$5000 to Race???

[Earl Tudor]

[quote=CA Jack]

Your definition of gambling (given the right individual, and the right game or sport) is flawed, even by your own statements about your brother. I'm sure he would disagree that he doesn't put in "any real effort, by chance" when he is playing poker. If he bet "his whole earnings", it wouldn't change his odds and he would still "statistically win FAR more than he loses" wouldn't he? The very definition of "professional poker player", means they can make a profession out of it.

Actually, your own definition of gambling is flawed, but I do get your point.

First of all, nowhere did I state my brother put in "no effort" into learning the game of poker, so it is important in any discussion to stick to what is actually said, and not to make "strawman" arguments about what in fact was never said. What I actually said was my brother was a professional player, meaning that he enters money tournaments, but he is not an excessive gambler, which means he does not risk "everything he has" on his bets. In other words, there is a difference between a sensible bet and a true gambler and risk-taker.

Dogs are no different than poker in my humble opinion.

I would disagree, because dogs are living, breathing creatures ... who feel pain and who have VALUE as entities when they're dead game ... whereas playing cards have no intrinsic worth in-and-of themselves.

There is a reason why guys like the old man, STP, Rebel, Crenshaw, Fat Bill, Mayfield, Tudor, etc won at such high percentages while others flounder. They proved repeatedly that winning for them was not "by chance". They had a better eye for a dog, knew how to raise them, knew how to school them, knew how to pick the right weight, knew how to condition them, knew how to feed properly,and knew how to provide proper after care in order to repeat the process all over again. I would also suggest that this required them putting in a whole lot of real effort. I'm sure you're going to let me have, be kind

First of all, please don't mention the old man's name on this forum again. I promised him 8 years ago I would never mention his name online, and I will not let it be mentioned on my forum either. It is called respecting a man's wishes and keeping your word.

Secondly, again, you made up this whole idea about "not putting forth effort," so you're attributing things to me that I never said.

Third, you are likewise confusing talent, an eye, and acquired skills ... for gambling it all on a bet. There are some people who have no talent and no eye, there are some people who have great talent and a great eye, but neither of these necessarily has anything to do with the will to leave a dog down to die. For example, I remember reading in Fat Bill's mag about the talented STP matching his Revenge dog into the talented Ozzie Stevens' Cholly Boy dog, and when Revenge fell far enough behind that his life was in danger, STP showed class and picked him up. So, in point of fact, this is where your argument gets refuted. Both of these men had talent, an eye, and had a bet ... but STP did not let his dog die needlessly, when it was clear he could not win.

Jack

PS: Was I kind enough for you? [/quote:1t56fktn]
Sorry, I must have misread your point of view, I was basing my argument on your statement of

Gambling is essentially the desire to "get a lot" without any real effort, by chance

I also was unaware that the oldmans name was taboo, my bad.