[SUBMITTED 27/1/20] Asking for a Raise

[Candlewhisper Archive]

TITLE:
Asking for a Raise

VALIDITY:
gambling restricted, capitalism,

DESCRIPTION:
Your country's tough anti-gambling stance has shut down most casino games, but now a coalition of former card players are asking for your permission to play their high-stakes poker games. Their reasoning? They say poker is a game of skill, not chance.


OPTION 1
"Hard evidence shows that skill matters more than luck," explains Mitchell Coren-Victoria, former pro-player turned TV celebrity. "It's been demonstrated that the top centile of players over a six-month period are more than twelve times as likely as average players to repeat the feat in the following six months. That's more statistical consistency than most sports players. Poker isn't gambling, but a test of mathematics and quick wits. Ante up, @@LEADER@@, and let this game of skill be played."

OUTCOME:
card players are calling the government's bluff on anti-gambling legislation


OPTION 2
"Honestly, gambling as a whole is all about smart play and clever tabletalk," observes Adele Sheldonson, former casino owner. "The misplaced moral puritanism behind gambling restriction fails to recognise that gaming is a sign of a healthy and active mind. I think it's time you folded on this, and let people gamble again. The economy improves, people get to have fun, I make a little money. Everybody wins!"

OUTCOME:
job security isn't great for professional roulette players


OPTION 3
"It's always so tempting to backslide into sin, isn't it?" murmurs your uncle, staring into the middle distance at a passing flock of sheep, and licking his lips for a moment, before snapping back to the present. "Restricting gambling wasn't enough. You should make temptation harder to find. Ban playing cards. Ban dice. Ban poker chips. Anything that might tempt people to gamble, ban it."

OUTCOME:
baize on snooker tables has been stripped for "appearing too hedonistic"



OPTION 4
"Boss, you've got to see the game behind the game here: there's three rules poker players should always follow," observes your anti-gambling chief, from the shadows. "First rule is that there's always a hidden agenda. Turn the tables on these former poker players, and bring them in for forceful interrogation, so we can persuade them to really show their hand. Second rule, of course, is that you also shouldn't tell anybody everything. Keep this action on the quiet, and keep advantage over secret gamblers."

OUTCOME:
people who are too good at riffle shuffling get disappeared by the secret police

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I realise that there's an entirely reasonable option here to allow people to play poker, so long as the gambling element is removed. Make poker chips just worth points instead of money, and it's no longer a gambling game.

However, nationstates is not the home of Mr. Reasonable, so that option doesn't need adding, okay?

[Australian rePublic]

I realise that there's an entirely reasonable option here to allow people to play poker, so long as the gambling element is removed. Make poker chips just worth points instead of money, and it's no longer a gambling game.

However, nationstates is not the home of Mr. Reasonable, so that option doesn't need adding, okay?

That's interesting, because option 1 doesn't specify whether or not they're playing for money. Did you intentionally leave that vague?

[Chan Island]

It's a high stakes issue we have here! Bet there's an ace up your sleeve and....

OK, I'll stop.

In more serious notes, I'm guessing that there isn't a 'you can play poker at home' option because that would also be too reasonable, right?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I realise that there's an entirely reasonable option here to allow people to play poker, so long as the gambling element is removed. Make poker chips just worth points instead of money, and it's no longer a gambling game.

However, nationstates is not the home of Mr. Reasonable, so that option doesn't need adding, okay?

That's interesting, because option 1 doesn't specify whether or not they're playing for money. Did you intentionally leave that vague?

The premise calls them "high stakes poker games", so they may not be for money, but still will be high stakes in some way.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

It's a high stakes issue we have here! Bet there's an ace up your sleeve and....

OK, I'll stop.

In more serious notes, I'm guessing that there isn't a 'you can play poker at home' option because that would also be too reasonable, right?

Yeah, I want to keep the issue focused on what the poker players are asking for, which is bascally the right to make a living as a poker player.

[Trotterdam]

Yeah, I want to keep the issue focused on what the poker players are asking for, which is bascally the right to make a living as a poker player.

Which is really the problem. Poker may take skill, but still, the only reason you can actually make money off it is because there are also gullible gambling addicts who keep losing money trying to challenge the experts. It's not like poker is a popular spectator sport. (At least, I don't think it is...)

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Yeah, I want to keep the issue focused on what the poker players are asking for, which is bascally the right to make a living as a poker player.

Which is really the problem. Poker may take skill, but still, the only reason you can actually make money off it is because there are also gullible gambling addicts who keep losing money trying to challenge the experts. It's not like poker is a popular spectator sport. (At least, I don't think it is...)

For sure, I see your point, and I think personally that unskilled players ARE playing a game of chance when playing other unskilled players.

As to it being a popular spectator sport, I think you'd be surprised. It's at least as popular as chess, and probably has larger TV audiences, though viewership crashed in 2011 for complicated legal reasons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_on_television