Borrowing on an old Star Trek idea about Captain Kirk's on-going thematic-struggle with that, isn't that really what we're up against here? The mind-sets of a game like... ?
Well, Kirk cheated his way out of it (at the "academy"), but later conceded that there's "no way to cheat death"... and nor did he. And for those others, fictional or not, who take up the same "challenge", most by some sort of (symbolic/mock) gaming, but a few by the more/less-serious means... i think every interpretation of this problem must necessarily be unique, because those are each just a form of practice for the real end-game (noted earlier).
So let's just take a quick look at some of the forum-members here to work up a "bases", or general set of common components among each. Please bear in mind that none of this is by any means purely-scientific, personal/professional, or anything else but my own passing thoughts in between rolling over under the covers. And that methods are bound to overlap, and shared. Anyone may feel free to add to the list, or give his/her own interpretation/solution to these scenarios.
1. Kirk cheated.
2. garnabby seeks to "win by breaking even". (Perhaps looking for a way to lose under a "no-lose scenario" yeilds the same answer?)
3. Some of us (, you know who you are,) try to "prove something" by pursing challenges which are either silly "fantasies of fantasies", of no value even if attainable; or ones plainly out of their grasps, as the grade-6 Ellis trying to let on he's the math-guru of math-gurus (,and at the other extreme, who can't and won't note even where they got which SELF-CLAIMED PhD, or genius-level IQ-certification) Eg, the scammers here whose last resort is propaganda... and after all the facts have already been clearly laid out.
4. gr8player's (at the GG) "poison of choice" seems to be self-delusion.
5. The martingale-bettors, by force over finesse. Versus the very-slow bettors... every 10th game, increasing to $10 after losing $5 five or six times in a row with a $50,000 stake.
6. The diplomatic Archer's, BigJoe's, and littogage's, who "run cover" for the Grab's... instead of ever getting on with something "from the heart". Akin to the Nathan's, the keepers of the " gambling etiquette"... ie, discipline,
MM, and "no system wins all the time".
7. The know-it-all loudmouths like John, gizmotron, and Spike (at the GG), who claim to have some sort of "holy grail"... but which they intend to "take to their graves" because the rest of us are "undeserving". (Really because they can't make up their own minds about what they're actually doing at any particular time?)
8. The Mike's, who like to create a "sandbox" or two, and see what life springs from it. Versus also those who leave nothing to chance by rigorously, and strenuously, taking everything apart first... the experts.
9. The bank-robber types, who almost always get caught, or dead. As if "you could take it with you" anyway, lol.
10. The AP's, like Savant (aka Sonny, the
bj-site owner), who really think that if they just "dagumit" work hard enough, then the unlikeliest of edges over the house shall be theirs. Smug ain't smart, right?
11. They who try to turn the tables? (With the propaganda, or for real.)
Were you "between a rock and a hard place" of a different sort? How did you escape? Did you?
************************************************** *******************
UPDATE-edit: To not have to bump this thread to reply to John's re-copied nonsense below, i'm putting my reply here.
"I said "your god", with a lower-case 'g'... even to refer to the god-of-the-foolish, such as yourself?
LOL.
Gambler's Glen Message Boards : Baccarat Message Board : Carlo down the johno... . Gambler's Glen Message Boards : Baccarat Message Board : Mission Accomplished "