That is the story I have written for Ron in my head. I know he ran out of money. I know his wife left him. I know he posted on internet forums about all the kinky things he was up to with Thai hookers. I know he has confessed to this murder. I don't know anything else. I have no idea how he felt, or feels, about anything.
Phuket City Police Superintendent Wanchai Ekpornpit told reporters after the press conference that several factors appeared to have contributed to Mr Fanelli’s mental state at the time of the stabbing: he was drunk; his Thai wife had left him and taken their young child back to her native Maha Sarakham province in Isarn. He had also recently lost his Internet connection, he noted.
I am having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that these comments represent "the online poker playing community". I imagine that there are vast numbers of online poker players, some of whom have found kindred spirits in a handful of online forums.
Heavens to Betsy, not the internet connection!
If you make your living off of online poker, you are almost guaranteed an asshole, since you make your living by taking money from other people without providing any sort of service to them. They have to be less intelligent than you are in order for you to take their money, so it breeds a feeling of superiority and contempt for people in general.
In fact, if you really were as smart as you think you are, you could live off of table poker in a first-world country.
The fact that twoplustwo refuses to let their members discuss these events as well as its own role in the atmosphere of assholism is, in my opinion, shameful to the whole community.
My brother plays poker online for play money. He is doing it for entertainment, and the people who play with him are doing it for entertainment. When you play for real money, it is no longer about entertainment, it is about hurting other people for your own benefit.
Poker is all about lying. If you play poker, you are a liar. If you play well, you are a good liar.
Bets at the track are made between the punter and a bookmaker. Bookmakers cover both sides of the bet - that is, the volume of winning bets should equal the volume of losing bets. So your hypothetical race track gambler isn't taking money from anyone.
You cannot control other people's behaviour, and nor are you expected to, but you can control your own. And you are essentially playing the part of a drug dealer with the excuse that if you didn't sell the crack, someone else would, and it's hard to tell the addicts from the hobbyists.
the fact you're even questioning the basic moral framework of something that is obviously a large part of your identity and perhaps livelihood is genuinely admirable, and I hope you continue to reflect on it
most money gambled (in Australia, and I've seen no data to suggest this is different from the world over, certainly not in Asia at any rate) is coming from problem gamblers with a gambling addiction.
I can see where you're coming from in regards to your other point - and you're right in that problem gamblers are a tiny proportion of overall gamblers - a bit over 1.5% in Australia. However, 5 out of every six dollars gambled comes from them because they gamble so much more more.
I'm genuinely curious if professional poker players are any less likely to be gambling addicts.
It comes from the desire for something for nothing
My moral disdain is reserved for professional players. The only way you could make a living at poker is to seek out weaker players and victimize them, since if you played with equals, you wouldn't be making a living.
« Older Queering the Guinness Book of World Records: at 33... | Just in time for Banned Books ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt