the course of the war I suspect we'd all be speaking German today.

Ja wohl!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

I recall the same problem in Germany not too long ago.

---

WWII was a close thing for the Allies.

Had Hitler not invaded Russia, and had he allowed his generals to direct the course of the war I suspect we'd all be speaking German today.

Ja wohl!

---

Unless you live in Europe not likely. There was zero possibility ever of a land invasion of the US. MAYBE they might have tried to take Hawaii for Japan but even that is pretty farfetched.

It really wasn't winnable for the Axis at all with America involved. The only hope for Axis victory is if America stays completely neutral (no lend lease). So it wasn't close at all.

Also had Hitler not invaded Russia, Stalin would have invaded Germany. Their "alliance of convenience" was never going to last.

OK, I'll play.

Germany designed and built a bomber that could and some claim did in fact did fly across the Atlantic to the USA and then return: the Junkers JU 390; this was a very heavy bomber capable of delivering any type of bomb.

see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hWLp0g7jYk

Also consider the progress Germany made with other "super weapons" such as V-1, V-2 and jets; had Hitler not been impatient, had they taken the time to develop these weapons to the next level and in sufficient quantity I believe they'd have won.

All Germany needed to do was to buy time.

So far as "it really wasn't winnable for the Axis at all with America involved," please keep in mind that the Nazis were very close to developing their version of the atomic bomb; had WWII not been a two front war for the USA such that our only enemy was Japan, odds are we would not have felt the compelling need to develop atomic weapons, leaving the way open for Germany to develop them first.

I can easily envision a scenario where the Nazis obliterated NYC in nuclear fire.

As for Russia: no, Stalin would not have invaded Germany initially, and this lag time would allow the Krauts time to hone their super weapons.

We'll never know, of course: this is the stuff that armchair quarterbacks argue endlessly about.

Being a successful AP takes a different skillset. In poker at higher levels you have to take in numerous factors to get an edge over your opponents. How do they see poker? How does that fit into the frequency of what they're doing? Look at a man for 10 seconds and make a read. Do the book math and make your decision.

With APs it is more like.. "Is this # above some threshold, if so then sit down and pump it full of $$ until mhb hits". Or whatever..

I'm not particularly good at poker vs randoms. I'd rather play at the highest level where I am comfortable with a game infested with pros. Partially because I don't rely on gambling for income, but mostly I prefer the company of winners.

AP stuff is pure math. If you can't do the math you can be taught and/or learn. There are few "judgement calls". Simplistic systems work on any game.

I don't think many poker players that you know who win at higher levels actually feel bad for people losing money to them. This seems like a totally false construct. Everyone realizes "If not me, then someone else". Also, when you get high enough you rarely come across people who can't afford what they're going to lose. They show up with their 5k or whatever, shovel it in and move on in life. Although for some it adds up.

Another difference is poker is a social game. APing is a lone wolf thing unless you crew up.

The idea that APs take money from ploppies seems wrong. APs see it as taking money from the casino, which is far more accurate.

All this seems far more likely to have something to do with the actual answer than some guilt coping mechanism.. seriously bro.

Let's not even get into the cheating in poker which is easy and wide spread enough.
But if you have a team of 3 or 4 sharp players all playing on the same bankroll and playing the game straight they will eat the table alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

Let's not even get into the cheating in poker which is easy and wide spread enough.
But if you have a team of 3 or 4 sharp players all playing on the same bankroll and playing the game straight they will eat the table alive.

---

Isn't "Lie, cheat, steal" the liberals motto?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoSox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I think it's because of the nature of the game. APs are indirectly beating the ploppies (the ploppies lose to the casinos, the APs beat the casinos for some of that money), whereas poker pros are directly taking the money from the ploppies. Thus, APs walk away with zero feelings of guilt (they're beating heartless corporations which seek to extract money from addicted gamblers), whereas poker pros often feel bad that they are beating others who don't really have a shot.

This causes poker pros to skew liberal, because they (erroneously) feel that voting Democrat and supporting leftist causes will negate the societal harm they're doing by taking money from gambling-addicted ploppies.

---

Dan, it seems like that you are implying that poker pros have consciences, please, they are no different than vampires. If they lean more to the left it is only because they hope that the government will give out more free programs giving ploppies more opportunities to head to the casino.

---

You must have misunderstood my post.

I am a conservative, despite being a poker pro. I've been a conservative ever since I was 12 years old.

I find that poker pros who are liberal tend to be hypocrites -- of the limousine liberal variety. They want to take money from ploppies and live the good life, while patting themselves on the back with the belief that they're still great people. Voting Democrat allows them to do that.

I always find it curious when people in a completely capitalist game, where only the best survive, want anti-capitalist policies for everything else in life.

---

Well, I'll point to the obvious reasons.

Most AP's are not blackjack players, so lets start from there. They are primarily non-team folks who use self-contained expertise and discipline to literally grind out a living hour to hour, day to day. They work mostly in isolation versus the casino, so not much reliance on anyone else. This fosters the illusion of "your fate is in your hands" mentality, at least until they hit a mega-variance stretch. Most of their lives are spent in the "self-made man" mode. The individual hands of vp or machine play have variance, but usually not enough to create stretches where doing all of the right things for a year is going to lead to a negative year. Blackjack players, because they spread, and because they are backed off regularly, probably feel more of the "my fate is not entirely in my hands" gestalt in which they operate.

Further along the line are poker players. Now you get all of this crap about "everybody gets the same hands lifetime, so it all comes down to skill," but realistically, that's not true if you're playing no limit hold 'em or play in tournaments. You can kind of keep the "my fate is in my own hands" gestalt if you're always playing limit. But once you're playing no limit or relying on tournament play for income, then a handful of actual hands determine your week or your month or your year. And you can do literally everything right all the time ((as Chris Ferguson said, "I can be beaten, but I can't be outplayed") and walk away with a losing month or a losing year. So your fate in those few "terror" hands amidst the boredom determines your financial fate. It's the nature of a game with no limit rules, the continual possibility of collusion, and escalating tournament stakes. Players "do the right thing" all the time and find themselves losing.

The lesson, then, is that your fate is NOT in your own hands a great deal of the time, and all the self-made excellence in the world guarantees nothing.

And that is where conservatives and progressives part ways -- because conservatives believe in the myth that they are where they deserve to be on merit, and they give less weight to context. Progressives understand that context dictates more than the culture cares to admit. Poker players are always slammed in the face with context, because perfect play never yields perfect results.

For the record, if you examine the social science literature, you will find that human beings almost always OVERestimate the control they they have in all kinds of situations. We are hard wired to believe we have control of things when we do not.

I think it parallels a little bit why people in rural areas tend to be more conservative and people in cities tend to be more liberal.

People in rural areas tend to take care of themselves and just want to be left alone same as APs.

People in cities because they have to interact with other people tend to want the government involved more to enforce laws, rules, policing, services etc.

Reminds me of how many poker players are sticklers on rules, calling the floor over for minor things, complaining about acting out of turn, not properly announcing raise, bet call, etc. Things like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Well, I'll point to the obvious reasons.

Most AP's are not blackjack players, so lets start from there. They are primarily non-team folks who use self-contained expertise and discipline to literally grind out a living hour to hour, day to day. They work mostly in isolation versus the casino, so not much reliance on anyone else. This fosters the illusion of "your fate is in your hands" mentality, at least until they hit a mega-variance stretch. Most of their lives are spent in the "self-made man" mode. The individual hands of vp or machine play have variance, but usually not enough to create stretches where doing all of the right things for a year is going to lead to a negative year. Blackjack players, because they spread, and because they are backed off regularly, probably feel more of the "my fate is not entirely in my hands" gestalt in which they operate.

Further along the line are poker players. Now you get all of this crap about "everybody gets the same hands lifetime, so it all comes down to skill," but realistically, that's not true if you're playing no limit hold 'em or play in tournaments. You can kind of keep the "my fate is in my own hands" gestalt if you're always playing limit. But once you're playing no limit or relying on tournament play for income, then a handful of actual hands determine your week or your month or your year. And you can do literally everything right all the time ((as Chris Ferguson said, "I can be beaten, but I can't be outplayed") and walk away with a losing month or a losing year. So your fate in those few "terror" hands amidst the boredom determines your financial fate. It's the nature of a game with no limit rules, the continual possibility of collusion, and escalating tournament stakes. Players "do the right thing" all the time and find themselves losing.

The lesson, then, is that your fate is NOT in your own hands a great deal of the time, and all the self-made excellence in the world guarantees nothing.

And that is where conservatives and progressives part ways -- because conservatives believe in the myth that they are where they deserve to be on merit, and they give less weight to context. Progressives understand that context dictates more than the culture cares to admit. Poker players are always slammed in the face with context, because perfect play never yields perfect results.

For the record, if you examine the social science literature, you will find that human beings almost always OVERestimate the control they they have in all kinds of situations. We are hard wired to believe we have control of things when we do not.

---

You are such an Asshole.

"Conservatives believe in myths but Progressives understand"

The truth is that we are all just people in the same boat trying to make it to the next day and protect the ones we care about.
Unfortunately, all people will do just about anything when push comes to shove to survive.
Conservative... Progressive... Same Difference.
People like Job, in the Torah, are the exception... not the rule.

Anyone working in the Gaming Business is nothing but an Evil Doer.
It doesn't matter if you are working for the Casino or against them.
And we all have so much indirect blood on our hands for our comfortable living it is sickening.
The problem is that people like you won't even admit that simple truth.
Just keep working on your handicapping business, directly destroying peoples lives, while you reap the rewards... Mr. Dietz.
Enjoy slurping noodles with your slant-eyed girlfriend while 25,000 people die per day from malnutrition in a world that produces enough food for 13 billion people annually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

25,000 people die per day from malnutrition in a world that produces enough food for 13 billion people annually.

---

Premise isn't true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theywontpayontuesday

Premise isn't true.

---

Disappointing Post.
Hitler Unhappy.
Trump Mad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

As you guys know, I'm part of both the poker pro and AP community, though I'm more closely aligned with the poker side.

However, in conversations about politics with both APs and poker pros, along with my observations of their social media, I've come to the following conclusion:

Most APs are conservative. Most poker pros are liberal.

I've been trying to figure out the reason for this. Both are individualistic, capitalistic pursuits. Both are using better knowledge and skill to take money from the ploppies -- whether directly or indirectly, many of whom can't afford it.

I think it's because of the nature of the game. APs are indirectly beating the ploppies (the ploppies lose to the casinos, the APs beat the casinos for some of that money), whereas poker pros are directly taking the money from the ploppies. Thus, APs walk away with zero feelings of guilt (they're beating heartless corporations which seek to extract money from addicted gamblers), whereas poker pros often feel bad that they are beating others who don't really have a shot.

This causes poker pros to skew liberal, because they (erroneously) feel that voting Democrat and supporting leftist causes will negate the societal harm they're doing by taking money from gambling-addicted ploppies.

APs, on the other hand, constantly see their careers as a battle between the individual (the AP) and the collective (the casino), and thus the individualistic nature of conservatism appeals to them.

I doubt that many think about it this deeply, but I believe these are the subconscious forces at play.

---

I'm a decently-networked machine/table game pro, (very little poker) and I would say in the subsection of the AP community that I know personally liberals outnumber conservatives by about 3:2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by acescracked_1210

I'm a decently-networked machine/table game pro, (very little poker)

---

Interesting name choice for very little poker.
Aces Cracked Win a Rack!

How do you know if you're a liberal or conservative? Still haven't figured that out yet.

Here's how you can tell if you are racist or not...............
You are racist if....you are breathing.

Obviously there's different degrees of racism.

Vast majority of people in the US who identify as "conservative" or "liberal" don't have ideologies that truly line up with what they claim. It is much more like 9-year-olds who identify with their favorite basketball team.

Most people who claim to be "conservative" support positions that lead increased government regulations, restrictions on free-markets, and decreased personal freedoms. But they believe in those things, because that is what their "team" believes in.

Most people who claim to be "liberal" support positions that go against social services, and promoting societal changes for a greater good. But they take those positions, because that is what their "team" believes in.

Dude, you got it backwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tominnv

Most people who claim to be "liberal" support positions that go against social services, and promoting societal changes for a greater good. But they take those positions, because that is what their "team" believes in.

---

I do not think that there was ever a liberal position that promoted societal changes for the greater good, they always get it wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoSox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tominnv

Most people who claim to be "liberal" support positions that go against social services, and promoting societal changes for a greater good. But they take those positions, because that is what their "team" believes in.

---

I do not think that there was ever a liberal position that promoted societal changes for the greater good, they always get it wrong.

---

One example would be Gore wanting to raise consumption taxes to change behavior that negatively impacts the environment. Perhaps you disagree that higher taxes and environmental causes are really for the "greater good", which is fair. And shows how the so-called liberal ideology is not liberal at all.

Then Trump went ahead and raised consumption taxes in the name of tariffs and a trade war. That was definitely a way for big government intervention to restrict personal freedom and interfere with the free-market. And most people who agreed with this labelled themselves as conservatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tominnv

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoSox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tominnv

Most people who claim to be "liberal" support positions that go against social services, and promoting societal changes for a greater good. But they take those positions, because that is what their "team" believes in.

---

I do not think that there was ever a liberal position that promoted societal changes for the greater good, they always get it wrong.

---

One example would be Gore wanting to raise consumption taxes to change behavior that negatively impacts the environment. Perhaps you disagree that higher taxes and environmental causes are really for the "greater good", which is fair. And shows how the so-called liberal ideology is not liberal at all.

---

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...tail&FORM=VIRE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tominnv

Then Trump went ahead and raised consumption taxes in the name of tariffs and a trade war. That was definitely a way for big government intervention to restrict personal freedom and interfere with the free-market. And most people who agreed with this labelled themselves as conservatives.

---

Trump, did the right thing. He had to correct all the mistakes of previous administrations.

Trump was the biggest fucking asshole President, of all time. Second only to the failed "nuts" in life who supported him.

Go fuck yourself, and Trump, there, Bosox in Box.

What screw-ups, still, talking about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garnabby

Trump was the biggest fucking asshole President, of all time. Second only to the failed "nuts" in life who supported him.

Go fuck yourself, and Trump, there, Bosox in Box.

What screw-ups, still, talking about it.

---

I hope you love open borders and reparations. Shit for brains.

tominnv, I forgot to say welcome to the board. Enjoy yourself.

This is Barney

Average age of poker personages about 32

Average age of AP personages about 78

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barney

This is Barney

Average age of poker personages about 32

Average age of AP personages about 78

---

There are far more APs under 50 than over 50.

And many types of age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoSox

Trump, did the right thing. He had to correct all the mistakes of previous administrations.

---

This is completely irrelevant to the discussion about why certain groups claim certain ideologies. And it shows very well exactly what I was saying: these ideological claims are complete bullshit, since it is almost entirely about being able to identify with the team you like, rather than any sort of "liberal" or "conservative" values.

tominnv, as I pointed out above your thesis got it backwards.

Besides which, your "team" theory is bogus.

It boils down to this: conservatives are fairly satisfied with the status quo, whereas liberals are not.

No change vs. change.

Simplistic but true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

tominnv, as I pointed out above your thesis got it backwards.

Besides which, your "team" theory is bogus.

It boils down to this: conservatives are fairly satisfied with the status quo, whereas liberals are not.

No change vs. change.

Simplistic but true.

---

Yet there are plenty of people who identify as conservative who have been wanting to see lots of political change. There are people who identify as liberal who do not want things to change in a lot of political areas. If you think my thesis was backwards, it doesn't mean it was wrong, eg 4 x 9 = 9 x 4.

conservatism is liberalism driving the speed limit.

Simplistic is as true as totally complicated.

And, 6 X 9 both in base 13 is 42.

Speed limits? The only rule is no rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

How do you know if you're a liberal or conservative? Still haven't figured that out yet.

Here's how you can tell if you are racist or not...............
You are racist if....you are breathing.

Obviously there's different degrees of racism.

---

I agree with this post as much as anything I've read on this site.

I still don't know if I am liberal or conservative, but I tend to side with liberal because I am not a supporter of capital nor do I believe in (lol) trickle down economics.

Too many conservatives down with locking up people over victimless crimes. That is the antithesis of what being a conservative is to me.

tominnv is a good poster. Hope he sticks around.

Everyone voting for Trump pretty much wants to change the status quo. They wanted change so that definition clearly doesn't hold.

Civil forfeiture didn't become a big thing under liberals. This shit impacts APs as much as anything.

It is all nonsense. THe more tribal a person is, the less thinking they've done and in general the less one should listen to their opinions.

Witness Bosox, Danny, Mickey....

Ah, politics.

How to structure and run a society when there are hotly held disparate views?

In a democracy such as ours we "talk" compromise but the reality is that whichever party is currently in power sets the agenda and attempts to ramrod it through.

This of course is problematical from the point of view of consistency and follow through given the fact that no one party manages to remain in power for long, and this periodic upheaval causes a lot of stress, in particular to the members of the losing party.

Seems to me that most Americans today lack the mental ability and / or the inclination to rationally weigh issues and think logically; fact is, I doubt there ever was or ever will be such a scenario; the closest I see to it today is the town meeting form of government used by many New England towns.

Governing a population is not easy; it is harder yet when people are rabidly committed to a position and unwilling to compromise.

It is much easier to have a king, or an autocracy as that bypasses the issues which arise when the people are asked to decide things.

A democracy works best when people think and act democratically and are willing to compromise.

We are far from that goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

It is much easier to have a king, or an autocracy as that bypasses the issues which arise when the people are asked to decide things.

---

based and monarchypilled

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Most APs are conservative. Most poker pros are liberal.

---

How many were surveyed and what's your margin of error?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoSox

Dan, it seems like that you are implying that poker pros have consciences, please, they are no different than vampires. If they lean more to the left it is only because they hope that the government will give out more free programs giving ploppies more opportunities to head to the casino.

---

You must have misunderstood my post.

I am a conservative, despite being a poker pro. I've been a conservative ever since I was 12 years old.

I find that poker pros who are liberal tend to be hypocrites -- of the limousine liberal variety. They want to take money from ploppies and live the good life, while patting themselves on the back with the belief that they're still great people. Voting Democrat allows them to do that.

I always find it curious when people in a completely capitalist game, where only the best survive, want anti-capitalist policies for everything else in life.

---

Well, I'll point to the obvious reasons.

Most AP's are not blackjack players, so lets start from there. They are primarily non-team folks who use self-contained expertise and discipline to literally grind out a living hour to hour, day to day. They work mostly in isolation versus the casino, so not much reliance on anyone else. This fosters the illusion of "your fate is in your hands" mentality, at least until they hit a mega-variance stretch. Most of their lives are spent in the "self-made man" mode. The individual hands of vp or machine play have variance, but usually not enough to create stretches where doing all of the right things for a year is going to lead to a negative year. Blackjack players, because they spread, and because they are backed off regularly, probably feel more of the "my fate is not entirely in my hands" gestalt in which they operate.

Further along the line are poker players. Now you get all of this crap about "everybody gets the same hands lifetime, so it all comes down to skill," but realistically, that's not true if you're playing no limit hold 'em or play in tournaments. You can kind of keep the "my fate is in my own hands" gestalt if you're always playing limit. But once you're playing no limit or relying on tournament play for income, then a handful of actual hands determine your week or your month or your year. And you can do literally everything right all the time ((as Chris Ferguson said, "I can be beaten, but I can't be outplayed") and walk away with a losing month or a losing year. So your fate in those few "terror" hands amidst the boredom determines your financial fate. It's the nature of a game with no limit rules, the continual possibility of collusion, and escalating tournament stakes. Players "do the right thing" all the time and find themselves losing.

The lesson, then, is that your fate is NOT in your own hands a great deal of the time, and all the self-made excellence in the world guarantees nothing.

And that is where conservatives and progressives part ways -- because conservatives believe in the myth that they are where they deserve to be on merit, and they give less weight to context. Progressives understand that context dictates more than the culture cares to admit. Poker players are always slammed in the face with context, because perfect play never yields perfect results.

For the record, if you examine the social science literature, you will find that human beings almost always OVERestimate the control they they have in all kinds of situations. We are hard wired to believe we have control of things when we do not.

---

I agree with most of this, but I can't endorse what you wrote at the end.

Yes, tournament poker is maddening, which is why I only do it at WSOP. I'm mainly a limit cash player, which as you said, is one of the types of poker where your fate is more in your own hands (though again, it's dictated somewhat by luck, but you get more hands in, and no single hand is a killer).

Your best point is that APs "take care of themselves", which is another form of what I said where APs view themselves as the individual versus the collective. Thus conservatism appeals to them.

Unfortunately, I don't agree with the last part regarding your claim that "progressives understand that context dictates more than the culture cares to admit". Maybe you understand that, but many "progressives" are very poor at context, and find themselves thinking in mind-boggling absolutes. For example, "If black people represent a higher percentage of people in prison than they do in the population, then the system is racist." Totally false statement, but many progressives believe this.

I really believe a lot of the progressive poker pros are simply doing it out of guilt. They don't contribute to society, They beat other individuals out of a lot of money. They play a capitalist game. So they feel that voting Democrat and openly supporting liberal politics will negate those sins. It's not too different from how many in Hollywood feel. If you have a lot of money but quietly feel guilt that it came too easily and you don't quite deserve that much, it's easy to comfort yourself by voting what you believe to be the "empathetic" way, and then you can have both the riches and the lack of guilt. What a world!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

How do you know if you're a liberal or conservative? Still haven't figured that out yet.

Here's how you can tell if you are racist or not...............
You are racist if....you are breathing.

Obviously there's different degrees of racism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tominnv

Vast majority of people in the US who identify as "conservative" or "liberal" don't have ideologies that truly line up with what they claim. It is much more like 9-year-olds who identify with their favorite basketball team.

Most people who claim to be "conservative" support positions that lead increased government regulations, restrictions on free-markets, and decreased personal freedoms. But they believe in those things, because that is what their "team" believes in.

Most people who claim to be "liberal" support positions that go against social services, and promoting societal changes for a greater good. But they take those positions, because that is what their "team" believes in.

---

I get asked this question a lot. It's simpler than you think.

Liberal and conservative are not absolutes. They change over time.

However, it's not too difficult to figure out what you are:

- If you agree with most (but not necessarily all) positions taken by the Republican Party, you are conservative.

- If you agree with most (but not necessarily all) positions taken by the Democratic Party, you are liberal.

- If you find yourself about 50-50, you're a centrist.

- If you agree very little with both, then you're something else.


I run into so-called "conservatives" all the time who agree with about 0% of the current Republican platform, and spout talking points which mirror those coming from the Democrats. I tell these people they aren't conservative, and they get mad at me. I tell them that I'm not insulting them but they should simply be honest with themselves and look at each party's platform, and reevaluate what they claim to be.

tominnv is correct that there is always hypocrisy on both sides. That's because it's difficult to maintain ideological purity when it comes to personal decisions. However, that doesn't matter, because I'm not looking for purity. You can define yourself liberal or conservative with being 100% pure in ideology or actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tominnv

Vast majority of people in the US who identify as "conservative" or "liberal" don't have ideologies that truly line up with what they claim. It is much more like 9-year-olds who identify with their favorite basketball team.

Most people who claim to be "conservative" support positions that lead increased government regulations, restrictions on free-markets, and decreased personal freedoms. But they believe in those things, because that is what their "team" believes in.

Most people who claim to be "liberal" support positions that go against social services, and promoting societal changes for a greater good. But they take those positions, because that is what their "team" believes in.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

tominnv, as I pointed out above your thesis got it backwards.

Besides which, your "team" theory is bogus.

It boils down to this: conservatives are fairly satisfied with the status quo, whereas liberals are not.

No change vs. change.

Simplistic but true.

---

That's not really true. This is an inaccurate way to describe political philosophy, which often makes the left look better, as being resistant to change makes one look intractable and unreasonable.

In general, conservatives support the individual over the collective, and prefer consequences for negative actions. They believe you reap what you sow, and that action deserves a reaction.

In general, liberals support the collective over the individual, and want to see consequences through a lens of understanding based upon identity and possible group victimization.

I land much more on the conservative side, and always have. I've always been huge on individual rights, and I don't believe in identity politics. In fact, I believe racism and other "isms" can only be solved by promoting a message individuality and "judge a person for his actions", and pushing away from look at people's race, sexual preference, etc.

I don't think it is necessarily correct to describe poker as a "capitalist game."

Capitalism can be defined as an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

The one thing poker and capitalism have in common is the individual profit motive, but other than that I see no commonalities as capitalism describes a type of economic system whereas poker is just an avocation or vocation.

Besides, poker is played around the world: capitalists, socialists and communists all enjoy playing.

I would argue that instead of describing it as "capitalist" it would be more fitting to consider it a form of "war," albeit as opposed to nations clashing you have a few individuals.

Whatever, play on ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

I would argue that instead of describing it as "capitalist" it would be more fitting to consider it a form of "war," albeit as opposed to nations clashing you have a few individuals.

---

If I recall, this is how Doyle Brunson characterized it. War by firing money.

Nobody here read his double-volume "Super system"?

Quote:

---

Super/System, one of the first books about poker strategy, was written and published in 1979 by Doyle Brunson, a professional poker player and multiple winner at the World Series of Poker.

---

I recall that the price, back then, was $100 for each of the volumes.

Fascinating reading, especially for a kid like me, then. Complete with lots of great poker anecdotes, such as players having heart attacks, after losses. A bridge between poker game-theory, and, professional poker plays of the time.

My political views are not based in my occupation. It's just life long learning. I'm not so much conservative as I am anti-socialist. The reason I'm anti socialist is because its just a stepping stone to communism. Lenin said the goal of socialism is communism.

To me the hard left is the major evil in the country. Their goal is to turn the country communist but they realize the people can't be changed overnight. So they do it by degree. A little at a time. Little moves here and there. All heading us toward their ultimate goal of communism.

You just have to look at the democratic party over the last 60 years. John Kennedy wasn't a liberal by today's standards. He was a tax cutter. His beliefs and policies would be that of a republican today. It's the same for Jimmy Carter. He would be considered a conservative in today's world. Even Bill Clinton would be considered conservative. As more and more liberal policy is enacted the Democrat party keeps shifting farther and farther to the left. Their slow incremental shift to the left won't end until the country is full blown communist.

So what is wrong with communism? Looks good on paper. From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs. And we're all happy right. Everyone sharing equally. Yep, everyone sharing equally in each other's misery.

Walter Cronkite, a known liberal, finally figured it all out when he asked the question "Why does communism fail?" The answer, he said, was it goes against human nature. What did he mean?

Sorry to have to tell you this but people are not created equal. Some people are smarter than other people. Some people are more creative than other people. Some people are more industrious than other people.

Take a hundred comrades, place them all under one roof making widgets. There are going to be some that are the best widget makers. There are going to be some that are the fastest widget makers. But they aren't going to be making more money than the rest of the widget makers because....well, from each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs. Since the best and the fastest don't make anymore than anyone else they see no need to be the best or the fastest. Instead of the pace of production being based on the fastest widget makers the pace is based on the slowest widget makers. No one wants to do any more than them.

It's why store shelves in the Soviet Union were always empty. Walter Cronkite "It goes against human nature." The best and the brightest aren't going to perform better than everyone else IF THEY ARE NOT MAKING MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE for doing it.

Capitalism has built enormous wealth on the planet because it incentivizes people to produce. Non-producers live off of producers enough as it is. Hell, the non-producers can't even exist without the producers. Take away the incentive to produce and we will all die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

In general, liberals support the collective over the individual, and want to see consequences through a lens of understanding based upon identity and possible group victimization..

---

You're talking about the views of the crazy, rabid progressives like that fool AOC, not the traditional more moderate liberals like Biden.

Moderate liberals seem to genuinely care about the plight of the less fortunate and are willing to devote some (but not too much) of the public treasury to lift them up, whereas Republicans basically could care less as they believe there must always be haves and have nots.

So far as the "lens of understanding" notion, moderate Democrats still believe in responsibility for one's actions; they differ from Republicans in recognizing that the poor aren't necessarily poor by choice, and they are willing to devote tax dollars to improve both their lot and their chances to achieve financial success; the Republicans fear black empowerment primarily for both racist and economic reasons and try to limit the competition.

So yes, the moderate Democrats are more tolerant, more understanding of human foibles than the Republicans are, but they'll give nobody a free pass: think of Clinton and the crime bill as a good example; he may have had sympathy for the plight of blacks but he had none if they broke the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

How do you know if you're a liberal or conservative? Still haven't figured that out yet.

Here's how you can tell if you are racist or not...............
You are racist if....you are breathing.

Obviously there's different degrees of racism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tominnv

Vast majority of people in the US who identify as "conservative" or "liberal" don't have ideologies that truly line up with what they claim. It is much more like 9-year-olds who identify with their favorite basketball team.

Most people who claim to be "conservative" support positions that lead increased government regulations, restrictions on free-markets, and decreased personal freedoms. But they believe in those things, because that is what their "team" believes in.

Most people who claim to be "liberal" support positions that go against social services, and promoting societal changes for a greater good. But they take those positions, because that is what their "team" believes in.

---

I get asked this question a lot. It's simpler than you think.

Liberal and conservative are not absolutes. They change over time.

However, it's not too difficult to figure out what you are:

- If you agree with most (but not necessarily all) positions taken by the Republican Party, you are conservative.

- If you agree with most (but not necessarily all) positions taken by the Democratic Party, you are liberal.

- If you find yourself about 50-50, you're a centrist.

- If you agree very little with both, then you're something else.


I run into so-called "conservatives" all the time who agree with about 0% of the current Republican platform, and spout talking points which mirror those coming from the Democrats. I tell these people they aren't conservative, and they get mad at me. I tell them that I'm not insulting them but they should simply be honest with themselves and look at each party's platform, and reevaluate what they claim to be.

tominnv is correct that there is always hypocrisy on both sides. That's because it's difficult to maintain ideological purity when it comes to personal decisions. However, that doesn't matter, because I'm not looking for purity. You can define yourself liberal or conservative with being 100% pure in ideology or actions.

---

I have taken a couple tests online, and iirc. they have me somewhere in the center. I just don't know how accurate those things are. There are not enough... I really don't give a fuck options available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

In general, liberals support the collective over the individual, and want to see consequences through a lens of understanding based upon identity and possible group victimization..

---

You're talking about the views of the crazy, rabid progressives like that fool AOC, not the traditional more moderate liberals like Biden.

Moderate liberals seem to genuinely care about the plight of the less fortunate and are willing to devote some (but not too much) of the public treasury to lift them up, whereas Republicans basically could care less as they believe there must always be haves and have nots.

So far as the "lens of understanding" notion, moderate Democrats still believe in responsibility for one's actions; they differ from Republicans in recognizing that the poor aren't necessarily poor by choice, and they are willing to devote tax dollars to improve both their lot and their chances to achieve financial success; the Republicans fear black empowerment primarily for both racist and economic reasons and try to limit the competition.

So yes, the moderate Democrats are more tolerant, more understanding of human foibles than the Republicans are, but they'll give nobody a free pass: think of Clinton and the crime bill as a good example; he may have had sympathy for the plight of blacks but he had none if they broke the law.

---

The left's policies don't uplift minorities. They sustain minorities in their poverty. The left needs a permanent underclass to win elections.

And Trump's prison reform undid the damage to blacks by Bill Clinton.

The term "left" does not describe all Democrats:just the progressives.

Similarly, the term "right" does not describe all Republicans.

The moderates of both parties,the "old school" members if you will, do not deserve to be tarnished with those labels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

The term "left" does not describe all Democrats:just the progressives.

Similarly, the term "right" does not describe all Republicans.

The moderates of both parties,the "old school" members if you will, do not deserve to be tarnished with those labels.

---

You run of the mill libtards are useful idiots of the "progressives." But you will be next in the barrel. The first to the revolution are the second to the guillotine.