Poker: A question of morality
 

This forum has produced some interesting talk about religion and other things.. and I was wondering if people would mind chiming in on this topic.

For those of who play poker for a living, or otherwise, do you feel it is immoral in anyway? Does it offend you if/when people associate you with deadbeat gamblers (hope i dont offend anyone) who live at the track or the casino, gambling away their rent money every week?

I'm still in school but I'm considering sustaining myself with poker after graduation for a while, which would be very feasible, but in the back of my head I can't get past the fact that I would be gambling for a living. Not that this bothers me at all, but I feel like the way I've been brought up has taught me to look down upon that kind of thing. And after 8 years of my parents paying for school, I don't think they see playing poker as an acceptable profession. I love poker and everything about it, and it's pretty much the only thing I have a passion for.

I once heard Cloutier say (or maybe i read it), when asked about playing poker for a living, something to the affect of "I love it, it works for me, but sitting at a poker table for 10 hours a day isnt glamorous, if you could be a doctor or a lawyer or something, do that."

Then I think about matt damon in rounders, who drops out of law school to play poker.

I'm so confused and conflicted. Sorry for a long winded and weird post.

any thoughts? any truth to any of this? follow your heart? listen to TJ?

Re: Poker: A question of morality
 

Hi Earthy,

[ QUOTE ]
I once heard Cloutier say (or maybe i read it), when asked about playing poker for a living, something to the affect of "I love it, it works for me, but sitting at a poker table for 10 hours a day isnt glamorous, if you could be a doctor or a lawyer or something, do that."

Then I think about matt damon in rounders, who drops out of law school to play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. T.J. Cloutier ... real life human being, experienced in the field. Matt Damon's character in Rounders... fiction. Hrmm....

Poker is, as so many people have said, "a tough way to make an easy living." It's very long hours, with no financial security, no health or disability insurance, no retirement plan, unless you buy them for yourself. And when you have to do it, day in and day out, whether you feel like it or not on a given day, because you have to make your monthly expenses ... it's not fun either. And it's especially not fun when you're in a cold run -- and they will happen, regardless of how well you play -- and you're griding away 10 hours a day and losing money instead of making it.

All things considered, I agree with Al Schoonmaker's advice in The Psychology of Poker: poker is a great second job, but not a great primary job.

Cris

Re: Poker: A question of morality
 

thanks cris. maybe i'll pick up that book..

the rounders thing more of just an illustration of walking away from school to play poker. not like i saw matt damon drop out and it inspired me. haha..

Re: Poker: A question of morality
 

In essence, I agree with Cris.
My thoughts on it:

1. I think that the stigma on 'gambling' has less to do with morality, and more to do with the fact that the government has difficulty taxing it. Because of the aforesaid difficulty, it became a good vehicle for laundering money, and financing crime. It was also rife with fraud, cheating, "fixes" etc., so decent people gave it a wide berth.

2. I don't know of any prohibitions in the Bible against it. Like anything (alcohol, for instance) it has the potential to ruin your life, and the lives of those who depend on you, but it doesn't have to.

3. I have more difficulty with it (poker in particular) from a Christian point of view, because it does involve taking other people's money, and though that's the nature of the game, perhaps it isn't right for me, personally. -->---->It's not the money so much--but the attitude toward your fellow man that it produces, that gives me the problem. (shark v. fish, etc.)

4. Gambling for a LIVING--nothing immoral, there. BUT it also contributes nothing (in the way of production, or furthering knowledge) to the general welfare of mankind, or society. It is a "me only" sort of mindset, I think. SO, I'd say--give at least 10% of your winnings to charity, and you'll sleep better..lol

5. In re the above thoughts-your main concern should probably be what effect will it have on your spirit, and your relationship with others--look at the faces of most career players--and see if you'd like that look on your OWN face in twenty years--think about what produced it...

These are just thoughts--not a judgment--I'm thinking about them MYSELF right now, so I'm just sharing how my mind is working at the mo [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: Poker: A question of morality
 

i don't play poker for a living, but i don't understand everyone's desire to do something great for mankind and something that society will remember you for. This may sound cold but I don't really give a [censored] what society thinks of me after i die. I think that if i enjoy life, have a family that is happy/healthy (something I want, but not everyone wants) then my life is a success. I have no desire to do anything particularly meaningful for mankind. I am getting a degree from an Art College and want to do visual effects for movies, its not gambling but it does nothing remarkable for mankind. Most effects movies suck anyway, but its something i enjoy. In fact, i can think of very few jobs that actually help mankind in a "society will remember me kind of way." I think its more important to live a life for yourself and for those close to you...

Re: Poker: A question of morality
 

Hi Dan,

I didn't mean you have to win a Nobel prize or anything..lol
Don't denigrate what you like..I think that producing effects would be a blast! And I ALSO think that it DOES do something for people--gets them out of their day-to-day problems....shows them maybe other worlds, or other visions..entertains and perhaps enlarges them..
As a musician, I vibrate the air for a living...lol (perhaps in more ways than one)..and I think people are helped by that.
It's subjective, personal, and temporal in nature--but I still think it has value [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Poker: A question of morality
 

heh, i think that doing what you like for a living is the greatest thing you can do...

Its just that these kind of posts are becoming very common and people make it seem like there are two areas of professions, those with no value (poker) and those that cure illnesses and save hungry children. They make it seem like because they are not curing cancer they are not adding to society or leading worthwhile lives, which is just not the case. I responded to another persons post on the same topic saying that if you play poker for a living you will have time to go to your kids soccer games and to coach baseball, something that many other occupations would never give a person time to do. These small things are very valuable and are often overlooked by people starting these kinds of threads...

Re: Poker: A question of morality
 

That's a good point, there.
(Although the description of '10 hours a day' doesn't seem to give you much more time than anyone else.)
As usual, it comes down to 'what you do with it'
If someone uses poker playing to be a better parent, or help kids learn to hit a ball--then I say go for it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
My main concern is what it does to you inwardly, as I said.
I, too, look forward to hearing from people who do it for a living..and how it affects them day-to-day.

Re: Poker: A question of morality
 

I agree. And I also agree that positing poker as a sort of nowhere land when it comes to doing good compared to other jobs is overstating the case for most other jobs.

There are some lawyers who do a great deal of good, but most don't. I suppose there are some salesmen who do some good, but most are there to sell products good, bad, and indifferent, whether you can afford them or need them or not, etc. Most people are not out there winning Nobel prizes or even working in the fields that produce them. They're not saving the whales, decoding the human genome, or members of Doctors Without Borders, but pushing papers around an office like a robot, doing things that even if they aren't outright dreary -- and more often than not, they are -- are at least forgettable and seemingly pointless, and just pushing the world along in the direction it was already going, in an utterly replaceable way. Few of us aren't replaceable by the thousands.

If you were going to be a brain surgeon, it probably would be a loss for you not to be one. The world needs those and could probably use a few more, especially ones who don't all live in the same zip code. It doesn't particularly need more accountants, or middle managers, or cashiers, or lawyers or executives or hair stylists or wood mill operators.

The ordinary person's joys will come from living outside of their jobs for the most part, and that will be their legacy -- how they lived with and treated friends and family and the world at large. And nobody will ask them what good they're doing. And when they retire, they'll be damn glad of it, if they live so long and the job doesn't wipe them out before they get that far.

In the rejection of poker as being not positive, there's a lot of implied positing of the alternatives, especially for those who have already made their choices and are now for better or worse stuck living out the results, as being somehow more positive in comparison. Yet most of our jobs are at best indifferent in their impact on human progress or happiness, and many of us actively do harm and get paid for it. Looking down at poker and poker players has the hidden subtext of looking up at yourself with a little more of the awe you might think you deserve -- or at least don't deserve to be denied so often. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Poker: A question of morality
 

get a job with associated healthcare/insurance/pension benefits, and play in your free evenings/weekends. That's the "safest" play, you're insured, pensioned and 100% guaranteed income, leaving you to "make it on the side" in your free time.

I would say, contrary to others, that the stigma of gambling comes from the "parasitic" image of taking money off others, coupled with the belief that "gambling" leads to self-destruction.

The fact that some governments have trouble controlling it has less to do with the image that a single member of society's opinion on "gambling". But yes, in some countries, gambling is seen as a "gangster-related" industry.

Regards,
Pete Harris

Re: Poker: A question of morality
 

In any occupation there must be a transfer of funds. Lets take the most and least respected (for morality) occupations as examples.

A priest takes money generally from the poor for his own benifit and it could very well be someones rent money. On the other side of the spectrum a thief might break into someones home and steal thier money. I dont see much difference between the two. The difference that I do see is in the form of choice for the victim.

In the first case the person has the choice of giving his money to the priest. In the later the person does not. Poker on that spectrum is closer to the first than the second and therefor to my way of thinking more moral than average.

People like doctors I would place closer to the second extreame as most people have no choice pay or die similar to the thief.

Re: Poker: A question of morality
 

[ QUOTE ]
Gambling for a LIVING--nothing immoral, there. BUT it also contributes nothing (in the way of production, or furthering knowledge) to the general welfare of mankind, or society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kalooki, I've seen this sentiment before. However, if winnings are being pumped regularly back into the economy for goods and services, then I think this idea is incorrect. What think ye?
/M

Re: Poker: A question of morality
 

Well, you can make the same argument about tossing a brick through the neighbor's picture window. I mean, it causes him to go out and spend money on a new window, and the glasier has to hire people and buy gasoline, etc.

Except that it's money spent for something that was already there, and money that will not be spent on something more useful.

Poker is more or less similar - the person could "spend" his money on poker or some other form of entertainment. Either way, it's just money being pushed around the economy when in all likelihood, it would have been pushed around the economy in some other way if not for poker.

Compare and contrast with money spent on things that have a potential multiplier effect: R&D, education, tool building, transportation, etc, where the benefits gained down the road are ultimately greater than the present value of the money spent.

When you spend money on something like that, not only are you pushing money around, but you're ending up with the creation of something that either has value of its own, or enables someone to be more productive.

Re: Poker: A question of morality
 

hi earthy

just finished watching 'captain of the clouds' with james cagney; great movie.

religion....immorality, etc.; the forum sure is full of it these past few days. as far as religion goes, there are a lot of charlatans out there muddying up the waters. generally, the more heavily an individual is persecuted for refusing to change what he is articulating about GOD when substantial corroberative evidence is being introduced by GOD that the individual's assertions have merit, the more likely it is that the individual has happened upon the true GOD. the reason for this is that it would be very convenient for charlatans to use the individual politically by somehow blurring the only true evidence that holds up under scientific scrutiny, with their political or monetary aspirations which in turn would suggest to their adherents some type of divine intervention or other should something go wrong with their grand plan. no doubt that would be no small comfort to the uneasiness of mind that would rise up here and there as a given thought up scheme begins unravelling under weight of greed and in-fighting. they could usher in the profit as they see fit, have him snap his fingers, and then quickly scurry him away. if a light or two should flicker in the process, so much the better.

see, GOD understands this. this is why the last son of a bitch on face of the earth that you would want GOD to bless with a never ending purulent stream of miracles and rock hard evidence of DEVINE BEING that convinces even atheists of a HIGHER POWER, is the same individual who is elevated into a state of total nirvana by refusing all attempts to change what he is saying about GOD. he embraces the persecution because he loves the resultant slaughter so sure to soon follow, which itself becomes another miracle feather in his stupid hat. he has so many of these feathers now that he's flying people.

look for the funny feathered hat; the one that makes people angry. there, you will find the profit. no chit.

Re: Poker: A question of morality
 

You make a good point! lol
After I wrote it, the same thought occured to me as well--also that the casinos do employ people, so they are providing some economic stimulation to their local economies.
but I think Toots has a point, too.
He wrote a good post on this.

Re: Poker: A question of morality
 

Terrible primary career, good secondary one, imo.

Re: Poker: A question of morality
 

First of all, I'm not a full time pro, but I make money at poker part-time, and would like to go pro eventually if I can manage it.
I have no real moral/ethical problem with it. The other players at the table are adults. It's their responsibility to refrain from putting money on the table that they can't afford to lose. Maybe this has a lot to do with the fact that I'm older (I'm guessing), and more cynical than you, but I'm far past the point of assuming responsibity for the folly of others.
I don't worry much about what the general public thinks, because the general public is brain dead.
It's true that you wouldn't be making much of a contribution to society, but how many jobs offer you that option. I guess I'm pretty disgusted with the post-industrial economy. As I see it, we're fast becoming a nation of lawyers, accountants, waiters, and bartenders. I don't see much meaning in any of that.
If you can do something that you find satisfying and meaningful, great. If you think you can make an important contribution to the welfare of humanity, go for it. But if not, do what makes you happy.
A popular bumper sticker in the '80s said [ QUOTE ]
Whoever dies with the most toys wins

[/ QUOTE ]. This is incorrect. The trust is: Whoever spends the most time enjoying their life wins. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Poker: A question of morality
 

I think the fascinating thing about life, and our existence as humans is that everything is debatable. It's our rationale that seperates us from many species. We can make conscious decisions and don't always have to just rely on instinct; Such on the topic of morality.

If you ask the Catholic church and such, gambling, drinking, etc these are all such vices. In regards to the aspect of being in the presence of other say 'degenerate' gamblers (for lack of a better term); that just happens to be how it is. You can experience the same thing working for a regular company. You're going to get your sarcastic, mean, unapproachable bossess and employees. Does this mean it's immoral to work for a company because of the surrounding company you're keeping now? What if you found someone in your office is cheating on their spouse?

This is obviously taking things to a little extreme, but, I think you catch my point. I think it's a matter of personal opinion to a point. As long as you're not wacking people, and doing runs for the mob as part of you're gambling or something, I personally don't see anything wrong with it. However, it's another thing trying to tell that to your parents who paid for your schooling.

I think you need to do whats in your heart, man. Why spend your life living other peoples dreams? My opinion would be to do this. If you're truly interested in playing poker as such lay out a plan (if you already haven't), of how much you plan to make. Itemize everything. Finding a full-time job (w/benefits) to supplement everything isn't a bad idea.

Lay everything out on the table is your best bet. They may not necessarily agree with your plan, but, nontheless they're you're parents, and hopefully should "support" you so to speak. Always a tricky situation. Trust me. :-)

Best of luck man.

Re: Poker: A question of morality
 

Ya,
I've been struggling with whether or not gambling for a living is a valid spiritual gestalt. Like Toots says, there are more potent productive activities that a person may be engaged in. I'm coming to the conclusion, that in my life, gambling will be a valid ancillary income stream as long as I have some other form of productivity that contributes to the benefit of humanity more directly and more potently than gaming.
/M

Re: Poker: A question of morality
 

A life truly enjoyed just has to be a life well lived.
Agreed.
/M