The problem here is that you’re missing my point. The skills in the actual game (or games, more properly) of poker are actually quite elementary. There are a handful of valulable card combinations and a clear ranking of their value. Strategy in poker (as opposed to cheating-at-poker) merely consists of attempting to maximuze your chances of achieving the best possible card combination. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you have a pair of aces and a pair of eights that it’s a poor strategy to pull a full-hand turn-in trying to get a straight flush.

It’s the skill of cheating at, or stopping other people from cheating at, poker (as I mentioned, long an integral and irreplacable part of the game) is something else entirely, and this is the main skill people find in the game — perfecting their “poker face” or learning their opponents’ “tells,” for example.

Poker is a social experience, but hardly unique in that regard. There are numerous comparable experiences which will make you a better businessman, a more social person, and a better golfer. Poker differs from many of these other experiences only in that one or more people at the table may be actively enriched at the expense of others.

Unlike you, I enjoy Volleyball and gin, and would probably like mahjongg if I took the time to learn it. I also enjoy Poker, but find it idiotic to spend my money to enrich other people who either aren’t telling me that I suck or are actively cheating to win. Nor would I like to fall into the latter category.

A victorious gambler is either just plain lucky or actually a swindler. I would prefer to make money using my wits by legitimate means.

Your post makes clear that if you are incapable of playing poker. If you knew how to play at an elementary level, you would understand that it is not a game with a single, simple level, after which all is equal.

Furthermore, you clearly aren’t in a position to understand what skills the game helps develop for use outside of the poker table. I can say, with absolute honesty, that my time at the poker tables has made me a better businessman, a more social person, and even a better golfer. I’ve learned a lot about people while playing poker, because their true nature shows through, much as happens in most other competitive sports.

I don’t enjoy volleyball, mah-jong or gin, but I won’t go around insulting the intelligence of those who play it, nor pretending falsely to know what each person may get from their experience in the game.

PZ Myers was a bigger jerk than you, but is clear that you, too, lack understanding.

Careful. That might be heresy.

>”There are lots of us who don’t consider ourselves anywhere on the political spectrum. ”

Two quick hits from me if I were in charge:

- I’d eventually phase out the income tax. No, this is not impossible.

- Abortions would be available for free at kiosks in malls. No age limit.

Impossible because I don’t suffer from politics.

> “Noone seriously thinks humans are consistent enough to be placed into neat categories”

No, I’m afraid most people really are very simple.

And *I* don’t put them into categories. They put *themselves* into categories.

You savvy?

> “In the other kind of gambling, you essentially have to cheat to win.”

Whatever. (rolls eyes)

Noone seriously thinks humans are consistent enough to be placed into neat categories, that’s why it’s a spectrum in the first place.

Jack Hagerty, you are, by your own description, a textbook Libertarian. That means that you “tend to the right” (that is, resemble a Republican) on economic issues and “tend to the left” (that is, resemble a Democrat) on social issues. Like most Libertarians, you’re smart enough to know that your party’s candidate (if there’s even one on the ballot) doesn’t have a chance in hell, so you vote for a Democrat or a Republican based mainly on whether they’re more focused on economic or social factors.

QD, you may be politically confused, but that doesn’t mean that anyone who can find themselves on a political spectrum is an idealogue. Also, that word doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.

As to gambling, it’s stupid for someone. The only way someone makes money in gambling is if someone’s losing it. That’s how the system works. In “bad gambling,” you’ll always lose money because the game is designed such that the house makes money and you lose it.

In the other kind of gambling, you essentially have to cheat to win.
Sports are only gambling if noone knows the outcome of the game, which is usually fairly easy to guess, especially with good intel, thus why professional odds-makers can make money.

Of course, they’re only making money because some idiots are betting against them, and if you’re consistently able to win betting against them, you’re still functionally profiting because someone else is making the wrong bet.

Poker’s the same way. There’s a certain amount of elementary skill to the game itself, but beyond that it’s just gambling, unless you know how good the other guy’s hand is, which is technically against the rules. So, if you’re making money at poker (discounting dumb luck) it’s either because you’re playing against those who lack even elementary skill (and should be aware of this fact) or because you’re cheating (and yes, “reading” your opponents is a form of cheating, even if it’s a time-honored and respected part of the game.) That seems pretty stupid to me, at least on the part of the losers without whom the game would be impossible to consistently profit from.

Of course, any of these games can be played without money, which would make them at worst a waste of time.