Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Fatal Attraction of the Inside Straight
Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 2 April 2005 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

Posted on 03/31/2005 7:37:48 PM PST by Congressman Billybob

The subjects this week concern the War in Iraq, saving Social Security, and the death of Terri Schiavo. To examine the logic of all three, we begin with poker.

For about four decades I’ve played low-stakes poker. I understand the game well, but at best just break even. Why?

Casual poker players are doomed by the fatal attraction of the inside straight. Two cards can win when you draw to an outside straight, one chance in six. But drawing to an inside straight, where only one card can complete it, has one in twelve odds.

The first is a good bet; the second is a sucker bet. Amateurs go broke chasing the inside straight. The logic, if you think about it, has three steps: This can be true. This ought to be true. This is true. Now, apply that lesson to three main issues this week.

Opponents of the War on Iraq are now less in number but more shrill, as Iraqis have shown their commitment to democracy and freedom, not oppression and mass murder. The main remaining argument against the war is that the blood cost is too high.

Six months ago I compared the death rate of Americans in this war with those rates in the other ten major US wars. This is our least bloody war.

Another comparison is also appropriate. The death rate of American men and women in Iraq is only slightly higher than if they were home and driving cars to bars on Saturday nights. In short, the argument that the blood cost of this war is “too high” is factually false. But some people want to believe that, and therefore do believe it.

A similar deception reared its ugly head this week on Social Security reform. AARP has launched a dishonest attack on the President’s position on this subject. The main attack is that we cannot afford “new debt” of $2 billion for the transition to private savings accounts.

Let’s examine that claim. The people whose SS benefits will be paid by those bonds, are already alive. The law that says how much they will get is already written. The position that this is “new” debt means AARP expects tens of millions of Americans to die suddenly, or it expects the government to default immediately on SS benefits, or that AARP is lying.

Unfortunately, the press is not printing the facts when reporting on AARP’s position. And millions of Americans believe the AARP canard only because they want to believe it.

The third major subject this week was the ultimate death of Terri Schiavo, who died of thirst in Florida after 13 days of no food and water, under a series of court orders. At the end, this was a terrible situation which could have no good outcome. But if we are to learn anything from her death that might benefit others, we need to figure out what went wrong here.

The press kept stating this as a contest between Terri Schiavo’s parents and her husband. The problem is embedded in that sentence. Terri Schiavo has no husband, not in any real sense.

Ten years ago, Michael Schiavo turned his back on his wife – except for occasional symbolism. He took a new “wife,” and had two children by her. His connection to his wife Terri was no longer with his mind or heart, it was only with his wallet. He had custody of a $1.6 million medical malpractice case because he was the husband of Terri. And starting then, it was in Michael’s financial interest that Terri die, rather than live.

People who see conservatives or the “religious right” behind any interference with the “necessary and appropriate” death of Terri Schiavo hang their hat on that label: husband. Of course, in such situations and in the absence of any written instructions, the surviving spouse should be the principal decision-maker. But in this case, Michael Schiavo should have been divorced as a husband and dismissed as a guardian a decade ago. People who want to believe otherwise reject such inconvenient facts.

Among the people who have a strong grasp of reality by playing poker for decades are Presidents Truman and Nixon, and Chief Justice Rehnquist. It minimizes the tendency to self-deception. As President Reagan said, borrowing a Will Rogers line, “It's not what they don't know that's the problem. It's what they know that ain't so.”

Personal Note: I will be a main speaker at the March for Justice II in DC, on 7 April at about 1:30 p.m., probably on C-SPAN after coverage of Congress ends. The subject is runaway judges.

About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: aarp; deathrates; michaelschiavo; poker; presidentreagan; socialsecurity; terrischiavo; willrogers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
These subjects are all of current interest to Freepers. I think you'll appreciate this.

John / Billybob

1 posted on 03/31/2005 7:37:50 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Well done.


2 posted on 03/31/2005 7:50:23 PM PST by ironman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Any tips on blackjack?


3 posted on 03/31/2005 7:53:26 PM PST by jimboster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
People who see conservatives or the “religious right” behind any interference with the “necessary and appropriate” death of Terri Schiavo hang their hat on that label: husband.

Nope, I hang my hat on the fact that, right or wrong, the trier of fact appointed him guardian.

Our legal system works pretty well, most of the time for most people.
No system made by man can be perfect, and sometimes the innocent are hurt, but that is part of the price of having the best legal system ever designed.
At some point, there has to be finality of judgment or a legal system is just a joke, incapable of deciding anything.

Terri Schiavo seems to have gotten crushed in the gears, but it is not the fault of the judicial system, or any overreaching by judges. It is the fault of a badly written custody law, similar to those in most states.

A judicial activist judge would have reached right beyond the norms of the law and granted custody to her parents, and been just as wrong as any other judge stretching the law to suit his feelings.

SO9

4 posted on 03/31/2005 7:53:38 PM PST by Servant of the 9 (Trust Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
I am not faulting merely the courts in this matter. I am also faulting the Schindlers' attorneys. THEY should have asked for separate counsel for Terri a decade ago. That that counsel could have filed for divorce in her name.

It remains that Judge Greer is an arrogant SOB for not reopening the evidence and ordering definitive brain function tests that are routine today but were not available ten years ago.

Billybob
5 posted on 03/31/2005 7:58:27 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (Proud to be a FORMER member of the Bar of the US Supreme Court since July, 2004.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9

"Nope, I hang my hat on the fact that, right or wrong, the trier of fact appointed him guardian."

So, if some future "trier of fact" decides that left-handed people are defective and orders all left-handed people starved to death, that'll be just hunky-dory with you?

And then when he starts "finding" that the right-handed enemies of his campaign donors are actually left-handed, you won't have a problem with that?

"that is part of the price of having the best legal system ever designed"

We don't have it any more, as this atrocity demonstrates very well.


6 posted on 03/31/2005 8:02:11 PM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
The "new debt" for Social Security reform is 2 trillion, not 2 billion.

A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. (With apologies to Everett McKinley Dirksen.)

7 posted on 03/31/2005 8:02:55 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9

So true


8 posted on 03/31/2005 8:10:33 PM PST by csmusaret (Urban Sprawl is an oxymoron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

When the dealer shows a 6 and you have 11 or less, double down.


9 posted on 03/31/2005 8:10:37 PM PST by Enterprise (Abortion and "euthanasia" - the twin destroyers of the Democrat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dsc
They can have my sandwich when they pry it from my cold, dead left hand.
10 posted on 03/31/2005 8:11:57 PM PST by RichInOC (...oops, did I say that out loud?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Nice post but I disagree about Social Security. I don't want to save it. I want it to end. It's a rip off, a lie, a scheme, and totally against every principle of freedom known to man.

It's my money. I'll do with it as I please. And if I don't prepare for myself when I'm older I'll either have to work until I die or rely on my family or the charity of others. But it's fascism to force compassion upon me with my own money because others don't want to see me begging on the street if I'm dumb enough not to take care of myself when I'm 70 years of age.


11 posted on 03/31/2005 8:14:47 PM PST by Fledermaus (It is now clear the Founding Fathers were wrong: free people cannot govern themselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
Yes, I KNOW the figure is Trillion not Billion. I write it wrong because I have trouble comprehending a billion dollars. Sorry about that.

Billybob
12 posted on 03/31/2005 8:16:20 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (Proud to be a FORMER member of the Bar of the US Supreme Court since July, 2004.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RichInOC

MMMmmmmmm, sandwich.


13 posted on 03/31/2005 8:21:09 PM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus
No one is going to end Social Security in one fell swoop. If you want it gone, you should support getting part of it into private hands. That's exactly what the President is trying to do, now.

Support the other side, and you're going to have more of the same -- "good and hard" as H.L. Mencken used to say.

Billybob
14 posted on 03/31/2005 8:22:36 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (Proud to be a FORMER member of the Bar of the US Supreme Court since July, 2004.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

I think that Ike played bridge, but he can be included in the card playing crowd.

There's something to be said for gamers who know when their opponents mouth goes dry.


15 posted on 03/31/2005 8:24:39 PM PST by SaltyJoe (stay in a State of Grace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Oh, I'm totally with you. And I know incrementalism is always the way to go with large changes in social policy. I just hate the term "save" Social Security. It's unpure, dirty, and disengenious.

But I also understand we are talking to total idiots.


16 posted on 03/31/2005 8:25:10 PM PST by Fledermaus (I have a big truck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jimboster
Any tips on blackjack?

Here in Kansas City, we've got "riverboat" casinos. I've decided that when I want to play a little blackjack, I just write a check to the casino, and mail it in.

It sames me travel time, having to find a parking spot, and the aggrevation of having the worlds worst luck at cards!

The last time I played blackjack, I took $100 to the $5 tables, and I played exactly 21 hands! Yup, I pushed once all night. Lost every other hand.

PS, if you ever want to see someone's head explode, split a pair of 10s...

Mark

17 posted on 03/31/2005 8:41:30 PM PST by MarkL (I didn't get to where I am today by worrying about what I'd feel like tomorrow!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Greer seems to be the key in this matter. I suspect that he made a bad ruling early and then was too proud to be able to admit that he had erred. Ms Shiavo paid the ultimate price for his pride.

Your commentary, as always, is cogent.


18 posted on 03/31/2005 9:17:59 PM PST by bagman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bagman
Going back over the legal mess known as the Schiavo case, I reach the same conclusion. Judge Greer blew it early, and then he had too much pride to reconsider. All the other judges in the case, except the one dissenter in the 11th Circuit, made the case go away by saying, "It was reviewed thoroughly below."

Both errors are forms of arrogance and laziness that only a veteran judge can achieve. LOL.

Billybob
19 posted on 03/31/2005 9:36:10 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (Proud to be a FORMER member of the Bar of the US Supreme Court since July, 2004.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
"Casual poker players are doomed by the fatal attraction of the inside straight."

Not always, it depends on the "pot odds". If the ratio of money in the pot to the amount of the bet is greater than the odds of making the winning hand, then it is appropriate to make the bet. Such calculations are the key to winning in poker over the long haul. It is easy to understand why you were unable to do better than break even.

Poker experts and professional gamblers understand the odds, practice discipline and win over the less informed. Not every hand, but over the long haul, because they only put money in the pot when they have favorable odds.

Successful poker theory applies to life in general.

20 posted on 03/31/2005 9:56:14 PM PST by Buffalo Head (Illigitimi non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimboster

Don't buy insurance, it is a rip off. The chances the dealer will hit black jack are not good and most of the time you will lose the insurance and the bet.


21 posted on 03/31/2005 10:08:49 PM PST by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

The fatal attraction of an inside straight isn't the bet, it's the rush you get when you (rarely) hit it. This is as true for politics as it is poker, assuming that the two can be differentiated.


22 posted on 03/31/2005 10:14:33 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

You're gettin' good, John! ... I'd love to play poker with you someday.


23 posted on 03/31/2005 10:24:04 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
The first is a good bet; the second is a sucker bet. Amateurs go broke chasing the inside straight.

My father, a lifelong poker player, calls that "I came to play! syndrome." As long as you view your gambling as entertainment, you haven't "lost" unless you're short more money than you would have spent on dinner and a movie, the opera, or a baseball game.

24 posted on 04/01/2005 3:32:51 AM PST by Tax-chick (Do not fear the words of a sinner, for his splendor will turn into dung and worms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
I agree with your father's syndrome, "I came to play." That's the way I've always approached by friendly games. But I need to adjust my thinking for our duplicate honeymoon in Las Vegas in a few months.

The players there will be intent on skinning my cat. So my playing strategy has to change there, also. John / Billybob

25 posted on 04/01/2005 5:13:15 AM PST by Congressman Billybob (Proud to be a FORMER member of the Bar of the US Supreme Court since July, 2004.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Head
Yes, I know about "pot odds." But a lot gets left on the cutting room floor when any subject is reduced to three paragraphs. The general point is true, that losing players lose mostly because they do not get out of losing hands, early enough.

Anyone can make money on the good hands. It's what one does with the marginal and bad hands which separate the sheep from the goats.

John / Billybob
26 posted on 04/01/2005 5:18:16 AM PST by Congressman Billybob (Proud to be a FORMER member of the Bar of the US Supreme Court since July, 2004.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day; TaxRelief; 100%FEDUP; 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; ~Vor~; A2J; a4drvr; Adder; ...

NC *Ping*

Please FRmail Constitution Day OR TaxRelief OR Alia if you want to be added to or removed from this North Carolina ping list.
27 posted on 04/01/2005 5:19:42 AM PST by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; Congressman Billybob
My father, a lifelong poker player, calls that "I came to play! syndrome."

Exactly. You can only fold so many hands before you "just have to play" some hands. Tournament play is a little different though as they last several days and you are going to see a lot of hands. But as the antes and blinds are raised you have to start playing marginal to junk hands or your going to go like Broomcorn's Uncle. (He anted himself to death).

The "I came to play" applies to my golf game as well. If I have a shot at reaching a par 5 in 2, even if the odds are heavily against me because of a poor drive, bad lie, or other factor 90% of the time I will still go for it. I always say, "I didn't come here to lay up."

As long as you view your gambling as entertainment, you haven't "lost" unless you're short more money than you would have spent on dinner and a movie, the opera, or a baseball game.

Bingo. I enjoy gambling a great deal. I will gamble on anything that I am personally involved with and have a modicum or control over the outcome. Such as golf and cards to name two. Sports? I have zero influence on the outcome so I won't bet.

Some of my friends and family are opposed to gambling or just won't gamble because they don't want to "lose" money. I look at it the way you posted. How much can I reasonably expect to spend if I go out on the town for the night? $50? $100? Pretty easy to do without any effort. So if I play poker for 4 or 5 hours with my buddies and end up losing $50 I am in the exact same place as if I went to a bar to have food, beer, and watch "the game."

28 posted on 04/01/2005 6:18:03 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Judge Greer blew it early, and then he had too much pride to reconsider

Was it pride? Or did he have the mistaken idea that he was preserving the integrity of the court? Did he think it a weakness to reverse himself?
29 posted on 04/01/2005 6:31:42 AM PST by wolfpat (Dum vivimus, vivamus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jimboster
Any tips on blackjack?

Only split aces, and double-down when the dealer shows 3, 4, or 5 and you have 11 or less.

30 posted on 04/01/2005 6:36:53 AM PST by kevkrom (If people are free to do as they wish, they are almost certain not to do as Utopian planners wish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
I don't see it that way, probably because I don't know what the law says. But what the law shoud say is that the judge will assure that what is done, is done in the best interests of the subject (teri). once the circumstances of michael's common law wife were ascertained, the judge should have immediately withdrawn custody from michael and given it the parents due to the obvious probability of a conflict of interest. There is no such evidence of any probability of conflict of interest for the parents being guardians. If the law is contrary to that then the law needs to be changed.
31 posted on 04/01/2005 6:36:54 AM PST by logic ("All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing......")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wolfpat
All judges consider it "weakness" to change their minds. All judges think that any attack on their decision-making is an attack on the justice system, generally.

Consider that judges are lawyers, but more so. To my experience, the only profession that matches the usual arrogance of judges, is that of surgeons. I have highest respect for the minority of judges who are capable of reconsidering their own, prior decisions.

John / Billybob

32 posted on 04/01/2005 6:40:00 AM PST by Congressman Billybob (Proud to be a FORMER member of the Bar of the US Supreme Court since July, 2004.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
The "I came to play" applies to my golf game as well. If I have a shot at reaching a par 5 in 2, even if the odds are heavily against me because of a poor drive, bad lie, or other factor 90% of the time I will still go for it. I always say, "I didn't come here to lay up."

Oooh... I know that feeling all too well. If I can make it, I feel I must try it. At least I've gotten to the point where I recognize this, and ask Mrs. kevkrom to make a mark of the scorecard for "Kevin being stupid" before I take such a shot, so I can remember later why I wound up with that 8 or 9.

33 posted on 04/01/2005 6:40:26 AM PST by kevkrom (If people are free to do as they wish, they are almost certain not to do as Utopian planners wish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus
"But I also understand we are talking to total idiots."

Ah, HAH! I now have you pegged as a realist!!!!

34 posted on 04/01/2005 6:40:27 AM PST by logic ("All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing......")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

I'd say "well done" but they always are.

I think I've read about another President who has a reputation for being a pretty good poker player-- it seems that some people have a tendency to "misunderestimate" him...

: ^ )


35 posted on 04/01/2005 6:47:23 AM PST by George Smiley (This tagline deliberately targeted journalists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George Smiley
Yes, I know that the current President Bush is an able poker player, even if he no longer sits down at the table. I deliberately did not mention Bush in my article. A lot of folks read my stuff in nondenominational media, and I don't want readers rejecting what I write as, "Oh, he's just a Bush supporter."

John / Billybob
36 posted on 04/01/2005 6:54:51 AM PST by Congressman Billybob (Proud to be a FORMER member of the Bar of the US Supreme Court since July, 2004.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

They were available in 2003 when the renewed fight to have the tube removed was started.
Greer refused to consider anything other than that Michael Schiavo was still married to Terri, legally.
I place a lot of blame on him for his blindness to any mitigating factors.

Re: Poker...luck has a lot to do with it, too. We have been playing for a couple months on Poker Stars [yes, as seen on TV] and thank goodness its free. We have days when the cards seem to fall like manna and others where you can't buy a pot.


37 posted on 04/01/2005 6:54:54 AM PST by Adder (Can we bring back stoning again? Please?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
I think that some important "facts" about the social security equation that you left out are significant. First, what is the real nature of AARP? As pointed out by others, it's a shill front for the perpetual transfer of wealth from one generation to another, a concept which has been outlived by post-Depression American economic success. Ironically, while a majority of its membership indicate in polls that they like the idea of private accounts, AARP fights against it. Furthermore, while claiming that Wall St. has a conflict of interest because their firms would make money from private accounts, they sell competing mutual funds, another profit source. Should Americans be able to establish private accounts, would the AARP funds be hurt? They have a horse in this race that no one is pointing out.

Also, the bullying of the AFL-CIO is nothing but grandstanding, media-driven extortion. The campaign of a has-been like John Sweeney is sickening because it adds nothing to the debate about what will become of retirement planning long after he and his ilk are gone. The media lets him get away with saying that Wall Street firms will make a trillion dollars from fees from private accounts. Such a lie--and never confronted.

It guess that it ultimately boils down to the power of the media. The more people know about the details of the Schiavo case, the less inclined they were to support her husband's position. That is why the polls showed a 13% drop in support of ending her life from the first week of March to her death. Even Morton Kondracke, who said on a Friday night FNC show "Pull the plug", corrected himself the next day by admitting that his research into the case had changed his opinion. Did people know that she really wasn't hooked up to anything? Did people know that she probably wasn't in pain until the starvation began? Did people really know that she would not have died a natural death soon unless she had been starved to death? Do people know that this isn't so dissimilar from thousands of other cases of disabled citizens and court-mandated forced starvation for her sets a precedent for alot of other people? Were people aware of the timeline of Michael's interest in his wife, her condition, the money settlement, his new girlfriend and the sudden "reclaimed memory" of her comment about a tv movie about life support?

Whoever controls the media, controls the message.

38 posted on 04/01/2005 6:56:57 AM PST by MHT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Great Article.


39 posted on 04/01/2005 6:59:12 AM PST by hobbes1 (Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you dont have to...." ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: logic
If the law is contrary to that then the law needs to be changed.

I think that's what I said.
If you don't like the results, change the state laws.

So9

40 posted on 04/01/2005 8:02:53 AM PST by Servant of the 9 (Trust Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
"I think that's what I said. If you don't like the results, change the state laws."

Then sit back and wait for the handful of opposition to find a single judge to inevitably overturn what everyone else worked so hard for...:-(

41 posted on 04/01/2005 8:33:40 AM PST by pollwatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9

O.K. I trust you, we are in agreeance.... :)


42 posted on 04/01/2005 8:52:34 AM PST by logic ("All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing......")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Dear Congressman:

Your political analysis is spot on.

Your poker analogy shows why you only break even.

The first rule of poker is to learn to compute pot odds. Going for an inside straight can be a good move if the pot odds warrant it.

Second, you have to calculate the odds of your opponent beating your hand even if you fill the straight. Third you have to figure out how to make your opponent believe you have already filled the straight. Finally, you must have the courage to call what you think is a bluff.

I think number 5 is what separates the good poker player from the average player.

In fact, I think having the courage to make the call is the characteristic which separates many successful people from the rest of the pack.

43 posted on 04/01/2005 9:08:40 AM PST by CharacterCounts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
In Highlands, NC, I play poker for fun. I play with the same gentlemen year in and year out. So an intent to take every possible nickel away from them would be poor form.

On the other hand, when I sit down at a table in Las Vegas, the approach to the game is entirely different. There, every other player will cheerfully take every last nickel from me, if possible. So, it is expected and proper that I should take the same approach to them.

I gather you play poker frequently. I trust you make the same distinctions between a "friendly" game and a "money" game.

Billybob
44 posted on 04/01/2005 9:16:48 AM PST by Congressman Billybob (Proud to be a FORMER member of the Bar of the US Supreme Court since July, 2004.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
I gather you play poker frequently.

Heck no, I keep trying to fill an inside straight!

45 posted on 04/01/2005 9:37:04 AM PST by CharacterCounts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

"Six months ago I compared the death rate of Americans in this war with those rates in the other ten major US wars. This is our least bloody war."

Can you post a link please?

TIA - Y


46 posted on 04/01/2005 10:12:06 AM PST by Yehuda (America: Land of the free, THANKS TO THE BRAVE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George Smiley
Cato Institute has a great PowerPoint presentation online:

And the nice thing is that it predates the current brouhaha.

47 posted on 04/01/2005 11:09:41 AM PST by George Smiley (This tagline deliberately targeted journalists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda
That whole article, comparing the death rates in all major American wars, was posted on FR. I don't know how to search for my own stuff. LOL.

Billybob
48 posted on 04/01/2005 11:32:50 AM PST by Congressman Billybob (Proud to be a FORMER member of the Bar of the US Supreme Court since July, 2004.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

ok, thanks.


49 posted on 04/01/2005 12:40:53 PM PST by Yehuda (America: Land of the free, THANKS TO THE BRAVE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

You seem to have a rational approach to gambling. The nuts are the ones spending the grocery money on lottery tickets.


50 posted on 04/01/2005 4:44:20 PM PST by Tax-chick (Do not fear the words of a sinner, for his splendor will turn into dung and worms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson