Are winning poker players republicans?

[Python49]

So i've never really been much into politics but am taking a Business Ethics course this semester and the topic came up about large corporations and their monopolies over the market. I felt that if a large corporation like walmart for example was practicing honest and standard business practices to run their franchise then they are not at fault if they drive competitors out of business. I felt this way for alot of reasons but anyway the point of my post is because I then started talking to a friend about the same issue and he felt that they were indeed wrong for monopolizing the market.

I then drew the comparison of large franchises dominating the market to winning poker players who make their money by taking other less skillful competiors money. I felt that the small % of winning players there are is similar to other big corporations making all the money and others struggling to get by. In poker, shouldn't the better player be rewarded even at the expense of others? In poker, its not as if the fishes are getting on and intending to lose, they are indeed playing with hopes of getting lucky to win but they just don't have what the winning players have (knowledge, patience, bankroll, etc), and I found this to be the same as small businesses trying to succeed but just not being able to compete with their competitors. The more one player succeeds the more someone else at the game fails. Like if you view each player in poker as a business, then only a small % of the businesses are really doing well and everyone else is failing BECAUSE of them.... now if poker were an economy would a democratic view be to take away from the good players (the rich) and give to the lesser skilled players (the poor)? My view on poker was that I did not see anything wrong with the stronger competitors making money off other players because I feel that if someone has the will and drive to do well they can. Similar to how in the business world I feel that it is indeed possible to build a small business to a large one because if it werent, there wouldnt be any large businesses to begin with. Walmart I believe started as a small business out in arkansas. So if someone believes that in poker its perfectly fine for the winning players to feed off the lesser players, wouldn't they also believe that in the competitive business world that theres nothing wrong with some succeeding and some failing? The money you make comes directly out of the pocket of someone else and the winning players pretty much monopolize the game. I'm confused as to how someone can be against large successful businesses driving out competition but have nothing wrong with winning in poker.

My friend said, "if u care about other ppl's well being, then monopolizing is wrong, if u care about succeeding the most possible, most profits, most etc, then monopolizing is right"

In poker however, arent essentially what you doing is making most possible profits without regard to the other players well being? If all the winning players in poker cared about other players well being then they'd have to stop taking their money... just how in the business world if you care about your competition this directly affects the success of your business.

I'd always thought I was a democrat (was never really into politics much anyway), but from what i've said I share republican views on this stance? Also... if I do, wouldn't other winning poker players feel the same.. or how do they justify making their money from weaker players. Personally I don't see anything wrong with making money in poker online the same way I don't see anything wrong with running a highly successful business even if its so successful to the point where you drive out other businesses.

[tshort]

I like the analogy. I've been a moderate republican since I was old enough to have political opinions. I've been a winning poker player and have felt no remorse for those who are losing.

We have all heard stories of people running up thousands of dollars of debts and losses playing poker. People's lives are being ruined for the benefit of winners. Many winners spend those big poker winning wrecklessly, too. I don't think they should feel remorse profiting on a level playing field. Businesses shouldn't worry about what their dominance is doing to their competition.

What if a few poker players work together to win? What if a dealer helps a player cheat? These questions draw analogies to shady business practices.

Does anyone who is a winning poker players and support socialistic ideals of the democrats have any comments?

[Python49]

That's what im dying to know. My friend claims to be democrat but says he doesnt see any thing ethically wrong with how professional poker players make their money.

[tshort]

Of course he doesn't. Let me take a guess. He thinks it's fine how they make their money, but he wants 50% of their winnings to be taken so the losing player can receive welfare.

[Darryl_P]

I think a typical liberal answer might be that losing poker players play the game by choice, whereas in real life we must sit at the table whether we choose to or not.

Of course to that you can (and I do) say that they still have a choice of over a million different tables, one of which is bound to be right for them, and if they still can't cut it, tough bananas.

As for monopolies and colluding, price-fixing oligopolies (effective monopolies), it seems most industries will get there eventually because that is the most efficient mechanism. In Europe we're already there in the airline industry, oil & gas, telecom, and most consumer goods.

Funny thing is that the end result is the same as communism, except that the various roles are determined by a Darwinian struggle among the players themselves rather than by some barbaric dictator. The system itself and the way it operates is eerily similar, though, in this ultimate equilibrium state.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I felt that if a large corporation like walmart for example was practicing honest and standard business practices to run their franchise then they are not at fault if they drive competitors out of business. I felt this way for alot of reasons but anyway the point of my post is because I then started talking to a friend about the same issue and he felt that they were indeed wrong for monopolizing the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not a monopoly.

Monopolies are granted by the government.

[Daliman]

Not this one.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
What if a few poker players work together to win?

[/ QUOTE ]
That would be known as a union.

[ QUOTE ]
What if a dealer helps a player cheat?

[/ QUOTE ]
That would be known as Congress.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Not this one.

[/ QUOTE ]
Winner or Republican?

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I don't see anything wrong with making money in poker online the same way I don't see anything wrong with running a highly successful business even if its so successful to the point where you drive out other businesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

The object of a business/poker player is to outdue your competition. You would like to see them fail. Most businesses are supposed to fail, while the few that survive are supposed to be the best ones. The best business produces the best product at the cheapest price. If businesses didn't try to make the other one fail, then the businesses would be producing inefficiently and our economy would be worse.