Why are most APs conservative and most poker pros liberal?

[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.

[BoSox]

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.

[monet]

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.

[Dan Druff]

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.)

[MisterV]

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

[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.

[monet]

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.

[BoSox]

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?

[redietz]

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.

[monet]

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.

[MisterV]

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

[Dan Druff]

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!

[MisterV]

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 ...

[monet]

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

[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?

[monet]

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.

[Garnabby]

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.

[monet]

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.

[MisterV]

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!

[pepe]

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.