[jcaesar]

Thanks Josh, I appreciate your response.

I know Barry Greenstein has this kind of "poker Robin Hood" mentality, but I'm not sure if it works for me. I'll allow that giving a substantial percentage to charity is better than playing simply for profit (and if/when I reconcile my beliefs with my game, this will definitely be a model that I plan on adopting). However, to me, formulating that kind of a response to the quetion of proposed intrinsic immorality in poker is kind of like that of a crack dealer rationalizing criticism about his career by donating a portion his money to a worthy cause.

I guess what I'm really saying is that it doesn't matter how much money you donate if you find the methods or avenues of obtaining that money to be immoral. The money's still dirty, obtained my immoral means.

[ QUOTE ]
I talked to a friend of mine who was a pro (I'm not one), and he said "well, most of the losers are gonna lose their money anyways, it might as well go to me!"

I thought about that, and eventually concluded that "no, it might as well go to charity".

[/ QUOTE ]
Just because crack addicts are going to spend their money on crack anyway doesn't mean I should go sell it to them to give the money to charity. Or does it? This seems like an interesting point.

Thanks again for your input, I'll continue to think on this.