Pro Poker ethical or not........debate goes on

[PokerPaul]

I am at the moment what i would call a semi-pro, since i make considerable income from poker, but i work occasionally as a freelancer with contract work in the hi tech field.

I have asked myself many times whether what i was doing was ethical and good for society. Well, after reading numerous threads here and thinking about it for long time, i can honestly say i have NO qualms about being a successful poker player, and we do in deed provide contribution to society.

We provide online sites, live casinos, dealers, waitresses, food services and many others with direct revenue from what we do. Furthermore our activity provides indirectly funds and jobs for magazines (cardplayer etc.), print ad desginers and marketers, websites etc. Some players will lose $$ along the way, but what difference doesn it make for them to lose it to us instead of directly to the casino via blackjack, craps, siegfried & roy etc.....they chose us instead to spend some of their disposable income on.

No one looks down upon Steve Wynn, or other casino moguls, but thats exactly what they do, and thousands are happy for it even though the vast majority of people that gamble in casinos lose.

As for contributing to society, my points from earlier illustrate that but let me add one more point for comparison regarding society.

As far as i'm concerned a monk in some monastary in some rural outpost, who spends all day praying away in his temple, and eating some plants they pick in the surrounding forest, and going through self-deprevation of all material indulgances is surely "ethical" and "moral" and a rolemodel for will power and dedication, and they may be considered pillars of society........but let me tell you, as far as what he contributes to society for me is jack squat....a pro poker player provides way way more in terms of jobs and revenue, directly and indirect...

Yet still many in society view a pro poker player as something quite less than noble. I guess its just something we gotta deal with, but for the most part, whenever i tell people nowadays that i am a pro poker player, i get way more excitement and curiosity, and jealousy from them than my previous jobs.

[Jaquen H'gar]

[ QUOTE ]
I have asked myself many times whether what i was doing was ethical and good for society...
As far as i'm concerned a monk in some monastary in some rural outpost, who spends all day praying away in his temple, and eating some plants they pick in the surrounding forest, and going through self-deprevation of all material indulgances is surely "ethical"...

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't know the difference between the terms ethical and moral, should you really be debating the merits? To a learned person, you sound like a fool. Perhaps you should spend those winnings on an education. As for your arguments, let me introduce you to tomorrow's vocabulary word: rationalization.

[fnurt]

Basically, you are praising yourself for being a consumer. While consumption is necessary to keep the economy going, the argument is a bit overstated.

[PokerPaul]

wow..thanks for your helpful reply.

You sound very educated.

Thank you for your enlightenment.

Welcome to the boards, i hope your other 38 posts were just as insightful and a positive contribution to other posters.

I will never use moral and ethical again in the same sentence. Please forgive me.

[Jaquen H'gar]

[ QUOTE ]

I will never use moral and ethical again in the same sentence. Please forgive me.

[/ QUOTE ]

My post was meant to make you go look the words up in a dictionary so you could learn the difference and use them appropriately.

My point is that the word ethical does not mean the same thing as moral. These terms are not interchangeable although many people who don't know better think they are. You, like most people, use the term ethical when you mean moral. I find most people know what moral means but not ethical.

Many things are ethically right and morally right.
Some things are ethically wrong but morally right.
Some things are ethically right but morally wrong.
Many things are ethically wrong and morally wrong.
And many times, things are moral/immoral but have no relation to ethics while some things are ethically right/wrong but have nothing to do with morals.

On a side note, jobs that involve ethically-right but morally-wrong behavior are frequently despised: lawyers, politicians, used-car salesmen.

[LargeCents]

You could make the same basic arguments towards the porn or prostitution industry, which in my mind are no worse than the fast-food, commercial TV or alchohol/cigarette industry. There's a good answer out there, it isn't in place right now. There's too much money involved. Yay capitalism.

Being a poker "pro" isn't much different than running a casino, on a micro-scale. You are paying the "bills" indirectly through rake, you are keeping your clients happy by providing entertainment value and display of skill. As long as you are paying the appropriate income taxes, you are ethically in the clear.

I read my dictionary regarding the whole ethics/morals discussion. I am guessing "ethics" is more of a legal word, whereas "morals" is more of a personal impression of right and wrong. Am I close, Jaquen?

Morally, if anyone ever leaves your poker game feeling bad about losing money, beyond "entertainment value", then maybe you've got a problem. I'm not talking about the people that can afford to lose a little, I'm talking about the ones that can't. Similar to selling alcohol to an alcoholic, which I'm sure I've done more often than I even know, as a liquor store clerk. Nobody's morally perfect, and there's always shades of grey. I guess we're a little bit better than average for even discussing the moral implications. But, there's bigger problems in the world than worrying about beating a sucker for a few bucks at the poker table.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

On a side note, jobs that involve ethically-right but morally-wrong behavior are frequently despised: lawyers, politicians, used-car salesmen.

I disagree. Lawyers and used-car salesmen provide useful services. Many of them *are* moral.

[bwana devil]

While I agree w/ your conclusion that poker is not immoral, I disagree w/ your logic on how you got there.

Drug dealers and murders keep lots of people employed. Police officers, judges, DAs, the media, etc.

Just because a certain type of activity keeps people employed, doesnt make it moral.

[Jaquen H'gar]

[ QUOTE ]
On a side note, jobs that involve ethically-right but morally-wrong behavior are frequently despised: lawyers, politicians, used-car salesmen.

I disagree. Lawyers and used-car salesmen provide useful services. Many of them *are* moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure many are, but that doesn't alter the fact that what these groups define as ethical frequently contravenes morals. Don't shoot the messenger. I didn't create their ethics, they did.

[Jaquen H'gar]

[ QUOTE ]
I read my dictionary regarding the whole ethics/morals discussion. I am guessing "ethics" is more of a legal word, whereas "morals" is more of a personal impression of right and wrong. Am I close, Jaquen?


[/ QUOTE ]

You're in the ballpark. Morality is right or wrong actions. Ethics are proper or improper actions.

Society determines what is moral or immoral, usually based on some hard to define innate sense of right and wrong.

Ethics are determined by the profession in question. Thus, lawyers as a whole determine what is ethical for their behavior. Doctors determine what is ethical for their behavior. Poker players determine what is ethical for their behavior.

Doctors don't tell poker players what is ethical for the poker players, and poker players don't pass judgement on doctors' ethics. Each profession sets their own. Many professions have an organization that determines ethics and can pass judgement on members - American Medical Assoc, American Bar Assoc, 2+2 Forum (ha)

Examples:

#1. Dealing seconds at poker. Ethically wrong, morally wrong.

#2. Betting out of turn or string raising. Ethically wrong. Morally independent?

#3. Gambling. Morally wrong (or it used to be, may be changing). Ethically independent.

#4. Selling a used car and not being directly forthcoming about mileage, repairs, etc. Morally wrong, ethically right.

#5. A client brags to his lawyer how he raped and murdered a young child. The lawyer anonymously reveals evidence to prosecution that leads to a conviction. Morally right, ethically wrong.

[Blarg]

Grew up in a family of lawyers, was raised around lawyers, have worked with lawyers most of my life.

I couldn't become one because my thinking about what they do and what that makes them become was in alignment with your description of what they do: often ethically right, to the very last letter, but completely morally bankrupt.

In my personal experience, I haven't seen many lawyers who don't embody that.

[jrobb83]

[ QUOTE ]
Ethics are determined by the profession in question. Thus, lawyers as a whole determine what is ethical for their behavior. Doctors determine what is ethical for their behavior. Poker players determine what is ethical for their behavior.


[/ QUOTE ]

So if I'm a poker player, who determines my ethics?

Your posts reek of BS badly. I hope you got something usefull from your college education.

[ QUOTE ]
#4. Selling a used car and not being directly forthcoming about mileage, repairs, etc. Morally wrong, ethically right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that honest used cars salesemen would call this an unethical act, since constantly doing so would harm the ability for used car salesmen in general to make a living. This is possibly the height of the BS in the post.

Maybe your posts in this thread have added something valuable to the discussion of whether of not being a pro poker player adds or subtracts from society, but I don't think so.

[lil']

I don't think poker players contribute much of anything to society when they play. Now if you want to be generous with your winnings afterwards, that's another story. However, a player logging in to an online game and paying some rake doesn't contribute to anything besides his own bottom line. I don't look down on it at all, otherwise I wouldn't play, but playing is kind of something you do to enrich yourself, not others.

That's why I will never quit my day job. I need to do something for someone besides myself.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Not shooting the messenger at all. And I'm not disagreeing with your point about the difference between ethics and morals, though I think that may be a bit semantic.

A lawyer, for example, ethically must vigorously represent his client, regardless of how morally reprehensible that client might appear. But in light of our judicial concept of the presumption of innocence, I believe that ethics serve us better than morals in such a circumstance.

Oh, yeah, and I was trying to be funny in my last reply by purposely leaving politicians out.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Personally, I believe that an individual's responsibility to society is limited to not initiating force or fraus against others. The corollary to that is that you take care of yourself and don't demand society support you. Beyond that, its up to the individual.

But, then again, I really have never cared much what other people think of my personal choices. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to listen to criticism, it just means I have never lost any sleep over what somebody else might think of my direction in life.

The primary reason why I don't quit my job and play poker for a living is quite frankly I don't think I'm good enough yet.

[Blarg]

I agree with much of what you said there.

Additionally, I personally think most jobs don't contribute to society much anyway, apart from keeping people out of jail and supplied with the consumer income to keep the economy running, as well as supplying the goods and services society desires.

But that description covers almost every job there is. We could say all jobs contribute to society(certainly being on welfare doesn't) by that definition. I think if we're really going to compare other jobs to poker in terms of what they contribute to society, we can't do it indiscriminately by just calling every job productive and calling professional poker not having a job and being unproductive. That would seem to be a pretty lax definition of productivity in some ways and contribute little to a definition of productivity besides an endorsement of doing things the expected way.

I think by some sort of hard to determine tighter definition of what really contributes to society, most people wouldn't qualify. Nor should they have to. It's enough that they're not a burden.

A poker player staying off welfare and unemployment, paying his way through his life and taking care of his kids if he has them(something many people of all professions and income levels don't do), and paying his taxes contributes just as much as anybody else. By that definition, he contributes more than many, many millions of people do.

[Jaquen H'gar]

[ QUOTE ]

So if I'm a poker player, who determines my ethics?

[/ QUOTE ]

Other poker players as a whole do as clearly stated in my post. Didn't you get the 2+2 reference? Why do you think it is that when some newbie posters say they ask folded hands at the showdown to be shown to learn about their opponents, they are castigated here. They are being informed their behavior, while within the rules, is unethical.

[ QUOTE ]

Your posts reek of BS badly. I hope you got something usefull from your college education.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I did get how to spell useful correctly. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I'm not sure as to what you are referring with the BS comment. Perhaps my examples? Surely not the distinguishing of ethics and morals. Some may call it semantics, although it really isn't. Omaha and Hold'Em play real similar, but they aren't the same. Ethics and morality play real similar, but they aren't the same. The person who uses the wrong term does appear ignorant to those who know the difference.

[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that honest used cars salesemen...

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe your posts in this thread have added something valuable to the discussion of whether of not being a pro poker player adds or subtracts from society, but I don't think so.

[/ QUOTE ]

They weren't meant to be valuable to that discussion, they were meant to be valuable to the discussion of whether playing pro poker is "ethical." In that sense, I think I succeeded /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[jrobb83]

[ QUOTE ]

Other poker players as a whole do as clearly stated in my post. Didn't you get the 2+2 reference? Why do you think it is that when some newbie posters say they ask folded hands at the showdown to be shown to learn about their opponents, they are castigated here. They are being informed their behavior, while within the rules, is unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it simply isn't possible for a group as heterogenous as poker players to determine an ethical standard for all poker players, which was the point of my post. Just as groups considered as homogenous as used car salesmen or lawyers differ among themselves about what is ethical.

Ethics by their very nature are founded in the moral principles of those that decide them. In any given group, moral principles are going to vary widely.

Every so often a question comes up on the boards about if an opponent is inadvertently showing you his cards, whether or not you should let him know. Some will tell you yes, some will say no, but it would be unethical to look at them, and some would say that you should take any advantage you can.

So for me, as a poker player, my ethical standards are determined by my moral code, not by poker players in general.

The true question for me, however, is not whether poker playing is "ethical," but whether being a professional poker player is contributing to society in the same way that say, a banker is contributing.

I apologize for the tone of the post, I was having a bad evening, and definately could have made my point without a personal attack. It was unecessary. And I could have spelled "useful" correctly. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[toots]

I think the "contribute" question has been far more fascinating for me than the moral or ethical questions.

For instance: an inventor, an engineer or a construction worker may make a contribution by creating something that adds to the overall welfare/standard of living/quality of life. That's usually a good thing.

A gold prospector (if successful) can actually make a negative contribution: If a local economy is based on a gold standard, and someone finds a bunch of gold and dumps it into the economy, they have more often than not impacted the economy in a negative way without adding anything productive to the mix.

Poker players would seem to fall into the category of "entertainment workers." At best, poker's a zero sum game (and it's rarely at its best), which means that at best, all it does is push money around. I can't think of any positive multiplier effect that would come of this, although I may just not be imaginative enough.

As for pushing money around, there's always the "rock through the window" argument: that by throwing a rock through a neighbor's window, you stimulate the economy by making him spend money and other people getting business they wouldn't have otherwise. But, I think most economists dismiss this argument because at its core, it's just causing money to move around to correct a reduction in the system's overall net worth.

So, is a poker player an entertainer or a rock through the window. If an entertainer, exactly what sort of multiplier effects come from keeping people entertained? I assume non-zero, non-negative, but I can't quite grasp how much.

[null]

I'd like to applaud you on following up your first post, that looked like a troll, with some actual content.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
So, is a poker player an entertainer or a rock through the window. If an entertainer, exactly what sort of multiplier effects come from keeping people entertained? I assume non-zero, non-negative, but I can't quite grasp how much

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm thinking of the poker player as a contributor in the same way a guy running the merry-go-round at a carnival is really, or even someone in the film business -- part of what's necessary for that entertainment to exist. Another cog in the wheel, but a vital one. Without him, the dealers, the gift shops, the valets, the cooks and waiters and waitresses, the janitors and groundskeppers, the floormen and managers, all aren't able to contribute their share of value because there will be no business at all.

I think that a poker player sometimes even adds a startlingly unusual type of value: he loses. Even the best ones lose sometimes. So sometimes people come to play poker for entertainment and not only do they get it, but they walk out with some money besides. That's one heck of a lot of value indeed. When's the last time a restaurant paid YOU to eat, or a movie paid you to come see it, or a gardener told you he would pay you a certain amount per month if you would just let him take care of your lawn? Poker players aren't paid by the casinos, yet the provide value to the casinos and to other players even at the very real risk of losing their own money doing it.

That's a pretty amazing contribution. It even helps fuel large and very profitable businesses that don't even need to keep much of any inventory to speak of besides fresh cards in case some get torn or worn out.

We poker players undoubtedly don't contribute to society as much as, say, a doctor does, because society would get along just fine without us, while society acutely needs some professions. I don't think that society would be better off without us, though. Everyone wants to spend their entertainment dollar somewhere; poker just provides one more option. If people aren't going to drop their dollars having fun playing poker, they'll do it somewhere else in search of the very same thing -- entertainment and challenge.

[sillyarms]

I don't think drug dealing is immoral, nor porn, or fast food, and especially not cigarrets. Nothing can be immoral if all parties involved are acting on thier own free will. If someone sits at a poker table with me and goes broke they knew beforehand that getting busted was a possibility. I cannot be held responsible for the irresponsible actions of those around me. Am I my brothers keeper? I don't think I am.


silly

[Blarg]

I think this argument is made much more sound by the fact that the guy you're supposed to cry about busting out is the exact same guy who was trying to bust out you .

[modernmess]

Society does not necessarily determine or dictate one's morality. Morality tries to be more universal than that.

[BobH42]

I've actually thought about this a bit lately. Ethics are definitely defined within a certain context, so that's a difficult question to answer. You first have to ask the question, "Ethical in what context?". If you mean ethical within the context of people that play poker, then I would agree that the best answer to that would be from other poker players and has already been covered well by previous posters.

Let's speak in the abstract for a moment. Let's say that you're making a prop bet against someone about something which you know with 100% certainty they are going to lose. You will be taking $x from them...they don't realize that they are going to lose, but you know that they will. Are you acting ethically (from a personal ethics standpoint) to propose the bet to this person? Are you acting ethically to accept this same bet if it is proposed to you?

I see poker along the same lines as the sucker bet described above, only it's more of a fuzzy math situation. Instead of being 100% sure they will lose $x to you, you are 55% sure, or 60% sure, or 70% sure...however better a player you are than the average person you play against. You still are sure that over the long run this person will lose money to you. They are (sometimes) unaware of this fact, addicted and unable to admit this fact, in a bad spot financially and trying to dig themselves out through poker, etc. Since they are unwilling/unable to see that they are taking a 'sucker bet', are you acting unethically to take their money?

My feeling on the above questions is that no, you are not. But my own personal ethics puts a high requirement on personal responsibility. Other ethical systems put more requirements on people for looking out for each other or as one person put it above 'being their brother's keeper'. The same can be same of certain moral codes. Given that, each poker player needs to take a hard look at their own personal ethical and moral beliefs. You need to examine what is required of an action to be ethical and moral within your own world view and then apply that unflinchingly to the specific case of playing poker. My own belief is that if both parties understand completely the rules of any bet or competition, that it is neither unethical nor immoral to participate in said competition (barring any extenuating circumstances related to the nature of the competition). So as long as the person sitting down to play poker realizes that they (a) can lose money and (b) understand the rules by which poker is played (though not necessarily that they play as well as you do), then it is a fair and ethical competition. But I am aware of many ethical and moral codes that would NOT agree with that conclusion.

Edit: In response to Modernmess, morality definitely *tries* to be more universal than something that's decided by society, but let's face it - morality is a creation at least in part of human beings, and humans can't help but create things that are affected by current (as of the time the moral code is created) societal influences. Religious morality for example is colored heavily by the social influences of the time that the religion in question came into being. Oftentimes religions are also influenced by society over time as well and molded to 'fit' better with the world in which it finds itself. So even religious morality isn't as universal as many people give it credit for being.

[The once and future king]

This thread is funny.

The only element of poker that is related to ethics is the question do you play it fairly. A defintion of a totaly ethical pro player is that of a Pro who would never ever cheat to gain an edge or make $.

The morality of actualy being a pro in the first place is a very different question.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I will never use moral and ethical again in the same sentence. Please forgive me.

[/ QUOTE ]

My post was meant to make you go look the words up in a dictionary so you could learn the difference and use them appropriately.

My point is that the word ethical does not mean the same thing as moral. These terms are not interchangeable although many people who don't know better think they are. You, like most people, use the term ethical when you mean moral. I find most people know what moral means but not ethical.

Many things are ethically right and morally right.
Some things are ethically wrong but morally right.
Some things are ethically right but morally wrong.
Many things are ethically wrong and morally wrong.
And many times, things are moral/immoral but have no relation to ethics while some things are ethically right/wrong but have nothing to do with morals.

On a side note, jobs that involve ethically-right but morally-wrong behavior are frequently despised: lawyers, politicians, used-car salesmen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Insisting on a narrow definition of a word as the only possible use is the mark of a fool. It reveals an inability to separate symbols from their meanings, the mark of someone who lacks an ability for abstraction.

In addition, your definition is the fourth one listed in m-w.com, behind such definitions as "a theory or system of moral values."

Not to mention that "learned" (lol) people typically use ethics in the sense of the branch of philosophy, in which it often used interchangeably with the term "moral philosophy."

So get over your learned self.

eastbay

[Freudian]

From one of my favourite movies Miller's Crossing where mob boss Johnny Caspar is discussing ethics.

It's gettin' so a businessman can't expect no return from a fixed fight. Now, if you can't trust a fix, what can you trust? For a good return, you gotta go bettin' on chance - and then you're back with anarchy, right back in the jungle.