You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Moral Dilemma...

2

Comments

  • MattBatesMattBates Member Posts: 4,118
    edited March 2015
    Surely the morally questionable bit was you going home with his girlfriend after he was too busto to get her drinks at the bar?
  • frascatifrascati Member Posts: 76
    edited March 2015
    What about your morals when you called my river bluff in DTD @ 3am
    Your could clearly see I was drunk


  • hhyftrftdrhhyftrftdr Member Posts: 8,036
    edited March 2015
    In Response to Re: Moral Dilemma...:
    What about your morals when you called my river bluff in DTD @ 3am Your could clearly see I was drunk
    Posted by frascati
    tbf, I think the glow from his shirt was impairing his vision.
  • mrsduckmrsduck Member Posts: 1,901
    edited March 2015
    Man up Slip!
  • SlipwaterSlipwater Member Posts: 3,700
    edited March 2015
    In Response to Re: Moral Dilemma...:
    What about your morals when you called my river bluff in DTD @ 3am Your could clearly see I was drunk
    Posted by frascati
    Er.... does 'no comment' work here?
  • LARSON7LARSON7 Member Posts: 4,495
    edited March 2015
    Shame for the guy that he's unemployed.

    Shame he's playing poker if he's almost broke, other people's lives.

    Re Poker, have to get it in. In a home game with mates, wecan just call, but notin a casino.
  • F_IvanovicF_Ivanovic Member Posts: 2,412
    edited March 2015
    Poker is just another form of entertainment (albeit one that can be on the more expensive side) - but plenty of other entertainment can be expensive. Shopping, for example, can be a very expensive and destructive habit but AFAIK shops don't refuse service to customers they suspect may have big credit card debts.

    Wherever you go in life there will be somebody that spends money that they can't afford to lose - by all means, we can look to help that person as much as we can if we care about them, but when they've already sat down with £100 at a cash table it's too late. If you don't take their money then someone else at the table will. At least if you take it you can buy them a few pints with it if it helps make you feel better :)


  • GEO68GEO68 Member Posts: 281
    edited March 2015
    You sit down to win money not feel guilty the guys got no job , he seems to be playing on a regular basis though DSS must be paying well . Played at same casino on many occasions over the years and believe me there are plenty of dodgers at the cash tables .
  • DOHHHHHHHDOHHHHHHH Member Posts: 17,929
    edited March 2015

    I found the OP pretty tough to read, why so patronising? 

    Even if he is skint, trying to give him hints mid hand that you have the nuts is pretty awful on every level in my opinion, he's an adult. 

    Almost all poker 'professionals' are unemployed. 

    If he really can't afford to lose the money and he's sitting in this game he has a problem and letting him win wont help. In fact thats the worst thing you can do. 


  • tsarinatsarina Member Posts: 177
    edited March 2015
    In Response to Re: Moral Dilemma...:
    I found the OP pretty tough to read, why so patronising?  Even if he is skint, trying to give him hints mid hand that you have the nuts is pretty awful on every level in my opinion, he's an adult.  Almost all poker 'professionals' are unemployed.  If he really can't afford to lose the money and he's sitting in this game he has a problem and letting him win wont help. In fact thats the worst thing you can do. 
    Posted by DOHHHHHHH
    This espouses my view.  I need say no more.  Moving on,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  • stokefcstokefc Member Posts: 7,922
    edited March 2015
    have to agree with dohh,plus its daft question,dont mean to be critical and the thread has had debate which is good,we all know the answer to the question,well we should do
  • GELDYGELDY Member Posts: 5,203
    edited March 2015
    In Response to Moral Dilemma...:
    As some of you know, I play 1/2 cash poker at my local casino on Friday/Saturday.   As is the case with local games that you attend with any kind of regularity, you get to see the same faces repeatedly and you may even become friendly with some of them.   Paul is a nice guy who I get along with well. He plays quite often and through conversation I have discovered he has been out of work for some time… and yes, whether he should or shouldn’t be playing poker is a discussion for another time.   Anyway, I picked up AA, raised to about £7 pre. Folds all around until Paul – sitting right next to me – calls. Flop is AJ4. He leads out for £8. I call. Turn is another jack and he again leads for £16. I flat call him again. The river is a 9. He bets £32. Throughout the hand I’ve been indicating to him that I have a monster to try and slow him down, but he maybe thinks I’m blagging it.   Here is my dilemma. I like this guy, and I know he’s unemployed. If I flat call with the effective nuts (unless he has quad jacks) to save him money, it almost looks like collusion. I know I’m supposed to shove and put him all in (he has about £50 behind, and I have him covered) but I don’t really want him to call if I do. I want him to know he is behind and save himself some money.   What would you do?
    Posted by Slipwater

    first thing to do is rename the thread
    this is not a morality question at all
    the real question is
    i have this guy i like on my table
    should i play sub optimally to take less money from him because i like him and i think he needs his money


  • paige55paige55 Member Posts: 2,953
    edited March 2015
    In Response to Re: Moral Dilemma...:
    In Response to Moral Dilemma... : first thing to do is rename the thread this is not a morality question at all the real question is i have this guy i like on my table should i play sub optimally to take less money from him because i like him and i think he needs his money
    Posted by GELDY
    LOVE YOU GELDY XXXX
  • MIKEY802MIKEY802 Member Posts: 22
    edited March 2015

    raise to £200 and tell him you'll take his watch as collateral
  • Phantom66Phantom66 Member Posts: 5,542
    edited March 2015

    1.Acquaintance + Can afford to play  = play to win the max
    2.Real friend + Can afford to play     = play to win the max
    3.Acquaintance + Cant afford to play = play to win the max
    4.Real friend + Cant afford to play    = dont play them at all

  • a00rocka00rock Member Posts: 832
    edited March 2015
    I totally understand your dilemma here will a friend still be a friend if I take cash off him he cant (you think) afford to lose. The same thoughts would be going through my head in the same scenario. Perhaps our mind sets are not optimal to be good poker players.
    Live long and prosper mate.
     
  • LARSON7LARSON7 Member Posts: 4,495
    edited March 2015
    Who would like taking money from a friend?

    Especially someone who could not afford to lose money - yes it's their choice to "gamble" but the point still stands.

    It's never nice.

    Didn't find the OP patronising just empathetic.
  • patwalshhpatwalshh Member Posts: 772
    edited March 2015
    I can't believe this is a discussion.
  • GlenelgGlenelg Member Posts: 6,634
    edited March 2015
    How much did ya stack him for last nite slips?  ;-))
  • SlipwaterSlipwater Member Posts: 3,700
    edited March 2015
    I forgot I started this thread...

    I must be too nice to play this game ;)

    And for the record, DOHHHHHHH, I wasn't trying to be patronising. I'll make it perfectly clear when I am. 

    I like the guy - that's the truth - and sometimes I wish he'd save his money rather than spend it on the cash tables. If that's condescending, it ain't meant to be. Just concern, innit.
Sign In or Register to comment.