Is Playing Poker Professionally Ethical? [Archive]

JimMorris

09-17-2005, 12:14 PM

This is a very important question to me, and I have not yet found satisfactory intellectual discussion of it in the forums. I've been an Internet pro for close to a year, making about $75 per hour, 30 hours per week. I love the lifestyle, and I'm happier than I've ever been in my life. But... Is my making a living this way ethical? Am I hurting people by taking money that they need? How much of this money is contributed by problem gamblers that can't afford to lose it, yet dig themselves deep into debt trying to win back their money? How many people are deceived into poker addiction by the TV shows saying "anybody can make a final table"?
Many winning players probably try not to think about these questions or they don't care. Or they have some simple justifications like:
"I'm providing people entertainment and action"
"It's their own fault if they can't afford to lose"
"If I wasn't winning it someone else would be"
Do these justifications hold up under ethical scrutiny? There is a massive flood of money flowing into the online poker sites' accounts and into winning players' pockets. What are the various precepts under which this money flows in, and what are the effects on society?
Poker is fundamentally a game of deception and trickery. You want people to believe that you're bluffing when you have it, and you want them to believe that you have it when you're bluffing. This is the way to make money: deception and trickery, both are considered unethical in most contexts. Yet in poker they aren't, because everyone knows that this is the basis of the game.
However, there is a different kind of deception that goes on: *** "When players are winning, they generally think it's skill. When players are losing they generally think it's bad luck." *** Based on this, the up and down swings of the game are very deceptive and confusing to most players. I think this is why there are so many accusations that "online poker is rigged". Most people don't have the ability to push their understanding of the game deep into the realms of probability and frequency analysis, they are caught up in the emotions of individual hands rather than long term EV.
Most players will lose, that's all there is to it. But how many of them actually willingly accept that they're paying an acceptable amount of money for entertainment? In essence, I think what an online pro does is increase the average amount of money that losing players will pay for their entertainment, by decreasing the average amount of time that their money lasts. Again, is this ethical?
In addition to the question of playing professionally, what kind of ethical analysis can we apply to the poker boom in general? Can the recent poker outbreak be compared to an outbreak of opium, cocaine, or other expensive, addictive substances within a society? Is it possible that poker is having effects on society similar to these types of drugs, but we just don't realize it? (Not to say that drugs are bad, just to say that addiction is bad.)
I look forward to hearing other people's thoughts on these issues. Let's try to be as unbiased as possible, even though we're all poker players.

jakethebake

09-17-2005, 12:22 PM

Why does some moran have to bring this up once a week?

09-17-2005, 12:32 PM

I don't believe in morals or eithics. But playing poker makes me feel bad because of all the harm I am probably causing some people, so I'm kind of in the same position as you.

For those who have eithics/morals, I don't see how it can be rationalized. I believe the situation is similar to this:

Some average Joe is convinced he is an awesome paper rock scissors player, and is addicted to the game. However he's not very good, he always picks paper. He likes to play $100 a game. You come along, play him, beat him for every penny he's got, and walk away. He happens to have a wife and children, and they are now homeless and in real bad shape. Who here thinks this is not wrong, however you define it?

09-17-2005, 12:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why does some moran have to bring this up once a week?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't seen it brought up in math/science/philosophy recently

Different people read different groups of forums

09-17-2005, 01:12 PM

I don't play professionally although i have goals of eventually doing so, and I have thought the same thing as you: is this a worthy profession or a lowlife way of making a living off the weakness of others?

I have concluded that there is nothing wrong with it based on the following rationale.

1) I am playing against other consensual adult players.

2) Poker is a competition and people like to risk money to compete. Just because I happen to win in this competition, I shouldn't feel bad about it. If I were to lose, I'd take responsibility for my own actions rather than feel violated by the winners. And lots of money in the economy operates on a similar "feel good to compete" mindset. Consider a pro sports teams. The billions generated by pro sports comes from people who get a thrill out of the competition, even if it is just vicariously through their favorite team. Is the $60 the NFL team charges at the gate any more or less moral than the $60 a poker tournament costs? What about other entertainment venues? If a person loses $100 playing cards, is this less moral than $100 on videos, concerts, or other activities?

3) I can't feel guilty if there's a small percentage out of control addicted to gambling. Just like a beer company shouldn't feel guilty if not everyone can control alcohol responsibly.

4) If Joe Schmo decides to open a business and gets creamed by the competition and his wife and kids are left out to dry, we say that's the perils of doind business. If Joe Schmo decides to play poker and loses, that's the perils of playing poker. Every economic pursuit has risks and tough competition, so a guy can go bust as easily opening a restaurant as he can trying to be a poker pro.

That's about my line of thinking for what its worth.

09-17-2005, 01:32 PM

FWIW, here's where I put poker in the professional ethics scale:

Mother Theresa equivalent
Doctors without borders volunteer
nurse
public service lawyer
teacher
well meaning social worker
construction worker/waiter/secretary
telemarketing
amway sales person
corporate lawyer/businessman
criminal defence attorney
Poker Professional
slot machine maker / promoter, casino owner
pick pocket
nigerian scammer
white collar thief
burglar
mob lackey
contract killer

09-17-2005, 02:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
3) I can't feel guilty if there's a small percentage out of control addicted to gambling. Just like a beer company shouldn't feel guilty if not everyone can control alcohol responsibly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not conviced here. If heroin was legalized, would you feel guilty selling heroin and profiting from it? This all seems very grey to me

JimMorris

09-17-2005, 02:17 PM

Jake,
I did numerous forums searches and couldn't find discussions of these questions. If you know of existing discussion threads, please post a link to them. Thanks.

jakethebake

09-17-2005, 02:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Jake,
I did numerous forums searches and couldn't find discussions of these questions. If you know of existing discussion threads, please post a link to them. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh. I'm too lazy to go searching for this for you. But it has been discussed to death, mostly in NVG.

09-17-2005, 02:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3) I can't feel guilty if there's a small percentage out of control addicted to gambling. Just like a beer company shouldn't feel guilty if not everyone can control alcohol responsibly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not conviced here. If heroin was legalized, would you feel guilty selling heroin and profiting from it? This all seems very grey to me

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not selling poker.

09-17-2005, 02:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, here's where I put poker in the professional ethics scale:

Mother Theresa equivalent
Doctors without borders volunteer
nurse
public service lawyer
teacher
well meaning social worker
construction worker/waiter/secretary
telemarketing
amway sales person
corporate lawyer/businessman
criminal defence attorney
Poker Professional
slot machine maker / promoter, casino owner
pick pocket
nigerian scammer
white collar thief
burglar
mob lackey
POLITICIAN
contract killer

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

09-17-2005, 03:02 PM

The straight up answer is this:

The deception involved in the gameplay of poker is not unethical. Nor is taking the money of people who choose to gamble with you and also attempt to take your money.

Where I think the unethical element comes in is the effect that poker has on society. This only matters to people who care about what effect their actions ultimately have on the rest of the world. This has three parts I think:

1. It a worthless activity. It takes husbands away from wives, wastes work hours, and has otherwise productive people sitting in front a computer screen doing nothing useful at all. I think that is a tremendous burden on society. People might dismiss this as entertainment similar to television or computer games, but poker is addictive, people end up doing it excessively, playing at odd hours, or spending time alone on the computer instead of with their partners/kids/friends. The idea that poker somehow makes players better thinkers and more competitive is laughable. This may be true for certain people, but for most people it's no better than playing solitaire or watching a game show. If that.

Even more concerning is underage gamblers. There are several on this forum that I know of. There was an article in the New York Times about the poker craze sweeping high school and middle schoolers. Kids this age should be out socialising, playing sports, learning. Instead, they sit in front of a computer screen, justified by the promise of $$$$$.

2. Poker often has negative psychological effects. It sometimes creates friction between couples. It takes players away from reality (which is a large part of its addictive nature)and provides false promises of gain. People miss out on opportunities for normal social interaction. And most players are losers, which has subtle effects on people's mentality. Television or other forms of entertainment generally don't do this.

3. Financial effects. Obviously there is the issue of problem gamblers going into massive debt, but beyond that, a professional's winnings will negatively affect other people's quality of life. College students lose money otherwise used for books or healthier forms of recreation. Underage children steal from their parents. Parents may not be able to buy things for the kids or go on a holiday.

The bottom line is that you're not producing anything when you play poker. You're taking money off others and providing nothing in return. Ethics of poker aside, how can any self respecting person accept this as their profession?

09-17-2005, 03:12 PM

Aytumious

09-17-2005, 03:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where I think the unethical element comes in is the effect that poker has on society. This has three parts I think:

1. It a worthless activity. It takes husbands away from wives, wastes work hours, and has otherwise productive people sitting in front a computer screen doing nothing useful at all.

The same thing can be said of much of the "work" performed in the world. Does the suburban couple living in a $200k house really need to have both parents working 40 hrs/wk, or do they do it because they want STUFF?

Even more concerning is underage gamblers.

Which is illegal, and thus not part of the equation unless you also believe that building cars is immoral because drunk drivers drive them.

2. Poker often has negative psychological effects. It sometimes creates friction between couples.

As does most any job. If this defines unethical professions, then doing anything requiring significant travel or significant overtime would be unethical, because that causes more friction amongst couples than probably any job aspect.

3. Financial effects. Obviously there is the issue of problem gamblers going into massive debt, but beyond that, a professional's winnings will negatively affect other people's quality of life. College students lose money otherwise used for books or healthier forms of recreation. Underage children steal from their parents. Parents may not be able to buy things for the kids or go on a holiday.

So, by that rationale, every business near a college campus is unethical because it takes college kids money who could spend it on books (are you serious???). Also, people with bad business skills go into probably more debt each year than poker players, so is running a business immoral, especially if you're trying to beat the competition?

The bottom line is that you're not producing anything when you play poker.

Is it okay to produce fatty hamburgers, sugary sodas, frivolous movies, video games, luxury items, etc.? If these are ethical since there is a segment of the population that is willing to payt for them even if they don't do any "good", then poker should be ethical along the same lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

What he said.

09-17-2005, 03:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Where I think the unethical element comes in is the effect that poker has on society. This has three parts I think:

1. It a worthless activity. It takes husbands away from wives, wastes work hours, and has otherwise productive people sitting in front a computer screen doing nothing useful at all.

The same thing can be said of much of the "work" performed in the world. Does the suburban couple living in a $200k house really need to have both parents working 40 hrs/wk, or do they do it because they want STUFF?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. Work builds the economy and provides for future development. It feeds, clothes, houses and transports people, and creates a functional society. Different ballpark. Poker creates nothing at all.

[ QUOTE ]
Even more concerning is underage gamblers.

Which is illegal, and thus not part of the equation unless you also believe that building cars is immoral because drunk drivers drive them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Different ballpark. You're not building something which is misused here. You're taking money off others for your own profit, and providing nothing of value in return. Some of the people you take money off are underage gamblers. You can own up to this, or not.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Poker often has negative psychological effects. It sometimes creates friction between couples.

As does most any job. If this defines unethical professions, then doing anything requiring significant travel or significant overtime would be unethical, because that causes more friction amongst couples than probably any job aspect.

[/ QUOTE ]
Jobs have other uses and provide net gain. Poker does not, as overall it is a zero sum game. Besides, the purpose of this paragraph is to point out the negative effects of poker vs other forms of entertainment.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Financial effects. Obviously there is the issue of problem gamblers going into massive debt, but beyond that, a professional's winnings will negatively affect other people's quality of life. College students lose money otherwise used for books or healthier forms of recreation. Underage children steal from their parents. Parents may not be able to buy things for the kids or go on a holiday.

So, by that rationale, every business near a college campus is unethical because it takes college kids money who could spend it on books (are you serious???). Also, people with bad business skills go into probably more debt each year than poker players, so is running a business immoral, especially if you're trying to beat the competition?

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you're being intellectually dishonest. By your reasoning every college kid should have a slot machine installed in their room, as it's no different to having shops down the street.

The bottom line is that you're not producing anything when you play poker, you're not providing value for money and you're not giving people a positive or pleasant experience (in most cases).

[ QUOTE ]
Is it okay to produce fatty hamburgers, sugary sodas, frivolous movies, video games, luxury items, etc.? If these are ethical since there is a segment of the population that is willing to payt for them even if they don't do any "good", then poker should be ethical along the same lines.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying everything should do good. I'm not saying people are obligated to spend their money wisely. I'm saying if you care about the effects of your actions, which OP clearly does...these are the effects that poker has. It coops people up in front of computers. It takes them away from their families. And every time you win money, it costs someone else money, while providing no individual or societal benefits. And it rarely provides anyone with a pleasant or positive experience, especially compared to the alternatives.

Seems like a fairly dismal and unproductive way to earn a living and use your talents.

BluffTHIS!

09-17-2005, 05:12 PM

My religious catholic view which I have stated before (and I play online fulltime) is:

1) Gambling is not in itself inherently immoral;

2) Gambling is only immoral when you wager money necessary to provide for your family or meet your otherwise just obligations (note that my bankroll provides for my livelihood and thus is not spending money necessary for it, and I don't blow it on negative expectation games);

3) Playing poker as a professional provides entertainment for casual players and is no different than being a dealer in a casino or for that matter an employee in any other leisure activity field or even being a salesclerk selling non-necessity items to shoppers who shop merely because they like the activity;

4) Playing poker is only taking unethical advantage of others when you either cheat or hustle gambling degenerates who can not afford to lose to play.

If you are not going to adopt a religious perspective such as this, then you might as well just adopt Canada Bill Jones' creed.

09-17-2005, 05:43 PM

do you play poker?

If not, did you know this is a poker forum?

If so, then by your own argument, you better stop.

So, either way, I guess you're leaving now, right?

Or are you going to completely discard reason and argue that as long as you don't play *professionally*, then poker is okay? Such an argument would be saying that taking people's money at $10/20 is okay, but taking it at $100/$200 is immoral. Or taking their money 10 hrs/week is okay, but 25 hrs/week is immoral.

So, do you play or not, and if so, are you going to stop now?

NotReady

09-17-2005, 06:48 PM

See

here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3363023&page=&view=&s b=5&o)

and

here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2716105&page=&view=&s b=5&o)

JimMorris

09-17-2005, 07:13 PM

Thanks, I will definitely read each of these threads.

Peter666

09-17-2005, 07:59 PM

Is taking a mortgage or paying taxes to pay off the interest owed on your country's debt moral? The answer is no. Interest paid on unproductive loans is called usury, and it is a mortal sin. The problem our capitalist society does not see it this way, and we must play along to survive (even though inevitably the system will crash on itself unless the government takes control). So the average American is actually contributing to an unethical economic system that amounts to stealing from the many so the very few can be incredibly rich.

Poker on the other hand is just a contract between two parties that is the moral equivalent of buying life insurance.

JimMorris

09-17-2005, 08:42 PM

ÖÖO,
Thanks very much for your great analysis. You effectively summed up many points about poker that I've also come to realize and agree with. It is a complex issue, however, and many of your points can be reasonably disputed as kidluckee has shown. My thought on each of the main issues that you brought up are:

1. "It is a worthless activity." I agree with this, but there is nothing unethical about participating in a worthless activity. I wonder what percent of the population has a "productive" occupation, defined as something that improves other people's lives and experiences. My guess is that very few people would be in this category, because we live in a competitive capitalist economy, not a socialistic/communist society. One can easily debate the societal benefit of many lawyers, politicians, businessmen, marketing professionals, technology professionals, etc. Additionally, it seems that many people who choose a career for altruistic reasons (teachers, social-service workers, etc.) very frequently end up getting mistreated/abused/underpaid/taken advantage of. I know none of this makes poker playing worthwhile, however it focuses more on the point that it could be considered ethical to choose a non-productive occupation in today's society.

2. "Poker has negative psychological effects." I have to agree with kidluckee's rebuttal to this. My father taught special-ed for 25 years and the kids had severe negative psychological effects on him.

3. "Financial effects" This is obviously the big one, and negative financial effects lead to many other related problems for people/families affected. Kidluckee's comments here are totally wrong. In business 80% of participants don't lose and continue losing. More importantly, in business you aren't being deceived into losing more and more. We can say that everyone is responsible for how much they choose to gamble, however, this ignores the addictive elements of the game.

At this point, I don't feel that it's unethical for an individual to choose to play poker professionally. However, I do feel that there are severe ethical issues with the game in general relating to it's deceptiveness and addictiveness. I don't feel that the public is adequately educated about the dangers of playing poker, and the realities/difficulties that are encountered when someone naively attempts to become a winning player. I do think it is reasonable to compare poker to opium, cocaine, tobacco, and other addictive substances. Each of these have significant public education campaigns intended to raise awareness. But poker is glamorized on a dozen TV channels, and the realities of the game are kept secret. Very few people admit to losing lots of money, yet many people obviously do. I'm sure nobody wants to admit to losing lots of money, so the illusion perpetuates because we only hear about the wins, not the losses.

If anybody has any ideas of how to raise public awareness of the realities of the game through studies, articles, a book, etc. then I'd like to hear them. I'm willing to contribute to such a project.

Before calling me a hypocrite, let me clarify my position. I think poker is a fascinating, interesting game, and I do hope to continue successfully playing it. However, the beauty of pure mathematical and psychological competition are degraded when people are deceived into addiction by misrepresentation and glamorization of the game (especially on TV). I'm not blaming TV or anyone else, just acknowledging the the game has inherently confusing/addictive qualities, and I think more should be done to purify it even though it will lower our hourly rates.

BluffTHIS!

09-17-2005, 09:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
However, the beauty of pure mathematical and psychological competition are degraded when people are deceived into addiction by misrepresentation and glamorization of the game (especially on TV).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are grossly exaggerating by assuming that the majority of losing poker players, especially online, are gambling degenerates. It is much more likely that there is a continual influx of players who lose a certain amount and then quit, including lots of college player wannabes. Plus many of the degenerates are rich and can in fact afford it. As long as you are not hustling known degenerates to play you are not doing anything wrong.

However there is also a qustion of conscience here. My church, the catholic church, teaches that even an incorrectly formed conscience binds. So if you cannot buy the logical and moral arguements that I and others have made and after a period of reflection are left with unresolved doubts, then you should find another primary source of income and only play casually for fun.

09-17-2005, 10:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3) I can't feel guilty if there's a small percentage out of control addicted to gambling. Just like a beer company shouldn't feel guilty if not everyone can control alcohol responsibly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not conviced here. If heroin was legalized, would you feel guilty selling heroin and profiting from it? This all seems very grey to me

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not selling poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, his argument was he should not feel guilty because his situation is similar to beer companies selling beer when a few acloholics exist and they shouldn't feel guilty.

I was kind of going on a tangent and comparing selling heroin to selling beer.

Lestat

09-17-2005, 11:44 PM

1. It a worthless activity. 

And I suppose being an actor or baseball player is all important? When you play poker professionally you are in the entertainment business just like they are. Going to the movies is a worthless activity also, but some people enjoy spending their disposable income on this and sporting events. Others enjoy relaxing and gambling it up at a poker table.

2. Poker often has negative psychological effects. It sometimes creates friction between couples. 

So can being a CEO of a company, an air traffic controller, corporate law, and countless other professions.

3. Financial effects. 

There are many people who have no problem acquiring massive debt without ever having to play poker.

 Ethics of poker aside, how can any self respecting person accept this as their profession? 

I don't know. Why don't you ask Tom Cruise, Barry Bonds, or a lawyer the same question? What great contributions do they make to society by engaging in their profession? At least Cruise and Bonds (and poker players), create entertainmnet for people. Most lawyers create more societal problems than they solve.

Btw- What do YOU do for a living?

09-17-2005, 11:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
do you play poker?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, $200NL online, some STT and MTT.

[ QUOTE ]
If so, then by your own argument, you better stop.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how this follows. Have a look at the list above to see where I think poker fits into the hierarchy of unethical pursuits. It's not strictly black and white.

What concerns me about poker is that many players, including winning players, seem to be unaware of the effects that poker has, or unwilling to acknowledge them. Every second day there's a thread about dropping out of college to become a poker pro, people quitting jobs or missing work or school to play poker. Not spending time with friends and loved ones. Some people think this is a perfectly valid thing to do. I simply want to point out that it's a selfish and useless career path. As far as society is concerned, you contribute less than someone on welfare, and your money sometimes comes from those who can't afford it.

So I will continue to play, but I think it's important to realise that poker is not glamorous and that part of what you do has a negative effect on others and society. It's by no means something that should be stopped or crusaded against (it's not that terrible), but society would be better off without online poker.

[ QUOTE ]
So, either way, I guess you're leaving now, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to oblige you, but I'm here to stay.
[ QUOTE ]
Or are you going to completely discard reason and argue that as long as you don't play *professionally*, then poker is okay? Such an argument would be saying that taking people's money at $10/20 is okay, but taking it at $100/$200 is immoral. Or taking their money 10 hrs/week is okay, but 25 hrs/week is immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all. But I think it's important that people realise that as a full time pro they're doing nothing at all productive with their lives, and own up to that fact.

OP doesn't need to be told this, but I naively hope that someone will read this thread and see poker for what it is.

Lestat

09-17-2005, 11:51 PM

Your problem with HUD's now makes perfect sense. You are one with many double standards.

09-18-2005, 12:02 AM

There is no double standard with HUDs. I stopped using them a couple of months ago because I think they are unethical.

09-18-2005, 12:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
And I suppose being an actor or baseball player is all important?

[/ QUOTE ]
Playing online poker you use your unique talents for exactly one thing - getting money. You provide no secondary benefits. This is what makes poker completely different to any of the professions you listed

[ QUOTE ]
Poker often has negative psychological effects
>So can being a CEO of a company, an air traffic controller, corporate law

[/ QUOTE ]I'm talking about the psychological effects on the people you play against, and beat. I should have made that clearer.

[ QUOTE ]
Btw- What do YOU do for a living?

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

Lestat

09-18-2005, 12:14 AM

I don't use HUDs. I used to but stopped because I think they are unethical. 

That's kinda what I meant by double standard, since HUD's clearly are not considered cheating, unethical, or anything of the sort. You also seem to think that poker is unethical, yet you continue playing?

Lestat

09-18-2005, 12:25 AM

Playing online poker you use your unique talents for exactly one thing - getting money. You provide no secondary benefits. This is what makes poker completely different to any of the professions you listed 

What benefits am I left with after paying money to see one of Robert Deniro's movies? Please tell me, because I must have missed it. I've seen many of his movies, but I can't find a single thing of value to show for it outside of the fact that I was entertained for a couple of hours.

I'm talking about the psychological effects on the people you play against, and beat. I should have made that clearer. 

If anything it is just the OPPOSITE!! Big losers come in out of the pits to play poker and SLOW the burn from their losses at black jack, craps, etc. I can't tell you how many times a guy sits in my game and tells me he just lost 30k playing black jack. I feel like I'm HELPING this guy by providing a game he won't lose as much money in as blackjack! He can lose at 40-80 all day long and not lose what he could go off for in one hour at other gaming options in the casino.

You're also WAY overestimating how many people can't afford their poker losses. Losing 50k per year at poker is nothing to some people. Believe it or not, there are many people who have that kind of disposable income. Not everyone who loses at poker is a degerate gambler. They can well afford what they lose at a poker table. Consider a guy who instead chooses to buy a boat and joy ride all summer instead of playing poker. It's all relative dude.

Of the people that ARE degerate gamblers, I submit that they'd find a way to self-destruct anyway.

09-18-2005, 12:33 AM

Here's what I said:

[ QUOTE ]
The deception involved in the gameplay of poker is not unethical. Nor is taking the money of people who choose to gamble with you and also attempt to take your money.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do believe using a computer program to record detailed statistics of another player, rate them, and display this information in real time is unethical and against the TOS, since a)they don't know about it or consent to it b)you have to pay money to be able to do this c)you're using a computer to profile opponents for you in a way you couldn't reasonably do yourself. This is against the stated intentions of Party Poker and the reasonable expectations of those playing there.

Anyway I don't wish to derail this thread, please rag on me in the other thread.

About the ethics of poker, here's what I said:

[ QUOTE ]
Where I think the unethical element comes in is the effect that poker has on society. This only matters to people who care about what effect their actions ultimately have on the rest of the world.

The bottom line is that you're not producing anything when you play poker. You're taking money off others and providing nothing in return. Ethics of poker aside, how can any self respecting person accept this as their profession?

[/ QUOTE ]
In other words, poker itself is not unethical, but it does have detrimental effects which you can choose to care about. Or not.

[ QUOTE ]
If anything it is just the OPPOSITE!! Big losers come in out of the pits to play poker and SLOW the burn from their losses at black jack, craps, etc. I can't tell you how many times a guy sits in my game and tells me he just lost 30k playing black jack.
You're also WAY overestimating how many people can't afford their poker losses.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. You make good points. It'd be good if we had some actual studies.

Also, live poker is different to online poker in many ways. I don't see anywhere near as much of a problem with live poker, and there is definitely entertainment and social value there.

[ QUOTE ]
What benefits am I left with after paying money to see one of Robert Deniro's movies?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not about the benefits that you get, but the benefits that acting or baseball as a profession provides society, as compared to playing poker...

Darryl_P

09-18-2005, 06:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line is that you're not producing anything when you play poker. You're taking money off others and providing nothing in return. Ethics of poker aside, how can any self respecting person accept this as their profession?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read the whole thread but if this is the bottom line, let me answer it...

The western world has too much stuff as it is, so I don't feel obliged to create more. The thing western people need the most IMO is to slow down, think more deeply and stop being slaves to an oppressive system that just gobbles up peoples' souls and spits them out. Playing poker is one way to do that and is therefore a positive thing and tends to move humanity forwards rather than backwards, albeit indirectly.

And if you argue that the third world needs help, then that pretty much renders 99% of all jobs in America unethical.

JimMorris

09-18-2005, 09:24 AM

You make good points, but each of our comments are based on assumptions about the percentage breakdown of the types of players contributing to the game. I wonder if any studies have been done to determine this breakdown. I think it would be worthwhile research, although I'm not sure exactly how to go about arriving at accurate numbers.

Depending on your personality and experience, you could assume that the majority of online players are addicted frustrated losing gamblers, or you could assume that the majority of online players have expendible income, expect to lose, and are happy with the experience.

In the end, there is probabably a wide variety of categories of losing players. As I stated in a seperate post:

[ QUOTE ]
The beauty of pure mathematical and psychological competition are degraded when people are deceived into addiction by misrepresentation and glamorization of the game (especially on TV).

[/ QUOTE ]
Any ways in which we can cut down on the number of people in this category would improve the game in my opinion. (despite lowering our hourly rates)

Eidal

09-18-2005, 10:28 AM

Am I the only one here who doesn't give a damn about anyone, minor or not, who sits down at a poker table and loses their money? Humans have the ability to learn and poker tables are called object lessons. Those that are uncapable of learning don't garner any sympathy in my eyes -- they are weaker and if they have to suffer in order to realize this weakness... well, thats life and life isn't fair or just. And to those of you who think that the strong don't prey on the weak...

Open your eyes.

09-18-2005, 11:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one here who doesn't give a damn about anyone, minor or not, who sits down at a poker table and loses their money?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm with you. And call it rationalization if you must, but a fool and his money are soon departed. So, I'd rather it departs into my wallet than someone else's. And this stuff about the advertising of the game "luring" people who think its easy, well that's no different than advertising FOR ANYTHING! Jaguars won't make you cool, beer won't get bikini-clad chicks knocking down your door, body spray won't get you laid, McDonald's [censored]-burgers won't make you happy, and on and on and on. It's individual responsibility to realize that advertising glorifies. If someone wants to be Gus Hansen and thinks poker is "so cool and fun and simple", let him give it a shot. Humans have the capability to adapt and learn if they so choose.

WichitaDM

09-18-2005, 12:25 PM

Well as a poker proffesional for the last 2-3 yrs i look at it like this. My life is 100x better now than it was working for the corporate juggernaut. Lets be honest most companies prey on the weak minded just like a good poker player. So in turn how is it more ethical to go work for a corporation who is a money grubbing, win at all costs entity, but not moral to work for yourself playing a game for money. Isnt this what our athletes do in this country??? They waste years of their life and tons of money training to hopefully one day become a pro athelete. The odds of someone doing that vs a succesful pro poker career is far worse. Ultimately for me, all i need to look at is my life before and after poker. Here we go. I am now a 24 yr old grad student, who has a bachelors in finance.

Before poker here were my facts of life
-Worked 40hrs a week at a entry leve corporate job
-Living paycheck to paycheck
-Occasionally having to borrow money from family and friends
-Was told when and where to be by my employer
-In massive debt
-No savings
-No ability to travel or really obtain anything beyond the basics in life

After Poker
-Have a net worth well over 100k
-Own a 200k house
-Have no debt
-Have more time i can spend with family and friends
-Am the richest person my age i know
-Travel all the time
-Am my own boss

Frankly the corporate world works just like poker. There is deception and dishonesty. There are good breaks and bad. In the end its all about money, just like poker. If we kid ourselves and say that "at least corps produce something" we really miss the pt that many corps produce HARMFUL things(ie most food companies, cigs, alcohol, drugs, WMD /images/graemlins/wink.gif, etc. The only thing that makes many corporate jobs more "ethical" is the social stigma that poker players have. While many players are chasing a quick buck, hookers, and coke, this is certainly not true for even most of us. We do PRODUCE when we have more time to enrich ours and other lives through helping people with our free time and helping people through giving money to the needy. We do PRODUCE when we pay our taxes, Ill bet the average poker proffesional who is honest and pays taxes pays more in that the average corporate desk jockey. Anyways in conclusion i dont see anything morally wrong with poker, just like i dont see anything wrong with the corps, our society is built on opportunism, which is at the heart of what poker ultimately is.

Aytumious

09-18-2005, 01:09 PM

Did you grow up in a socialist country?

Timer

09-18-2005, 02:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why does some moran have to bring this up once a week?

[/ QUOTE ]

Go back to OOT you f'n troll asswipe.

jakethebake

09-18-2005, 04:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why does some moran have to bring this up once a week?

[/ QUOTE ]

Go back to OOT you f'n troll asswipe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see how pointing out that a topic has been argued to death is being a troll so [censored] you, assclown.

Angelic_Ace

09-22-2005, 07:01 AM

I look at it like this - the poker craze is happening, none of us can stop that. It is going to run its course, and there will be the financial winners and losers. If you enjoy the challenge and benefits of being a serious player, why not take a piece of the pie? Someone is going to. It is either going to be you, or someone less skilled/devoted than you (because you have hypothetically chosen not to play for ethical reasons, despite your ability to beat the game).

Personally, I am from a family with no money. My parents could not offer me any financial assistance in my life. I also had a troubled childhood and when I went to college after High School, I was unprepared to deal with it and obtain a degree and 'regular' career. I am, however, very adept at gaming of all sorts and have proven profitable at poker. I am using my winnings to allow myself the chance to escape the lower-class lifestyle, and also to help the other troubled members of my family. You might not see poker as productive at all, but for me, it is taking disposable income from college kids with too much money as well as consenting adults, and channeling it into something I see as very productive and natural (caring for oneself and family).

buffett

09-22-2005, 03:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
-Have a net worth well over 100k
-Own a 200k house
-Have no debt

[/ QUOTE ]
Please explain the math behind these 3 statements. Shouldn't your net worth be north of 200k?
-web

Warren Whitmore

09-23-2005, 07:03 AM

No thats why I play poker.

For a more detailed answer read "An open letter to Borris Spaskey." by Ayn Rand

lacky

09-23-2005, 08:07 AM

well, so does golf, but I wouldn't feel bad intering a golf tourney, and I don't feel any different intering a poker tourney. I worked hard to be better at that activity than they are.

what does poker provide? well, it provides my family a parent always in the house to care for them. a father that can make all their games/activities and still afford lifes needs. if you are going to condeme poker you would need to condeme huge segments of the economy dealing with recreational activity, all of which serves little or no useful purpose.

bottom line for me is I use skills and talents I worked hard for to make the world a better place for my family.

I can live with that.

Steve

09-23-2005, 02:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
bottom line for me is I use skills and talents I worked hard for to make the world a better place for my family.

I can live with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can imagine a mobster saying that too.

[ QUOTE ]
if you are going to condeme poker you would need to condeme huge segments of the economy dealing with recreational activity, all of which serves little or no useful purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

This I can agree with, although I question the characterization of entertainment as not useful.

adios

09-23-2005, 03:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Is my making a living this way ethical? Am I hurting people by taking money that they need? How much of this money is contributed by problem gamblers that can't afford to lose it, yet dig themselves deep into debt trying to win back their money? How many people are deceived into poker addiction by the TV shows saying "anybody can make a final table"?

[/ QUOTE ]

My opinion only. One of the problems that I've observed about our society over the years is the lack of accountability that people have for their behavior and how willing so many people are to excuse that lack of accountability in other people's behavior. With all due respect, your post typifies that lack of accountability mindset to me. IMO you're not accountable if someone loses money at poker and you get a piece of it. It's that simple to me.

adios

09-23-2005, 03:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line is that you're not producing anything when you play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure you are. Your producing a profit for people which they can either consume products with or use as investment capital. If I buy stocks and live off the profits from buying those stocks what am I producing? If I'm a minister and am paid by a church to preach there, what am I producing? Consumption == production more or less. Just look how GDP is calculated and you'll see that it's true.

09-23-2005, 04:07 PM

When you buy stocks you're providing money for business expansion and capital growth (directly and indirectly). If you're a minister, you're providing a tangible service to people (offering guidance, support, social interaction).

Using your logic, you're also producing something when you steal $20 off an old lady or win the lottery, then go and buy something with that money.

My point is more subtle than that anyway. I'm not here to say what is and what isn't useful for society. But when you play poker, the only thing you use your talents and intelligence for is to make money for yourself. You sit in front a computer screen clicking buttons, producing no tangible good or service and having no real social interaction. If it's for entertainment, and you have a real job or are studying, fine. But if it's your life and career, and you do nothing else, you're just a leech. Most people who play poker professionally would say 'who cares?' That's your choice, but realise that welfare recipients say the same thing, and are just as useful for society as professional poker players. Don't think you're anything more than that.

I'm not trying to be an [censored] or anything, but people need to realise this. For example, there are threads about kids dropping out of college to play poker. They need to see the profession for what it is.

BluffTHIS!

09-23-2005, 04:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line is that you're not producing anything when you play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure you are. Your producing a profit for people which they can either consume products with or use as investment capital. If I buy stocks and live off the profits from buying those stocks what am I producing? If I'm a minister and am paid by a church to preach there, what am I producing? Consumption == production more or less. Just look how GDP is calculated and you'll see that it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Professional poker players provide entertainment for casual players and chastisement for wannabe pros. It's as simple as that. This is no different than being in a business that provides other forms of recreational entertainment, paid admission sports being an example. As long as a professional player does not take unfair advantage or hustle degenerates who cannot afford it to play, then he is just providing a venue for casual players. If it weren't for pros, most games wouldn't get started nearly as easy online or b&m. And since the vast majority of pros pay their taxes and invest their savings, then they are indeed being productive members of society.

ceskylev

09-23-2005, 04:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Not quite. Work builds the economy and provides for future development. It feeds, clothes, houses and transports people, and creates a functional society. Different ballpark. Poker creates nothing at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're correct about the game of poker. However, the lifestyle of a pro player creates opportunities to do good works, no? If you use that free time to make art or volunteer or take your kids to the park, who's to say you're not contributing to society?

Aytumious

09-23-2005, 09:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When you buy stocks you're providing money for business expansion and capital growth (directly and indirectly). If you're a minister, you're providing a tangible service to people (offering guidance, support, social interaction).

Using your logic, you're also producing something when you steal $20 off an old lady or win the lottery, then go and buy something with that money.

My point is more subtle than that anyway. I'm not here to say what is and what isn't useful for society. But when you play poker, the only thing you use your talents and intelligence for is to make money for yourself. You sit in front a computer screen clicking buttons, producing no tangible good or service and having no real social interaction. If it's for entertainment, and you have a real job or are studying, fine. But if it's your life and career, and you do nothing else, you're just a leech. Most people who play poker professionally would say 'who cares?' That's your choice, but realise that welfare recipients say the same thing, and are just as useful for society as professional poker players. Don't think you're anything more than that.

I'm not trying to be an [censored] or anything, but people need to realise this. For example, there are threads about kids dropping out of college to play poker. They need to see the profession for what it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. So you are just worried about the children.

You're points are ridiculous, especially the comparison of professional poker players to welfare whores.

We live in a society based on capitalistic ideals. If you can make a living in a way that is legal, with the participants taking part voluntarily, that is your right. If you want everyone to have a job that can be shown to tangibly benefit the whole, move to a socialist country. The overwhelming majority work mainly for their paychecks; the societal benefits of thier jobs are merely side effects.

Thier certainly exist examples of people that you describe, but to paint the entire professional poker community as a pack of scum is unwarranted.

09-24-2005, 12:47 AM

I just wanted to remind you of Barry Greenstein, a poker pro who shows us you can always do something "positive" with money if you believe you are doing something "unethical" or just realize that a single human being doesn't need so much money.

r3vbr

09-24-2005, 03:36 AM

If being a poker player is not ethical because its a zero sum game, therefore being a soccer player (let's say an unsucsessful one), is also not ethical (being a successfull one would inply having spectators, going on tv, being considered an entertainer.)

Any athlete who does not entertain is exactly the same as a poker player.

And any poker player who apperas on TV is no different than performer/actor.
Phil Hellmuth and Jerry seinfeld are on the same ballpark.

r3vbr

09-24-2005, 03:36 AM

Oh, and mother teresa was a crook.

See penn and tellers bullshit episode on season 3 about her and her schemes.

BluffTHIS!

09-24-2005, 03:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and mother teresa was a crook.

See penn and tellers bullshit episode on season 3 about her and her schemes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. They really discovered Mother Teresa's dirty little secret that instead of spending every dime on food and medical care, she wasted some donations on building new convents to house nuns who would live in spartan conditions while dedicating their lives to caring for the poorest of the poor in society when most others just walk on by and do nothing. Yeah. She was a real fraud.

09-24-2005, 01:33 PM

"The gambling known as business looks with austere disfavor upon the business known as gambling." — Ambrose Bierce

r3vbr

09-24-2005, 02:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and mother teresa was a crook.

See penn and tellers bullshit episode on season 3 about her and her schemes.

[/ QUOTE ]

She never gave money to the poor. She used money to open up churches wich beared her name. All she cared about was expanding her franchise. How do you think she got so famous in the first place, im sure lots of people are much more caring/devoted as she was but never get to become famous. WHY? because the don't put as much efort into becoming famous as she did. She never missed an oportunity to appear on TV, etc.

Oh, and she recieved donations from mafia families that run dictatorships on some countries of the carribean (dont remember wich). She had large conections with the underworld.

Now the mother teresa empire is so large, people have to believe she was a saint. its called indoctrination, and the church is master at it.
Yeah. They really discovered Mother Teresa's dirty little secret that instead of spending every dime on food and medical care, she wasted some donations on building new convents to house nuns who would live in spartan conditions while dedicating their lives to caring for the poorest of the poor in society when most others just walk on by and do nothing. Yeah. She was a real fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]