Angels at the table
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was hitting a lot of bonus hands so I let the woman next to me bet on my trips. She bet anywhere from $5 to $25 on it. At one point she tried to pass me $30 under the table but I wouldn't take it. She hit about 5 bonus hands in a row, and made about $800. Later, she was coloring up to go to lunch and decided to play one more hand. She hit quads with $10 up, so made another $600 plus bonus. She had also bet my trips for $10, and I made a full house. She gave me the $90 in winnings. For some reason I felt really bad about this, but was afraid it would be insulting to give it back. I gave back $30 saying she should keep her "original bet." She accepted this. I colored up soon after with a $125 win, including the gift.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
What would you do in this situation? By the way, they were toking the dealer very well; she tipped the dealer $50 on her quads win. I was really happy to see that. Every once in a while you get moments like these at the tables where everyone is happy, and winning in a negative expectation game. It is so rare -- you really need to cherish them.
Quote: teddysWhat would you do in this situation? By the way, they were toking the dealer very well; she tipped the dealer $50 on her quads win. I was really happy to see that. Every once in a while you get moments like these at the tables where everyone is happy, and winning in a negative expectation game. It is so rare -- you really need to cherish them.
This problem can be easily simplified. Someone gives me money--in celebration, to spread around good fortune, whatever. The point is, they have decided that the good feeling that they get from giving me (or someone else) $10 is worth more than the $10 itself--otherwise, they would not have made the gift in the first place. In economist-speak, the gift, as in the act of giving it, had more thsn $10 worth of "utility". ANYTHING we voluntarily spend $10 on has to have, BY DEFINITION, more than $10 worth of utility for us--whether we spend it on a movie, a meal, or a gift. Therefore, by refusing the gift, I am actually COSTING the giver whatever utility over and above the $10 that she would have gained by giving it to me. She loses the "marginal utility" she would have had--and I lose $10. I try to avoid lose-lose transactions, especially when I could engage in a win-win transaction instead.
If the above sounds like some kind of rationalization, it really isn't.
Quote: mkl654321In economist-speak, the gift, as in the act of giving it, had more thsn $10 worth of "utility".
This is getting a bit off topic, but I've always wondered if fraudulent charities and churches justify accepting donations under this premise. Benny' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Hinn]Benny Hinn comes to mind. I wonder what would be the discussion around the conference table of a major charity if somebody suggested, "If we spend $5 million more on fund raising, I show we'll take in $6 million additional in donations."
Quote: mkl654321This problem can be easily simplified. Someone gives me money--in celebration, to spread around good fortune, whatever. The point is, they have decided that the good feeling that they get from giving me (or someone else) $10 is worth more than the $10 itself--otherwise, they would not have made the gift in the first place. In economist-speak, the gift, as in the act of giving it, had more thsn $10 worth of "utility". ANYTHING we voluntarily spend $10 on has to have, BY DEFINITION, more than $10 worth of utility for us--whether we spend it on a movie, a meal, or a gift. Therefore, by refusing the gift, I am actually COSTING the giver whatever utility over and above the $10 that she would have gained by giving it to me. She loses the "marginal utility" she would have had--and I lose $10. I try to avoid lose-lose transactions, especially when I could engage in a win-win transaction instead.
If the above sounds like some kind of rationalization, it really isn't.
I agree 100%. I was playing next to a pretty young Asian woman, having fun; she won a few big hands in a row, I was losing, out of the blue she put up my bet for me for one hand. I accepted, and won. Turning her down would have been a buzzkill on her. About an hour later I cashed out even, she was about even, we high-fived and each enjoyed the rest of our day.
Quote: WizardThis is getting a bit off topic, but I've always wondered if fraudulent charities and churches justify accepting donations under this premise. Benny' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Hinn]Benny Hinn comes to mind. I wonder what would be the discussion around the conference table of a major charity if somebody suggested, "If we spend $5 million more on fund raising, I show we'll take in $6 million additional in donations."
I think they do, and what's more, I think they're correct in thinking that way. Note that the benefit for the giver is the same whether or not the charity is fraudulent (particularly true if the giver receives a tax deduction), and for all the giver knows, the outcome is the same (could you actually trace that $50 you gave, or thought you gave, to help Haitian earhquake victims?).
This leads me to one of the many (,many) things I say on occasion that almost get me thrown into the pool, or the wood chipper, at cocktail parties: people donate to charity because it gives them pleasure to do so. NO other reason! All other professed motives are merely a rewording of the concept, "pleasure". (I don't see any future in setting up a charity for, say, obnoxious, pimply-faced drunks.)
Your hypothetical charity would be perfectly justified in spending the 6 million because the 5 million spent would be spent in giving custom to all the various businesses and individuals involved in charitable publicity and fundraising--a worthy goal in itself. And the ROI would actually be quite impressive from a societal point of view.
Another time I was playing blackjack and cashed out maybe 400 dollars up. An older asian gentleman was just observing but I could tell he had played at other tables. So when I went to the cage to cash out he followed me. Not in a threatning way he asked if I could loan him 20 dollars. Well my actual cash out amount was 445 so I gave him 45 dollars. He then gave his Zippo. I didn't want it but I didn't want to hurt his feelings. I hope it went well for him.
Now on one occasion I was observing after having a bad streak. I was waiting for midnight so I could cash out my vouchers into cash. I watched a gentleman who knew no english playing blackjack. Since it wasn't midnight yet I had some time to kill. He was betting 300 to 800 at a time. I was done watching him so I started to walk away and he called me back and gave me a black chip! I didn't ask for it but I graciously accepted. It's nice that people do that. But don't expect it to happen either.
Quote: teddysFor some reason I felt really bad about this, but was afraid it would be insulting to give it back. I gave back $30 saying she should keep her "original bet."
That's just your pride f*ckin' wich you, Butch. You may think it's because you were winning and didn't need it, but I think what it really boils down to is for some reason you somehow felt like you were accepting charity.
It's doesn't happen often, but I never turn down money from another player even if I'm playing blacks and he's playing reds. Because it's an insult to the giver, as you can now tell.
On the other hand, I normally don't think like other people, so if I offered a chip to someone who had had a long roll and they demurred, I actually wouldn't be insulted, I'd actually be psyched cause I made the gesture and it didn't cost me anything.
Quote: rudeboyoi.... i will never ever donate to the red cross and will always donate to the salvation army....
I concur with both.
btw, I am really bothered by the term "non-profit", as certainly the red cross aims to make a profit, therefore they charge soldiers for coffee, etc. Would you like to know how much they charge a hospital for a pint of donated blood? You'd wince at the term "non-profit' forevermore.
"Non-taxed" not "non-profit" should be the term.
Furthermore, my position on organized religion has been made perfectly clear in the Pascal's Wager thread, so it would violate my principles to support any charity with the word "salvation" in the title.
Their methodology seems pretty sound. The Red Cross actually ranks 3 out of 4 stars. The Salvation Army is not included...they probably don't share their finances I guess. March of Dimes is horrible, apparently.
Also not listed is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which to me would be the best charity for a non-religious person. I'd like to see how they would rank out as far as efficiency, though.
Quote: cclub79It's not always for pleasure in the strictest sense. When your co-worker pesters you to donate to their kid's Squash team's fundraiser for their trip to Madagascar, you may be doing it out of social pressures. Then, the $20 is only worth not feeling uncomfortable around that co-worker. There is little to no pleasure, and it's the perceived "less pain" that elicits the donation. You may even feel regret that they "got you", and negativity toward the co-worker in the future. I also think many times people overvalue the threat of uncomfortability. It probably won't be that bad if you say that you can't really spare the $20 right now.
Ah, but the avoidance of pain is also a pleasure-motivated act, in that a neutral state is more pleasurable than a state of pain.
Quote: WizardThis is getting a bit off topic, but I've always wondered if fraudulent charities and churches justify accepting donations under this premise. Benny' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Hinn]Benny Hinn comes to mind. I wonder what would be the discussion around the conference table of a major charity if somebody suggested, "If we spend $5 million more on fund raising, I show we'll take in $6 million additional in donations."
I have come in contact with many people from environmental fund raising charities. There is definately a cost analysis done for certain charities.
Protecting Marine Mammals is a very profitable fund raising activity. With many environmental laws there is a lot of public anxiety. Endangered Species Act can be very controversial because everyone knows about the spotted owl, and the snail darter, and major economic activity that has been cancelled because of a spider which is slightly different than all the other species of spider. There is almost no one on the planet who is doesn't love marine mammals. Just the mention of a threat to them will often bring in millions of dollars in donations.
The raw percentage that goes to costs can be misleading. Some organizations do little more than grandstanding and have a very low percentage but still have excellent executive compensation. Other organizations support complex logistic operations, and expensive research.
Quote: odiousgambitI concur with both.
btw, I am really bothered by the term "non-profit", as certainly the red cross aims to make a profit, therefore they charge soldiers for coffee, etc. Would you like to know how much they charge a hospital for a pint of donated blood? You'd wince at the term "non-profit' forevermore.
"Non-taxed" not "non-profit" should be the term.
Objections such as this misconstrue the meaning of the term "non-profit".
Even charities must show a profit, in that they need to make enough money to pay their expenses, and accumulate a cash reserve to cope with emergencies. In fact, a charity that did NOT make a profit would be useless to anyone, as it would not have the resources to render aid when needed.
"Not-for-profit" is probably a better term, as that sends the more accurate message that the primary goal of the organization is to render aid to those who need it. In the process of soliciting donations, such an organization may indeed show a "profit", but it will use those profits to improve its ability to help others; in a business, those profits would be distributed to the owners/shareholders, or used to expand the business. That's why charitable organizations aren't taxed on paper profits--it is expected that they will redistribute rather than retain those profits.
If it seems that the Red Cross is operating for profit when they charge for coffee, it should be kept in mind that if they offered it for free, that would take money away from other activities, such as disaster relief, that are more their primary goal and function than serving coffee. I would imagine that whatever they charged for the coffee was roughly equal to the costs of providing it, which still meant they were rendering a valuable service as a private vendor would have to charge more.
Quote: odiousgambitbtw, I am really bothered by the term "non-profit", as certainly the red cross aims to make a profit, therefore they charge soldiers for coffee, etc. Would you like to know how much they charge a hospital for a pint of donated blood? You'd wince at the term "non-profit' forevermore.
As a person who has worked as an accountant for a non-profit, and no I won't mention which one, I can tell you that, for the most part, the vast majority of people who work for a non-profit are very goal-oriented, no matter what that goal, as defined by the organization, may be. However, the people at the top of such organizations, do tend to make quite a bit of money. In one instance, the lower people in the non-profit I worked for were flat out told that there wasn't enough money to go around for raises. However, all the managers and anybody with an O in their title (CEO, CFO, COO, etc) were given about 5% raises. What they really meant was that there wasn't enough money after the top people got their raises.
As somebody else mentioned, a better term would definitely be "not-for-profit". Non-profits are expected to make money, and then distribute any additional monies they make above operating costs to whatever relief or help they are provided, as defined by their organization. The example I usually give is to take yourself, and say you want to start a non-profit, helping whoever you figure needs help. You have every intention of actually helping somebody, in other words, you don't mean this as a scam. The first year, you raise $50k. You pay yourself a nominal salary of$30k, and give the other $20k to the people or groups you are helping. The second year, you do much better, and raise $100k. You could still pay yourself $30k and donate the other $70k, but instead you feel that the extra work you did over the year warrants more money. So you pay yourself $70k and donate $30k. Since you're actually donating $10k more than the year before, it sure seems like your non-profit organization is not only doing better, but donating much more money, in this case 50% more, than the previous year. The third year, you only manage to raise $75k. You certainly aren't going to take a pay cut, so you only donate $5k. As you can see, non-profits can quickly get themselves into interesting situations such as this. But as long as the "profits" are being used to help the needy, they are still considered a non-profit.
The problem stems is that the oversight of non-profits is almost non-existent. Ideas on what the IRS is doing can be found here: http://www.501c3.org/blog/irs-stepping-up-nonprofit-oversight/. There are some organizations that at least claim to be keep an eye on non-profits, but they are not always so non-profit themselves. One such organization can be found here: http://www.charitywatch.org/. I don't have much knowledge of that particular group, but it does show that some people are eager to keep an eye on non-profits and keep them from abusing their positions. The always interesting thing to me is that when such watchdog organizations proclaim how great a particular non-profit is, that non-profit will use those exclamations in their own advertisements or brochures to state how great they are as well. But if the watchdog group denounces the non-profit, the non-profit is quick to point out the failures of the watchdog, and how the watchdog organization is corrupt.
My long-windedness aside, I personally don't like giving to charities, much as other people have stated. I will, however, donate money, time, blankets, food, whatever, to individual people. When hurricane Katrina hit, I put a jar up in my business and asked for donations from customers, which I then matched. The amount raised, was minimal, a total of about $3400, after my matching. I then found a family that had re-located here to Phoenix after the hurricane, and gave them all the money. Yes, I realize that I don't get a tax deduction for doing this, but my goals were not financial, but rather to help somebody. Similarly, if the wintertimes are particularly cold, which doesn't happen all that often here, I have no problems going to Target, buying 100 or so blankets, heading downtown, and handing them out to people.
As other people mentioned, people mainly donate to charities because it makes them feel good. However, I will also argue that some people donate to charity because of the publicity it garners for them. Specifically, I talk about celebrities. But for those of us that are regular people, I do agree that we give something because it makes us feel good, and there's a selfishness in that feeling good, and that is why we do it. So whether you donate to a fraudulent charity, a legitimate non-profit, or some unfortunate individual, you're still doing something that makes you feel good, and that's probably good enough in itself. Although, I always try to encourage people to donate less money, and more time. It's amazing what you can accomplish in 4-5 hours on a Sunday to help somebody.
Quote: cclub79It's not always for pleasure in the strictest sense. When your co-worker pesters you to donate to their kid's Squash team's fundraiser for their trip to Madagascar, you may be doing it out of social pressures. Then, the $20 is only worth not feeling uncomfortable around that co-worker. There is little to no pleasure, and it's the perceived "less pain" that elicits the donation. You may even feel regret that they "got you", and negativity toward the co-worker in the future. I also think many times people overvalue the threat of uncomfortability. It probably won't be that bad if you say that you can't really spare the $20 right now.
I hate fundraisers for fundraisers for fund-raising holidays. I've had people hit me up for money, so they can have a sponsored walk to enter a sponsored bike across the Andes. If you want to bike the Andes... pay for it yourself!
Quote: cclub79As someone who currently runs several radio stations, it's quite annoying when you get all the Public Service Announcements all of the "non-profits" want you to run for free, so they can generate more money and maintain their six figure salaries. But the Ice Cream Parlor down the street has to pay the regular commercial rate to advertise their business and eek out a living. We try to get some dollars out of the non-profits too, it's just a lot harder because they feel that they are holier-than-thou.
You only "eek" out a living if you scare people professionally. What you meant was "eke". (Sorry for the digression, but I just saw a thread that misspelled "its" in its title, and so my blood is up.)
You are making a couple of undefended assertions: one, that the primary reason that NPOs want free advertising is so that their CEOs (or whatever they call themselves) can make as much money for themselves as possible; this assertion that the only thing such people care about is lining their own pockets seems a little harsh. Not EVERYONE running a large organization is a cackling, greedy bastard. And for what it's worth, if you have such a view, that logically means that the money you indirectly donate (by providing free advertising) is going straight to the charity's beneficiaries, since the cackling, greedy bastard will pay himself his full salary no matter what. Two, the reason that you can't get dollars very easily out of the NPOs is unlikely to be their "holier-than-thou" attitude; it's much more likely to be their lack of dollars to spend.
Quote: mkl654321
You are making a couple of undefended assertions: one, that the primary reason that NPOs want free advertising is so that their CEOs (or whatever they call themselves) can make as much money for themselves as possible; this assertion that the only thing such people care about is lining their own pockets seems a little harsh. Not EVERYONE running a large organization is a cackling, greedy bastard. And for what it's worth, if you have such a view, that logically means that the money you indirectly donate (by providing free advertising) is going straight to the charity's beneficiaries, since the cackling, greedy bastard will pay himself his full salary no matter what.
Welcome to the board officially!
If you'd been here longer than 11 days, you'd know where I stood politically; you would know your opinion of my opinion of CEOs is pretty much as wrong as it could be. However I shouldn't have taken the cheap shot at highly-paid NPO employees. It distracted from my point.
Quote:Two, the reason that you can't get dollars very easily out of the NPOs is unlikely to be their "holier-than-thou" attitude; it's much more likely to be their lack of dollars to spend.
It's actually your assertion that is undefended in this matter. I have more access to the balance sheets of the organizations in my area than you do, and I know how much they have in their advertising budget (exactly how much in some cases). If they feel that money would be best spent on the things they spend it on, then they shouldn't be upset when we aren't willing to give them a free 60 seconds every other hour to promote their upcoming event.
Quote: cclub79It's not always for pleasure in the strictest sense. When your co-worker pesters you to donate to their kid's Squash team's fundraiser for their trip to Madagascar, you may be doing it out of social pressures. Then, the $20 is only worth not feeling uncomfortable around that co-worker. There is little to no pleasure, and it's the perceived "less pain" that elicits the donation. You may even feel regret that they "got you", and negativity toward the co-worker in the future. I also think many times people overvalue the threat of uncomfortability. It probably won't be that bad if you say that you can't really spare the $20 right now.
I am so glad that my company instituted a policy against charitable sales/solicitations at work. I had one co-worker who seemed to be collecting for various charities once a month. Now she can't go around asking for it. All she can do is to put up a small sign on the wall of her cubicle. It works out well, because I can pretend I didn't see the signs for the ones I don't care to donate to, but if somebody's kid is selling girl scout cookies, I can still buy them!
Quote: cclub79
It's actually your assertion that is undefended in this matter. I have more access to the balance sheets of the organizations in my area than you do, and I know how much they have in their advertising budget (exactly how much in some cases). If they feel that money would be best spent on the things they spend it on, then they shouldn't be upset when we aren't willing to give them a free 60 seconds every other hour to promote their upcoming event.
Perhaps. But I remain unconvinced that a "holier-than-thou" attitude either exists, or is the cause of the reluctance to spend money that so annoys you. I doubt that being the head of such an organization is any bowl of cherries, and I doubt that it's particularly well compensated compared to positions of similar responsibility in the public for-profit sector.
And yes, you took a cheap shot, and made a characterization that is more a cliche than anything else, so natuarally I assumed that was your default position. I generally don't go delving through the archives on a board to see if a political position articulated by someone is typical, or an aberration.
By the way, access to the "balance sheets" of those companies wouldn't tell you how much was in their budgets--it would tell you their assets and liabilities.
Quote: cclub79As someone who currently runs several radio stations, it's quite annoying when you get all the Public Service Announcements all of the "non-profits" want you to run for free, so they can generate more money and maintain their six figure salaries. But the Ice Cream Parlor down the street has to pay the regular commercial rate to advertise their business and eek out a living. We try to get some dollars out of the non-profits too, it's just a lot harder because they feel that they are holier-than-thou.
As someone who doesn't run any radio stations, isn't it true that you only run non-paying public service ads in unsold slots?
Quote: cclub79As someone who currently runs several radio stations, it's quite annoying when you get all the Public Service Announcements all of the "non-profits" want you to run for free, so they can generate more money and maintain their six figure salaries. But the Ice Cream Parlor down the street has to pay the regular commercial rate to advertise their business and eek out a living. We try to get some dollars out of the non-profits too, it's just a lot harder because they feel that they are holier-than-thou.
Again, from my experiences working for a non-profit, it is pretty much standard policy to always ask for in-kind donations, no matter what it may be. Advertisements, work space, supplies, meals, vehicles, manpower. In fact, the concept of asking for the in-kind donation was considered a huge part of any fund raiser's job. Failure to do so would lead to reprimands, and possibly being fired. At the organization I worked for, one of the first of the many training sessions a fund raiser would attend had to do with the proper way to approach and ask for in-kind donations. The fact that an in-kind donation is tax deductible is supposed to be the selling point for the company providing the resources, but it was my experience that many companies disliked being asked.
Quote: konceptumAgain, from my experiences working for a non-profit, it is pretty much standard policy to always ask for in-kind donations, no matter what it may be. Advertisements, work space, supplies, meals, vehicles, manpower. In fact, the concept of asking for the in-kind donation was considered a huge part of any fund raiser's job. Failure to do so would lead to reprimands, and possibly being fired. At the organization I worked for, one of the first of the many training sessions a fund raiser would attend had to do with the proper way to approach and ask for in-kind donations. The fact that an in-kind donation is tax deductible is supposed to be the selling point for the company providing the resources, but it was my experience that many companies disliked being asked.
The "in-kind" thin reminds me of a story. I was at a golf outing as a judge. Lots of charities have golf tournaments as fundraisers, even more-so about 10 years ago. They all need signage. Well, the sign guy was at my table and while he had made some sort of deal on the signage (the mutal friend who got me to judge was a networker of the first degree!) he was tired of the whole attitude. He said they walked in and thought they were doing him a favore by allowing him to donate instead of pay for advertising. He said his new stock answer would be to give a discount but no freebies because, "the machine I got for free broke; the guy who works for free is off this week; and the shipment of free raw materials had not arrived this month."
Which brings me to the Red Cross/Salvation Army thing. Growing up I was told the Salvation Army was there helping family and the Red Cross never was. The Salvation Army holds little in their accounts every year, giving most away. Remember a few years back that Ray Croc's widow left them what was left of the McDonald's fortune and the Salvation Army had to make a big exception to their policy since so much money could not be spent effectively in just one year and starting projects would tie them up and they would not get near the same donations in future year no matter what.
But I do not have a probloem with the Red Cross charging for blood or even coffee. I was a courrier for awhile and sometimes hauled blood from the donation centers to the processing facility or/and processing facility to the hospital. I didn't work for free. Rent was not free. Disposing of bio-waste was not free. Sending out the special truck to a corporate site was not free.
Charging soldiers for coffee and donuts? As long as it is not for profit, I can see it. 500 guys want donuts, if you charge a little it keeps the "hoggers" from taking a dozen instead of just one. And see above--even free stuff from say Maxwell House has to be transported.
GIve where you want to give. When the outfit uses too much money to re-fundraise then give to something else.
