[ QUOTE ]
I agree that would be an ideal world for the fish, just as it would be ideal if we could buy other forms of entertainment for free. However, that is not the reality. The reality is that the fish attract the sharks, and the higher the stakes, the more sharks there are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so we're down to what's realistic, and I think we both agree on the reality of how fish and sharks are distributed. The analogy I was making to the roulette game with different stakes is how the poker landscape would look without the pros, though of course that's not how things are laid out now.

The problem is that you seem to be justifying your existence by claiming that you exist. Are you providing the service of a higher stakes but lower EV game to fish? Sure. The higher stakes games are lower EV, as the players are currently distributed, so the value that you're claiming to add exists only because you do. You say that you're selling the service, but you're creating the service too, in its current form.

If we're going to evaluate whether professional (or even simply highly skilled) poker players offer a valuable service to less experienced players, there are a few questions we have to consider. What unique benefit to I bring in offering this service? If I wasn't around to offer this service, what would be the alternative? These are the relevant questions, and yes, they require the ability to imagine a poker landscape different than that in which we are currently working. So the "this is just how things are argument" doesn't wash: again, I exaggerate, but just because the mob was doing what it was doing and getting away with it doesn't mean that racketeering was a valuable service.

So, taking a look at the relevant questions; the unique value that pros bring to the table is their skill in seizing their EV from another player, which isn't a value to the other player at all. The skillful player isn't defined by the stakes he/she plays at, but defined by the amount of EV that he/she sucks up. A fish can play another fish - at .05/.10 or 50/100 - and have a neutral EV, or play a pro and have a negative EV. There's nothing unique brought to the table by the pro except for the EV loss, and that is not a valueable service; rather, it's one the fish would rather go without.

Secondly, in the absence of the pros, the service would be provided by other fish, and provided far more cheaply. If I sell a product, but in my absence that product - and a better, cheaper product to boot - would be supplied by the market, it's pretty clear that I'm not providing a valueable service. There's a definite measure of value: remove something, and is what remains improved, or diminished? In this case, what remains for the fish from removing the pros is at best unchanged, but certainly not diminished. Hence, no value.

[ QUOTE ]
If the fish chooses not to do that, then he is choosing the entertainment of higher stakes over the profitability of lower stakes. There will be financial consequences for that choice.


[/ QUOTE ]

And just to be clear, the choice of the fish isn't relevant here. We're talking about our choice: the impact that we, as skilled poker players, have on others. I've made a choice to profit off of the mistakes of others, and I don't feel badly about it at all. But I know that what I'm doing isn't productive, or valuable; rather, it's my benefit at the expense of others. That's pretty much the opposite. Barry Greenstein recognized this fact (and discusses it in his book), and so tried to bring some tangible good out of what he was doing through charity work. I'm not the least bit concerned with the choices others make, but problems can arise when individuals lose sight of the effect that their actions have on others.