AQo raise flop

Hi GingerKid,

Preflop: looks fine but having a reason of just for "fun" seems interesting to say the least :). Surely there must be a better, logical, reason unless you play poker just for fun.

Postflop: well his line is pretty read dependent there... he cbets in a meh spot and then calls a raise OOP with little chance to improve. So I'm not a huge fan.
Your river bet is great... he either has pairs or nothing much.

By fun i meant that i know that both options are fine, so sometimes i like playing agro and 3betting, sometimes i think was 3 betting enough lets start playing passive a bit. I already have a good payed job, so i play poker not only purely for max EV but try to improvize and try to have fun.

That makes more sense and I appreciate that

That's a luxury a lot of grinders can't afford and people rarely remember that this game is meant to be fun. That's why we play it so much (that and the money of course).

Another non-hand evaluation question for you:
A friend of mine started playing poker 2 years ago, I even tried hard helping him to win in poker, but no success at all, he just couldnt follow strategy disciplined more than 15 minutes. And was totally addicted to poker and lost all savings and even had bank loans.
Now he quited poker and doesnt have that problem, but since I was not aware that people can have such problems (I knew it happens to some people, but didnt know how it goes really), now I have moral problems when I play poker. Before when I win vs fish and fish makes stupid moves, I was laughing and had fun, nowadays I don't. Also my girlfriend told me that I should think about stopping poker because it is not moral to win from people who have problems. Poker provides me fun and a lot of additional money, also it is a big challange to me, so I have really problem quiting it and I have also problem playing it, thats why I play it rarely lately.

So what do you think about that?

Hi Gingerkid, thanks for sharing your doubts! When I think about the moral aspects of winning in poker, I like to make a clear distinction and consider the following two questions separately:

1) Is it moral to play poker for real money? (or: should playing poker for real money be legal?)

2) Is it moral to win? (or: is it moral to treat it as a source of income?)

There is no one good answer to the first question. Poker ruins some people's lives and by not playing you are not contributing to this process. If nobody played this game, nobody would lose money in it. But on the other hand, people love playing games and gambling. Poker for real money combines these two things and brings joy and excitement to their lives.

So these are the facts from which everyone can draw a different conclusion. I am a huge libertarian which means that I believe letting people do what they want and helping those who can't control themselves is a better way to go than trying to stop everyone from doing something to avoid any danger. I'm all for responsible gaming campaigns and I want everyone to only risk the money they can afford to lose. But at the same time I'm selfish enough that the fun I have playing is more imporant to me than my contribution to ruining someone's life (which is a side effect that I'm aware of, but I don't feel responsible for).

The second question seems really straightforward once you know the answer to the first one - if you think playing is morally OK, then I can't see any problem with winning any amount of money. The game is fair and everyone tries their best to win. If somebody says I'm immoral because I play for real money, that's fine by me. But I've heard people saying that the pros are the most immoral ones, because they get rich by ruining other people's lives, and I just can't disagree more. Everyone who plays for real money does morally the same thing, the pros are just the best players.

I used to have similar doubts, especially I didn't like the idea of table selecting and pounding on the fish. I've been a chess player for over 12 years. In chess, most of the people actually don't like playing clearly weaker opponents (I'm talking about any competitive level of chess here) - you are always expected to win, which may put more pressure on you, it is less interesting than playing a better player and you also learn much less. So when I started playing poker I was disgusted by the fact that the game always concentrates around the weakest players. But now it makes perfect sense to me. Unlike chess, in poker you need to adjust to your opponent, so playing a fish is interesting because you need to read non-standard plays. While you will definitely learn a lot playing tough opponents, you also learn a lot playing fish. Finally, the element of probability in poker makes the game exciting even when the skill difference between the opponents is huge. And with the money - as explained above, I never feel sorry because I won. Fish are trying to win as well.

There is no one good answer to the first question. Poker ruins some people's lives and by not playing you are not contributing to this process. If nobody played this game, nobody would lose money in it. But on the other hand, people love playing games and gambling. Poker for real money combines these two things and brings joy and excitement to their lives.

I agree about this. I can compare it to alchocol. Some people have big problems, but most of people have fun. It would be shame if they dont allow alchohol. Still, in this example, when I drink alchohol (purely for fun) I am not making other people suffer like in poker. The question is, if a guy who loses money playing vs me, does it mean that he is unhappy and having problems because of me, or because of himself?

Still, even if we conclude it is not our mistake and problem, but one thing is for sure, by making money in poker, we are not contributing for the society at all, it is one of the super rare jobs that is not doing anything usefull for people.

I think we can find even more extreme example, producing or selling weapons. Those people dont do anything bad, dont heart anyone directly, but indirectly.

So these are the facts from which everyone can draw a different conclusion. I am a huge libertarian which means that I believe letting people do what they want and helping those who can't control themselves is a better way to go than trying to stop everyone from doing something to avoid any danger. I'm all for responsible gaming campaigns and I want everyone to only risk the money they can afford to lose. But at the same time I'm selfish enough that the fun I have playing is more imporant to me than my contribution to ruining someone's life (which is a side effect that I'm aware of, but I don't feel responsible for).

also agree about this. Still, I think it is not possible to help those who have problems. At least we as players cant do it. Casinos could do it, e.g. if they see that fish is losing money constantly, they can disallow him to play at their casino. They could restrict the amount of hours played at their casino. But they like money too much so they dont do it. Goverments could also help, simply dont allow gambling, or restrict number of working hours for casino, how often a person can gambel and how long, but goverment also makes huge money from gambling.

And with the money - as explained above, I never feel sorry because I won. Fish are trying to win as well.

Before I started playing poker, I used to play roullet at casinos. At that time, I didnt understand how to calculate EV and the meaning of it, so I was trying to find strategies that can beat roullet. So I was fish and I wanted to win. Now I know that EV is allways negative no matter what strategy you take, but is it fair from casino to offer people a game, where it is impossible to win in the long run, even though people play because they want to win?
Similar is for the fish, they play to win (also fun but primarly to win, otherwise poker wouldnt be interesting without money). Also for fish it is impossible to win, because regulars have edge by trainning poker every day, by having tracking software and other softwares which provide great and unfair edge over fish. The most unfair thing is, that tracking software is not even commercialized and recommended to every player by casinos, so it is almost kept as secret.

Originally posted by GingerKid
Another non-hand evaluation question for you:
A friend of mine started playing poker 2 years ago, I even tried hard helping him to win in poker, but no success at all, he just couldnt follow strategy disciplined more than 15 minutes. And was totally addicted to poker and lost all savings and even had bank loans.
Now he quited poker and doesnt have that problem, but since I was not aware that people can have such problems (I knew it happens to some people, but didnt know how it goes really), now I have moral problems when I play poker. Before when I win vs fish and fish makes stupid moves, I was laughing and had fun, nowadays I don't. Also my girlfriend told me that I should think about stopping poker because it is not moral to win from people who have problems. Poker provides me fun and a lot of additional money, also it is a big challange to me, so I have really problem quiting it and I have also problem playing it, thats why I play it rarely lately.

So what do you think about that?

Sorry for answering so late.

i had very little time this month and doing new hands usually meant not having time to respond.

This type of problem that you are referring to is not that uncommon.

Are you asking yourself the same type of thing when you buy something made by some child slave or poor person over on the asian continent? Or anything else that's made by less fortunate people?

There was a period of time when I was thinking the same thing, especially when I play live and see how the guys look. But then I realize that if it's not me it will be someone else and I at least have a better approach to spending their money (since they don't). it sucks for a select few people but I doubt you can do much. Remember, they would lose that money regardless of your help or not.

There were even times when I tried to help people like these out and I'm sure you tried with your friend. But guess what, like any addiction, it's impossible to provide adequate help often enough if you are not trained for it.

Are you asking yourself the same type of thing when you buy something made by some child slave or poor person over on the asian continent? Or anything else that's made by less fortunate people?

Yes, thats a good point. I dont feel bad about it at all. I am aware that there are many poor families in the world, and that most counties have brutal capitalism, but I cant really make impact on it, and it is not my fault. It is true that if none of us would buy that cloth, those children would not have to work for small salary in factories in Asia, but on the other hand, if we all dont buy those products, those children will not have a job and will just starve? So I dont see it really as being my fault, nor that I get direct profit from somebodies suffering. Buying a T-Shirt might be a direct profit for me, thats truth, but still it poker example and making a profit by helping destroying somebodies life (I dont say that poker pros destroy fish life but contribute to that significantly).

There was a period of time when I was thinking the same thing, especially when I play live and see how the guys look. But then I realize that if it's not me it will be someone else and I at least have a better approach to spending their money (since they don't)

I think it is just an excuse. Lets give similar example. Mafia sells drugs to children, which kills those kids one day, or puts them in huge problems. Mafia things, it is a bad way to earn money, but if they dont do it, surely somebody else would do it since there is a huge profit. Isnt it very similar way of thinking, only that you said it in nicer words and me in more brutal? Also that my example is more extreme.
What do you think about drug producers (they are like software developers who created online casino software), drug lords (casino owners), and drug dealers (poker professional players)? I think most people hate what they are doing, including me.
It is truth that drugs make higher % of people addicted and much higher % destroy their life comparing to poker fish players. I am wondering how big % of fish play for pure entertainment, and dont have life problems because of it. If that % is very low, then I think it is not soo bad being poker professional player, still it is an unfair game, where somebody obviously has better skills and uses unfair poker tools like pt4, hm2 etc (it is even more unfair than other unfair casino games, where even fish loses slower than in poker).

There were even times when I tried to help people like these out and I'm sure you tried with your friend. But guess what, like any addiction, it's impossible to provide adequate help often enough if you are not trained for it.

Did they solved problems in the end, or had to take professional help. Thanks for your opinion, even if I found (tried to find) arguments against it (which doesnt mean that I dont respect your opinion).