I think this response is overly negative. Perhaps it is just for effect -- but it does not seem that way. In fact, there's so much negativity there, that I don't even have the energy to pick at its pieces.
I have watched many people get hooked by poker and get stung. I've seen people lose their entire bankroll in one night. I've seen people borrow money to feed their poker addiction. But in that general class of scenarios, I believe one of two things always happens:
1) The person finally gets stung so badly that they step away. Sometimes with the help of a friend or family member. The night he comes home in tears after losing a few grand in a single night, a loved one steps in.
2) Nobody steps in, the person is unable to stop playing, and the worst case downward spiral that you describe ensues.
Case 1 really isn't that bad. It can happen in much more benign ventures -- business or relationship ventures even. I recently read how Steve Wozniak spewed off nearly *all* of his +200M from apple in divorces, failed businesses (cloud nine and others), and other failed investments. Life happens. Life goes on.
Case 2 is obviously bad. But life isn't a linear sequence of events (and this holds for both #1 and #2). You can't just point to the start and say, "Brad is bad for introducing Broke Deadbeat Loser to poker." There were surely *many* events both before and after Brad's introduction that precipitated the unfortunate downfall.
The only exception to this would be people outside the realm of normal acceptiblity. Perhaps Brad shouldn't round up the 8 year old neighborhood kids for some cut-throat NL (although I happen to think it is fine to teach kids about poker, if done properly). Or perhaps he should steer away from his buddy at work who is still attending Gamblers Anonymous meetings. And also his buddy who has absolutely no money and is always asking to borrow a little to cover rent and some food bills. But otherwise -- within the normal realm of balanced people who hold a regular job, I think it's no more dangerous than teaching a person drive (person could very well die driving a car).
So if said person is not a member of these fringe off-limit categories, then even *if* he eventually comes crying and screaming to Brad -- Brad should not feel badly. Sure, he might end up feeling badly for a while. But after thinking it over, he should reach the conclusion that I present above. The person fucked up. Life happens. And life goes on.
no subject
I have watched many people get hooked by poker and get stung. I've seen people lose their entire bankroll in one night. I've seen people borrow money to feed their poker addiction. But in that general class of scenarios, I believe one of two things always happens:
1) The person finally gets stung so badly that they step away. Sometimes with the help of a friend or family member. The night he comes home in tears after losing a few grand in a single night, a loved one steps in.
2) Nobody steps in, the person is unable to stop playing, and the worst case downward spiral that you describe ensues.
Case 1 really isn't that bad. It can happen in much more benign ventures -- business or relationship ventures even. I recently read how Steve Wozniak spewed off nearly *all* of his +200M from apple in divorces, failed businesses (cloud nine and others), and other failed investments. Life happens. Life goes on.
Case 2 is obviously bad. But life isn't a linear sequence of events (and this holds for both #1 and #2). You can't just point to the start and say, "Brad is bad for introducing Broke Deadbeat Loser to poker." There were surely *many* events both before and after Brad's introduction that precipitated the unfortunate downfall.
The only exception to this would be people outside the realm of normal acceptiblity. Perhaps Brad shouldn't round up the 8 year old neighborhood kids for some cut-throat NL (although I happen to think it is fine to teach kids about poker, if done properly). Or perhaps he should steer away from his buddy at work who is still attending Gamblers Anonymous meetings. And also his buddy who has absolutely no money and is always asking to borrow a little to cover rent and some food bills. But otherwise -- within the normal realm of balanced people who hold a regular job, I think it's no more dangerous than teaching a person drive (person could very well die driving a car).
So if said person is not a member of these fringe off-limit categories, then even *if* he eventually comes crying and screaming to Brad -- Brad should not feel badly. Sure, he might end up feeling badly for a while. But after thinking it over, he should reach the conclusion that I present above. The person fucked up. Life happens. And life goes on.