Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 60 of 60

Thread: Why are most APs conservative and most poker pros liberal?

  1. #41
    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.
    What, Me Worry?

  2. #42
    Originally Posted by MisterV View Post
    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.

  3. #43
    conservatism is liberalism driving the speed limit.

  4. #44
    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.
    Every one /everyone knows it all; yet, no thing /nothing is truly known by any one /anyone. Similarly, the suckers think that they win, but, the house always wins, unless to hand out an even worse beating.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsa6ojQcYXQ

    Garnabby + OppsIdidItAgain + ThomasClines (or TomasHClines) + The Grim Reaper + LMR + OneHitWonder (or 1HitWonder, 1Hit1der) + Bill Yung ---> GOTTLOB1, or GOTTLOB = Praise to God!

    Blog at https://garnabby.blogspot.com/

  5. #45
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    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....
    It is official. Redietz will never be on Dan Druff's podcast. "too much integrity"

  6. #46
    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.
    What, Me Worry?

  7. #47
    Originally Posted by MisterV View Post
    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

  8. #48
    Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Most APs are conservative. Most poker pros are liberal.
    How many were surveyed and what's your margin of error?

  9. #49
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Originally Posted by BoSox View Post


    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!
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  10. #50
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    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.
    Originally Posted by tominnv View Post
    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.
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  11. #51
    Originally Posted by tominnv View Post
    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.
    Originally Posted by MisterV View Post
    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.
    Check out my poker forum, and weekly internet radio show at http://pokerfraudalert.com

  12. #52
    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 ...
    What, Me Worry?

  13. #53
    Originally Posted by MisterV View Post
    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.
    Every one /everyone knows it all; yet, no thing /nothing is truly known by any one /anyone. Similarly, the suckers think that they win, but, the house always wins, unless to hand out an even worse beating.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsa6ojQcYXQ

    Garnabby + OppsIdidItAgain + ThomasClines (or TomasHClines) + The Grim Reaper + LMR + OneHitWonder (or 1HitWonder, 1Hit1der) + Bill Yung ---> GOTTLOB1, or GOTTLOB = Praise to God!

    Blog at https://garnabby.blogspot.com/

  14. #54
    Nobody here read his double-volume "Super system"?

    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.
    Every one /everyone knows it all; yet, no thing /nothing is truly known by any one /anyone. Similarly, the suckers think that they win, but, the house always wins, unless to hand out an even worse beating.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsa6ojQcYXQ

    Garnabby + OppsIdidItAgain + ThomasClines (or TomasHClines) + The Grim Reaper + LMR + OneHitWonder (or 1HitWonder, 1Hit1der) + Bill Yung ---> GOTTLOB1, or GOTTLOB = Praise to God!

    Blog at https://garnabby.blogspot.com/

  15. #55
    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.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  16. #56
    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.
    What, Me Worry?

  17. #57
    Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    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.
    Originally Posted by tominnv View Post
    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.

  18. #58
    Originally Posted by MisterV View Post
    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.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  19. #59
    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.
    What, Me Worry?

  20. #60
    Originally Posted by MisterV View Post
    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.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 06-18-2020, 10:28 AM
  2. Liberal Snowflakes Keep On Winning!
    By monet in forum Coronavirus
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-04-2020, 11:59 AM
  3. New sideline for APs
    By The Gentle Grafter in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-29-2019, 10:07 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-13-2019, 09:15 AM
  5. Question for APs
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 303
    Last Post: 11-11-2018, 11:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •