1544. - Aumann and the poker

Last year we had a strange meeting with Aumann: approximately twenty teachers of economic and exact, and approximately fifty agents of the mossad around. There was a question that I did not cheer up to rise to him, and I imagine which his answer would have been.

More than fifty years behind, the Israeli police closed a gambling den in Jerusalem, where one was playing the poker for silver, and the defense called it Aumann to testify. To testify on what? That the poker is not a gambling game, but of skill, and therefore, it was not punished by the law. But despite his mathematical defense, the judge condemned the timberos.

Kalai was telling that then Aumann met the judge, and he asked him for his mistake. His answer would have been that in these places the people lose quite, ruining his families.

Kalai argues that the judge is right. Re-formulating his argument, the laws point at an ideal, and the bets games are harmful to this social ideal (also he quotes a variant of the argument, the judge had to discard Aumann, appealing to the Misnah: the players must not bear witness since they do not contribute to the creation of the world!)

* * *

It had in mind the history, and the post who linkeo was reminding to me something that happened to me at the beginning of '90. Vívía with a few friends, we were all students, and we were buying many things in a municipal fair that we had close (on Santa Fe, under the bridge of Pacific Ocean). In one of the positions, a pair of old men was playing the chess, and when it was going was doing some party with them, according to the time that it had, or his clientele.

But one day, there was no any more board: the municipal inspectors appeared one day, and they left to them a cartel that remembered an old ordinance that was prohibiting the gambling games...

* * *

It had never counted this anecdote, I suspect that Aumann would be still laughing at us. It is not a gambling game, with which the strict law is not applied; neither nor were bets of for way, which discards the social ideal after the law.

But I hesitated to ask Aumann if he kept on thinking how he was thinking earlier: that the mistake was unacceptable, because these judges were not obeying the law, but his personal vision of how there had to be the things. I suspect that yes, because this keeps on being his position against the economic salvatajes (in the fund, which there fuck the banks that took risks, they knew that it could happen) which shows a surprising coherence over the course of time.

Download 24 S08E12 Day 8: 3:00 AM - 4:00 AM free