Trump Economy and Poker
About six years ago I put up a post pointing out that the good Trump economy was probably very good for the poker games
Good thing this thread is titled ‘Trump economy and poker and the threat of iran getting nuclear weapons’
I expect the economy to improve, more people to take part in it, and the poker games to get better. This should take, in my opinion, about 18 months.
Good thing this thread is titled ‘Trump economy and poker and the threat of iran getting nuclear weapons’
Yeah, kist shows you the lack of seriousness of Trump apologists. Coming up on 18 months we are doing everything but admitting error or even trying to make a positive case that the economy is somehow much better than it was in 2024 on when Obama handed off the best situation to an incoming POTUS since.....I don't know Eisenhower?
Seriously, it’s ok to admit you were wrong
This pivoting for the sake of owning the libs serves nothing for nobody
Why has this guy said this seven times to no response, and what the **** is a k-shaped economy?
Anyway, online poker in the US is incredible, with countless fish still swimming around. I think it's completely ludicrous to spend thousands on transportation and lodging in order to play 30 hands an hour when you can sit at home for free and play hundreds of hands an hour. I play MTTs these days, up to 1ks, and they are all soft, except for on ACR, since they allow Euro/Asian players.
A bad economy seems to help and hurt online poker to roughly equal degrees. Fewer people with expendable money, however, more people are desperate enough to gamble what money they do have, as the prospects of getting rich in the normal way seem so dim. Obviously, I would very much prefer a good economy regardless of its personal effect, I'm just saying.
Why?
You could only think this if you have been brainwashed thoroughly enough to think that Iran is run by insane savages with no rational thought processes. Iran is ACTUALLY run by reasonably rational actors; it's simply another country with pros and cons.
Israel has nukes, Pakistan, India, North Korea to varying degrees, and the world is still spinning.
There's only one country to have dropped (a) nuke(s), but I forget which one. I'm sure it was from a very benevolent, peace-loving nation and NOT the one regarded world-wide as the strongest threat to world peace (by a large margin.)
If I'm Iran, I'm doing everything possible to get a nuke. That's the only rational path forward.
"A K-shaped economy describes an economic recovery where some groups thrive while others struggle, widening inequality across income, wealth, and opportunity."
I see. Yeah, that's extremely bad. Bad for poker, I don't know, but we ALREADY have disgusting levels of income inequality; increasing that further is truly profane.
Anybody with a soul feels pained to live in a society that features billionaires living in sheer opulence just a few miles from the homeless.
Elon musk will be a trillionaire in a couple months. Ergo we’re all gonna be rich
Seriously, it’s ok to admit you were wrong
This pivoting for the sake of owning the libs serves nothing for nobody
It's not so easy given the only people predicting a great economy as a result of Trump II think Trump rescued the economy in his first term after Obama and had no issues with the crazy growth destroying policies he was running on like tariffs and mass deportations.
About six years ago I put up a post pointing out that the good Trump economy was probably very good for the poker games since it would create more excess income for many people which we would see in the poker games. Unfortunately, Covid came and, of course, I got attacked by some people for saying something positive about Trump.Anyway, I expect something similar to happen again
Are k-shaped economies good for poker? It's a simple yes/no question; answer it.
Is having a k-shaped range +ev?
As Mason doesn't seem to continue his analysis, I put AI to work! 😀
Why has this guy said this seven times to no response, and what the **** is a k-shaped economy?
Are there other consistently running NL cash these days?
I only play ACR 6 max 50-200nl about 5-10 hours a week. It involves me sitting at an empty table to where a newbie or game starting reg sits in which leads to four other Russian bots immediately jumping in and me playing a 6 max game with one live one hopefully - which often isn't terrible but far from ideal. Then, it's either determined that the OP is either a reg, to which everyone eventually sits out, or the rec busts out and the same **** happens or he doubles up and it stays good for an hour. That's literally been poker for me for the last 8 years.
This is an interesting question. If the K shaped economy means that the poor people are not doing well while middle and upper income people are doing well, I suspect that would be good for poker. That’s because, even though there are some broke poker players, I don’t see many poor people playing poker.
On the other hand, if the K shaped economy helped the poor people, from the above, I doubt it would have much impact on poker.
As an analogy. In 1977, S. I. Hayakawa, someone who was very conservative, was elected to the Senate from California: During his term, he was asked if the high gas prices hurt poor people. His answer was that poor weren’t working and didn’t need to buy gas.
This is an interesting question. If the K shaped economy means that the poor people are not doing well while middle and upper income people are doing well, I suspect that would be good for poker. That’s because, even though there are some broke poker players, I don’t see many poor people playing poker.On the other hand, if the K shaped economy helped the poor people, from the a
the middle class (by the literal meaning of the letter)is most affected because their incomes aren't keeping up with prices, so they have less money to gambo.
I guess maybe if we end up paying the majority of what used to be the middle class some form of UBI just to get by, they’ll have more disposable time to play.
the middle class (by the literal meaning of the letter)is most affected because their incomes aren't keeping up with prices, so they have less money to gambo.
I guess maybe if we end up paying the majority of what used to be the middle class some form of UBI just to get by, they’ll have more disposable time to play.
Except that wasn't the question.
While what you're saying may be correct relative to today's economy, the specific question was generic and not specific to what is currently happening.
As for UBI, Milton Friedman did propose a negative income tax. You might want to look into that.
As an analogy. In 1977, S. I. Hayakawa, someone who was very conservative, was elected to the Senate from California: During his term, he was asked if the high gas prices hurt poor people. His answer was that poor weren’t working and didn’t need to buy gas.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Except that wasn't the question.
While what you're saying may be correct relative to today's economy, the specific question was generic and not specific to what is currently happening.
As for UBI, Milton Friedman did propose a negative income tax. You might want to look into that.
Yes, I am aware of the NIT and probably the only one here who's watched Free to Choose on PBS and who often agrees with Milton. I'm also a big fan of UBI and was, I guess, advertising the need for it in my post above. We also have similar advantages to nit now like the EITC, SNAP and ctc.
But it isn't 1980 anymore and poker still needs a good swath of recreational players able to feed the games a lot of money to keep them going. And we are losing those folks, specifically causing the relatively new term ... the K shaped economy - which is not good for poker and was my point.
On the other hand, if the K shaped economy helped the poor people, from the above, I doubt it would have much impact on poker.
.
But I think it has more to do with what younger people choose to spend their money on than the effects of a "K shaped economy", because their interest in playing hold’em isn’t anywhere near what it used to be.
On top of that, even when younger people do have disposable income, they are more likely to spend it on things like video games, streaming, social media, and sports betting rather than poker. That shift in entertainment preferences isn’t necessarily going to revert back to poker even if they had the same levels of cash as before. A lot of them have just moved on the same way that younger rpeople don't drink or smoke to the same degree.
As an analogy. In 1977, S. I. Hayakawa, someone who was very conservative, was elected to the Senate from California: During his term, he was asked if the high gas prices hurt poor people. His answer was that poor weren’t working and didn’t need to buy gas.
So, people with jobs are not poor.
I see conservatives have been dumb ****s for nearly 50 years.
Yes, I am aware of the NIT and probably the only one here who's watched Free to Choose on PBS and who often agrees with Milton. I'm also a big fan of UBI and was, I guess, advertising the need for it in my post above. We also have similar advantages to nit now like the EITC, SNAP and ctc.
That's when I first watched Free to Choose (in 1979 on PBS). At that time I was working for the US Census Bureau in Suitland Maryland. This series moved me from liberal views to conservative ones.
It's still available on the Internet and I think some of the posters here should watch it (or read the book which I also did).
And one final thought. Two Plus Two Publishing LLC and Two Plus Two Interactive LLC (which was this website) were modeled on the ideas in this series.
