Made $12,000 in LV in 4 days
- Thread starter armajedon
- Start date
Weaseling my way around this question...
If I’m 20 years old, I’d assume that whatever intelligent thing I’m doing will eventually overcome the bad luck.
If I’m 70 years old, I’d be glad I foolishly played the Powerball, and won.
It depends on the time frame…aslan said:
If I’m 20 years old, I’d assume that whatever intelligent thing I’m doing will eventually overcome the bad luck.
If I’m 70 years old, I’d be glad I foolishly played the Powerball, and won.
This is not too hard to answer if you are an AP. As an AP your goal is to make money. Usually by using your intelligence. But if that was not going to be the case, If I could reach my goal of making money by being lucky, thats what I would choose. Its a rhetorical question, so the answer is as well. It really has very little real world merit. It is a tiny minority that actually experience the circumstances of the question.aslan said:
On a side note, outside of the gambling world, I would much rather be intelligent and poor, than stupid and rich. Don't get me wrong, I like money, I just like not being stupid and ignorant more.
I agree.kewljason said:
As to your question (from a google search): It has been suggested that open clams give the appearance of smiling. The derivation is more likely to come from the fuller version of the phrase, now rarely heard - 'as happy as a clam at high water'. Hide tide is when clams are free from the attentions of predators; surely the happiest of times in the bivalve mollusc world. The phrase originated in the north-eastern states of the USA in the early 19th century.
BTW, Jason, did you get my PM?
Because in your question you stated being stupid at gambling but being lucky. Not making intelligent gambling decisions I can live with if the money is rolling in, rhetorically speaking. Being stupid in general is a totally different answer, thus my side note comment. No matter what the riches, if my ignorance and stupidity where to expound further than the gambling sect, than I would rather be poor. Being rich can be subjective anyway. To some it does not take money to be rich. Knowledge can be very enriching.aslan said:
aslan
Well-Known Member
You know, I thought about that, but then I asked myself if I would be happy knowing I was a box of rocks even though I had fallen into a ton of money. I thought I might be happier knowing that I did the intelligent thing even though it didn't work out, and wouldn't I be better off thinking highly of myself and my decisions even though I was broke. I guess I wound up deciding like you said that being rich can be subjective, and being happy with your yourself was greater riches than having tons of money but knowing it was purely luck and nothing you could be proud of. Now I'm wondering if pride might not stand in the way of being rich sometimes. It's a kind of quandary.Bojack1 said:
A few years ago I won $6400 in about two hours.
Thankfully it wasn't the first time I played black jack.
A few years ago I won over $15,000 in one day betting horses.
Thankfully it wasn't the first time I bet horses.
Even with an advantage, my gambling life has been like the opening for the old Wild World of Sports on ABC.
Thankfully it wasn't the first time I played black jack.
A few years ago I won over $15,000 in one day betting horses.
Thankfully it wasn't the first time I bet horses.
Even with an advantage, my gambling life has been like the opening for the old Wild World of Sports on ABC.
No offense meant in anyway to anybody here, but it has been my finding that most of even the so called, experienced AP's, play the game like a box of rocks. That does not mean that translates to their world outside of the casino. Many very intelligent and successful people seem to get dumbed down by the casino. So if by luck they make money, great. Again only in a casino atmoshphere in a rhetorical sense would it be a chance I would choose straight luck over intelligence, if intelligence offered no reward. Basically it comes down to the fact you posed the question to an AP, and you stated only in gambling would this question have its effect, which as worded one would assume once leaving the casino normal intelligence returns. So as an AP why would you choose to play a losing game if intelligence was to offer you nothing, but luck offers you reward. As I have stated over and over, its not a real world problem, but in the state in which the question is asked the AP has an easy answer. If answered any other way, then you are not an AP. For in this instance in the world of the rhetorical, luck gives you the advantage, and intelligence would make you a ploppy.aslan said:
blackjack avenger
Well-Known Member
Ummmmm
That's what she said!:joker::whip:
That's what she said!:joker::whip:
aslan
Well-Known Member
As an AP you would not believe that luck offered you reward, nor that intelligence offered you a losing game. The only way you could stumble into the luck would be if you did something stupid, that is, other than the luck that is sometimes part and parcel with advantage play, which would make you smart, not stupid. This is getting too convoluted. I give up!Bojack1 said:
Okay here is your original riddle.aslan said:
So going by what is posed here, the stupid rich gambler knows why he is as such, and the intelligent unlucky poor one knows his situation as well. So because it is hypothetical and not true to life, it is only logical as an AP to take the known advantageous situation even if goes against the grain of real world thinking. The problem is, in using logic sometimes we cannot let go of what is ingrained in us as truth, and examine without bias the actual concept posed to us. In the real world Aslan, my answer to your question would be different because I would believe it to be a false conception. But in the spirit of answering the hypothetical sense of the riddle, its quite easy for a true AP that plays only to get an advantage and make money to answer as I have.aslan said:
In riddles the answers usually lie in the semantics, even if the poser of it does not do it with that intention. Pose the riddle without the words knowing in them, and it changes the whole concept. Now it becomes just a question and no longer a riddle due to the fact the answer now becomes an opinion with no definitive answer.
Sorry to beat the dead horse aslan but you are posing this riddle to be answered after the outcomes are determined. But that is not a real world situation as we never get to choose our paths after the outcomes are determined. So as an AP if you are asking me if I would rather be rich, meaning the outcome is already predetermined, just by being lucky, or poor and unlucky, again predetermined, the answer is simple. As worded, the riddle is not that difficult to answer. For a deeper more opinionated answer the choices should have had to be made before it was known the outcomes of each choice. Adding, meant in hindsight, afterwards is like changing the rules because you don't like the answer.aslan said:
aslan
Well-Known Member
You are too deep for me. I simply meant that looking back would you be happier knowing that you got rich but purely through luck or that you remained poor but did everything with intelligence? Anyway, I think we all see things through our own unique perspectives. There is no right or wrong answer to such a subjective and as you say rhetorical riddle. It can be seen on many different levels and does more to focus who we are than to demonstrate any particular truism.Bojack1 said:
Last edited: