Play poker --> Bad person?

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
my point (one of my points) that i was trying to get across is that in poker, you head out, pick a table, there's a fixed pool of money and you do everything you can to get the biggest possible chunk of that pool at the expense of everyone else. in business, there is a pool that grows if eveyone is working hard, and there is an exchange of product among the players where BOTH players can be happy because they are each getting something that they value more than what they had before. not true in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple things.

First, the purpose of a (not for non-profit) buisness is to maximize gains. This is true of every buisness that is for-profit. From car dealerships to software companies to restaurants to hospitals. The function is to maximize gains. One of the basic ways of doing this is to minimize costs. You can accomplish this by reducing staff, reducing the quality of the product you produce, etc. This isn't growing an economy -- it's shrinking an economy. Therefore, a buisness that is running efficiently does not necesarrily lead to a grown economy.

Next. Ask yourself, if buisness are inherently good for the economy, then why are there homeless people? These people don't seem to get the benefit of the grown eceonomy. And don't tell me it's thier own fault. I personally know a couple of homeless people who are hard-working and well-intentioned, but unskilled and unemployed. I can say with certianty that some people are homeless becasue we live in a capitalist society. There's a top and there's a bottom. That's just the way it is.

To spin this discussion back to poker:
The most fascinating thing about the poker table is that you are sitting with both competitors and customers. You are competing with the solid players to get the customers' dollars into your bank account. It is not necessary to remove your competitors to collect from the customers, although doing so would make it easier. In poker, there are two major categories of customers: those that are willing to pay $ for entertainment, and those who are getting screwed by the assumption that they are getting something in return for their money. In the business world, corporations are only able to collect money from customers. Both poker and business offer the rare opportunity to earn from the mistakes of your competitors. In poker, money can be instantly taken from your competitors / opponents, whereas in business, your competitors' mistakes will results in more money earned from your customers (also a possibility at the poker table).

As in a capitalist society, there are consistent losers. Homeless people, or broke players, can result from either bad decisions or terrible misfortunes.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my point (one of my points) that i was trying to get across is that in poker, you head out, pick a table, there's a fixed pool of money and you do everything you can to get the biggest possible chunk of that pool at the expense of everyone else. in business, there is a pool that grows if eveyone is working hard, and there is an exchange of product among the players where BOTH players can be happy because they are each getting something that they value more than what they had before. not true in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple things.

First, the purpose of a (not for non-profit) buisness is to maximize gains. This is true of every buisness that is for-profit. From car dealerships to software companies to restaurants to hospitals. The function is to maximize gains. One of the basic ways of doing this is to minimize costs. You can accomplish this by reducing staff, reducing the quality of the product you produce, etc. This isn't growing an economy -- it's shrinking an economy. Therefore, a buisness that is running efficiently does not necesarrily lead to a grown economy.

Next. Ask yourself, if buisness are inherently good for the economy, then why are there homeless people? These people don't seem to get the benefit of the grown eceonomy. And don't tell me it's thier own fault. I personally know a couple of homeless people who are hard-working and well-intentioned, but unskilled and unemployed. I can say with certianty that some people are homeless becasue we live in a capitalist society. There's a top and there's a bottom. That's just the way it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

again, i agree with your points.

believe me, i don't think that the business world is some utopia of human acheivement that is the solution to all our woes. i'm canadian, for tommy douglas's sake! i mention these BROAD statements about the way business works to differentiate it from poker. it IS different. business doesn't ALWAYS split the world into winners and losers. In business, you can succeed without taking away from someone else. In business, there is a lot less bitter, condescending attitudes like there are in poker towards the fish. IMO.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
To spin this discussion back to poker:
The most fascinating thing about the poker table is that you are sitting with both competitors and customers. You are competing with the solid players to get the customers' dollars into your bank account. It is not necessary to remove your competitors to collect from the customers, although doing so would make it easier. In poker, there are two major categories of customers: those that are willing to pay $ for entertainment, and those who are getting screwed by the assumption that they are getting something in return for their money. In the business world, corporations are only able to collect money from customers. Both poker and business offer the rare opportunity to earn from the mistakes of your competitors. In poker, money can be instantly taken from your competitors / opponents, whereas in business, your competitors' mistakes will results in more money earned from your customers (also a possibility at the poker table).

As in a capitalist society, there are consistent losers. Homeless people, or broke players, can result from either bad decisions or terrible misfortunes.

[/ QUOTE ]

it is true that in poker, some people will trade in their money for playing time, even though at face value it seems like a bad deal. kind of like when someone buys a coke for $1, it seems like an insane transaction since coca-cola probably only spent a tiny fraction of that amount to make the cola. however, in poker the predominant attitude is that "that's guys a moron, what a fish. only a donkey would do that. i'm such a genius for not doing that". but we don't really criticize consumers for trading in "excess" cash for products, do we? interesting.

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
In business, there is a lot less bitter, condescending attitudes like there are in poker towards the fish. IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, but isn't this a totally different subject?

[ QUOTE ]
business doesn't ALWAYS split the world into winners and losers

[/ QUOTE ]

If you choose to look at it this way -- and I do believe it's a choice, niether valid nor invalid -- then you can look at poker in the same way, can't you? Poker is a negative-sum game. We're all just paying the rake. Alternatively, just becasue you win at poker doesn't mean someone else can't too. I dunno. I just don't think that this observation has any bearing on the morality of poker itself.

[ QUOTE ]
for tommy douglas's sake!

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't get that, but I am amused by it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In business, there is a lot less bitter, condescending attitudes like there are in poker towards the fish. IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, but isn't this a totally different subject?

[ QUOTE ]
business doesn't ALWAYS split the world into winners and losers

[/ QUOTE ]

If you choose to look at it this way -- and I do believe it's a choice, niether valid nor invalid -- then you can look at poker in the same way, can't you? Poker is a negative-sum game. We're all just paying the rake. Alternatively, just becasue you win at poker doesn't mean someone else can't too. I dunno. I just don't think that this observation has any bearing on the morality of poker itself.

[ QUOTE ]
for tommy douglas's sake!

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't get that, but I am amused by it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

okay, let's do this one more time. this is probably the longest exchange i've ever had with someone that i didn't disagree with.

1. the attitude vs. fish thing was part of one of my earlier posts, actually. one of my contentions is that this baseless arrogance and superiority peddling is one of the things that a) is more pronounced in poker and b) is one of the potential character pitfalls of the poker player (going back to OPs question).

2. i don't think you can choose to view poker as a game with no winners and losers. when you win, someone else is losing. that's guaranteed. when you win, someone else could win, sure. but SOMEONE has to lose. EVERY poker game has winner and losers (or, potentially all losers if no one beats the rake). in business, it is possible to have no losers, depending on how you define losers. sure, there will always be people that make more money that others, but it's possible, actually fairly common, in business for everyone in a transaction come out ahead. not so in poker.

3. tommy douglas was a canadian politician who did a lot of good in his time. look him up in answers.com some time.

4. incidentally, i neither believe that poker is immoral or that business is always moral. i just steadfastly object to the notion, put forth by some, that poker may predatory in nature but big business is predatory too so we are therefore entitled to prey on the weak poker player. it plays up to the image of the big bad big business villain.

[ QUOTE ]
1. the attitude vs. fish thing was part of one of my earlier posts, actually. one of my contentions is that this baseless arrogance and superiority peddling is one of the things that a) is more pronounced in poker and b) is one of the potential character pitfalls of the poker player (going back to OPs question).

[/ QUOTE ]

I originally wanted to respond to that post but the ensuing debate became far more fascinating. I do notice the tendency for many of my poker-playing amigos to lump everyone besides themselves into the category of "fish". I think it makes the game more enjoyable when they think that they are better than their opponents and that the money is bound to come to them. I also notice that these particular individuals are arrogant in other parts of their lives, and some others experience problems with self-esteem. I typically fall into the latter category. But I think we would all (as poker players) do a little better to assume everyone is better than us until proven otherwise. If you humble yourself, you are more likely to think rationally than ridiculously.

[ QUOTE ]
2. i don't think you can choose to view poker as a game with no winners and losers. when you win, someone else is losing. that's guaranteed. when you win, someone else could win, sure. but SOMEONE has to lose. EVERY poker game has winner and losers (or, potentially all losers if no one beats the rake). in business, it is possible to have no losers, depending on how you define losers. sure, there will always be people that make more money that others, but it's possible, actually fairly common, in business for everyone in a transaction come out ahead. not so in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are considering money as the only measure of winning and losing, then both poker and business are made up strictly of winners and losers (with the house aka the government being the only consistent winner). However, in both poker and business, winners can arise in ways other than money. When people trade in dollars for entertainment, education, company, or self-improvement, it requires the loss of money and the gain of something else in return. Losing money does not always mean losing in general, unless money is the only measure.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are considering money as the only measure of winning and losing, then both poker and business are made up strictly of winners and losers (with the house aka the government being the only consistent winner).

[/ QUOTE ]

i disagree, but it may only be a matter of semantics. in business/economics, all sides in a transaction can come out ahead, even in a financial sense. this is because, over the long term, capitalism "works" in the sense that the economy grows. i know that just because capitalism works in general doens't mean that everyone in a free economy is better off. i know that. but the "prize pool" in a free economy is growing and everyone has a shot at the benefits. some businesses make more than others, so that can be viewed as a winner/loser breakdown. but it isn't a necessity that wins are generated by other losses, such as it is in poker.

i acknowledge that in reality there are losers in our capitalist markets. some people lose. i only mean to point out the difference between a poker player accumulating wealth, who MUST do so at the expense of others, and a person participating in the economy, who can accumulate wealth only by taking a share of the overall growing wealth available. again, i am not saying that the business world is perfect. But the argument "business is just as predatory as poker and since business doesn't corrupt people, poker doesn't either" is a baseless suggestion that playing poker isn't bad for your social health.

[revots33]

No, I don't think playing poker makes you a bad person. Poker is a competition where the score is kept with money. Wanting to crush the other players at your table is no different than Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, or Lance Armstrong wanting to win every time they compete.

[Mr. Curious]

Konsum,

You are not a bad person.