I find 'win quick' gambits disgusting

I'm sick of all these  'how to crush lower rated players with XXX gambit' type videos. Is this all people care about, getting a quick win by reciting a few moves by rote? At best, you'll improve your rating for a short while but then get kicked back down when you have to actually play real chess. I don't think we should be encouraging this sort of thing. I really want to shout abuse at someone when they play some stupid gambit. 

The smith-morra is a good line for white because of its dynamics and active pieces and most times black will be undeveloped and often losing the d-pawn on d6 (because in the smith morra you’ll have to play e6 to get the f8 bishop out .. if you play g6 white will run you over as most of my experiences have told me )

all gambits are worth looking because they can help you better understand the dynamics and knowing not to be afraid to sacrifice a pawn or two to get something out of it.. which is VERY useful to know

There is a simple solution - don't watch these videos and don't play gambits. Nobody is forcing you to do those things. And accept being outplayed by gambit players from time to time.

I'm a gambiteer. It has nothing to do with tricks or even just winning.  There are traps in most openings anyway. What appeals to me about gambits is the classical tension between time and material.  In gambits, you give up material, maybe a little, maybe a lot, for the sake of rapid development.   I think computers have shown that material usually becomes advantageous over time with near perfect play. Fortunately, I play imperfect people.  Faster development gives you more options for a while. If you can make better use of those options before the advantage dissipates than your opponent can with his added material, which doesn't dissipate, you'll probably win, if not you'll probably lose.   Gambits aren't for everyone, but they certainly add spice to the game... and to me, it's all about the journey not the destination.  

The only good attacking gambit is the poison pawn variation of the najdorf. Most players that I encounter can easily neutralize unsound gambits.

I really don't get the name of this forum. Gambits are interesting. Some are bad and have been refuted, like the King's gambit, while others are good. Gambits= interesting.

Do you people just copy and paste this from some template? It's same reply every time. 

Well, the development of tournaments in the last quarter of the 19th century assured just that.  I'm not sure I agree with Murray (who lived mainly in the last quarter of the 19th century through the first quarter of the 20th century) that the "Modern School" was unenterprising.  It was just as tactical (and by extension positional by necessity) as the more Romantic openings, but in a more subtle, less risky way.  Just as Romantic players needed good position for their tactical fireworks (and as more players better understood position, a la Morphy, the stronger they became), the "Modern" players were attuned to the tactics that held their positions together.   Finally, organizers recognized the need for thematic tournaments to add variety.  

What do you mean by "good"? In my database of OTB games where both players are 2400+, updated last week, White scores 53.8% if Black accepts the Poisoned Pawn. That's pretty average. Many fascinating games certainly, but 1 e4 as a whole scores 54.8%. Playing the Poisoned Pawn as White arguably brings down White's score.

It seems like 4 years ago, when I started learning Chess, all the YouTube experts like Jonathan Schrantz and Eric Rosen would be warning learners against just learning lots of trick moves and instead advocate for understanding concepts and endgame theory. Now they all just seem to be competing for clicks by promoting the latest 'Win Quick' Gambit.

Also unpleasant is this trend for highly ranked players to just play much lower ranked players and thrash them.

Is this is what being 'cool' means in modern Chess, I prefer to be a fuddy-duddy.