Comments on: Fold ‘Em

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:33:14 +0000

easily one of the four or five most interesting and potent games ever invented

Ok, don’t just leave this hanging. What are the others you’re thinking of?

Diplomacy? Spin the bottle? Werewolf?

By: Joey Headset

Joey Headset — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:37:01 +0000

Yeah. We’ll see if the democrats have the balls to undo a piece of legislation that, virtually overnight, made criminals out of millions of citizens… for no reason other than “we conservatives don’t think people should be gambling (unless their last name is Bennett).”. As the legislator who wrote the law stated: Gambling is immoral and bad for society. Unless, of course, we’re talking about the state lottery, gambling on horses at state run tracks, or driving a truck for Halliburton — the most patriotic version of gambling. If you win, you get to take home a salary. If you lose, you get killed and replaced by another player. Either way, Cheney and his friends suck in a little more money. It’s truly a win-win game!

The version of gambling that they really have a problem with is any in which those who play with skill and brains will yield superiour results to those who play ignorantly. This is why slots are good, poker is bad. From the point of view of the people who passed this law, society should never reward anyone for the application of intelligence. Ever. Success should go to the privileged, the well-connected, the racially-pure and (when all else fails) to the LUCKY. A society that rewards citizens for competence, knowledge, creativity… that society could end up being RUN by people with those attributes. And if, god forbid, THAT ever happened the the people who passed this law will find themselves without a gig.

By: SamChevre

SamChevre — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:38:34 +0000

From the argument over video poker in South Carolina, one point I remember against poker specifically (in the context of gambling law) was that people are much more likely to play addictively when their actions seem to have a real effect on the outcome. So poker, and video poker, are more addictive than slots, and thus need heavier regulation.

Note: I’m not making this argument; I’m reporting it.

Personally, I’d rate bridge as the best card game.

By: Western Dave

Western Dave — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:51:53 +0000

My favorite ill-fated attempt of Pennsylvania liquor bizareness was the law that was briefly passed in 1988 or 89 that required a Pennsylvania idea to buy booze. It got repealed before I could file my full-faith and credit lawsuit.

I do think Penn gets the mail order wine thing right. You order, it’s delivered to a wine store, where you pick it up and pay appropriate taxes. Works for the shippers, who don’t have to worry about liability, criminal charges on selling to minors etc., and the state gets their cut.

I also like the fact that I can take advantage of the pretty cheap prices on big winery wines in the state wine store (they ruthlessly negotiate with large wineries to get the best prices) and hop across the river to Moore Brothers for my exotics.

But yeah, the gambling thing is just completely horrific from start to finish. Even the people that support gambling are pissed off at this point.

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 21:49:24 +0000

For the uninitiated: 1) wine and liquor are sold only in state stores which cannot sell tonic water, club soda and so on; 2) beer is sold in privately-owned stores but can only be bought by the case, not the six-pack; 3) unless you buy a six-pack of beer to go from a bar at a high premium.

Has this changed recently? When I was going to college in PA, there were six-pack shops in town, but you could only buy two at a time. The markup wasn’t particularly bad ($6-$10 each, depending on what you were buying). Still not as convenient as being able to go into any convenience store or supermarket and buy as much booze as you want, though.