Poker players and society

[Al Schoonmaker]

I wish I had thought of this issue when I was writing, "Is Poker Socially Useful?"

Thanks,

Al

[Sixth_Rule]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, drug dealers provide a function demanded by society. Are winning, regular poker players less useful than drug dealers?

[/ QUOTE ]

thats the funny thing .... in an economic sense yes.... as long as the drug isn't harmful to the user. ie: pot or ecstasy

[WhiteWolf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

the winners in the game provide entertainment


[/ QUOTE ]

I think people who make this arguement are fooling themselves.

It's the house that is providing the entertainment.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct, the primary purpose or goal of a player is not to provide entertainment, but rather competition. However, as a side effect of providing this competition, all the players at the table *are* provided with entertainment. The player vs player competitive nature of poker provides an element of intensity + enjoyment that cannot be duplicated by other games where you are betting against the house. The skill factor involved with poker provides this extra competitive thrill, and this requires skilled players.

If you'll indulge me in a small rant here, I'm a little frustrated by some people trying to determine 'value to society' by fiat here. In my view, it's not up to a committee to determine 'value to society,' but individuals making their own decisions about what they themselves value. As I pointed out in an earlier post, a poker game is a group of people voluntarily getting together for a game, each one of them having made the determination that the potential benefit (competitive entertainment value, the chance that they win some money, the extra thrill of a winning session) outweighs the potential harm (the chance that they lose some money, the extra pain of a losing session, time playing that could be spent doing other things). A mutually beneficial, voluntary transaction amongst all the players - this is the textbook definition of how economic value is created.

OK, rant done. I now return you to your regularly scheduled forum.

[wrto4556]

Now that poker has blown up this question has become very simple. Poker players are like actors. Actors don't "provide entertainment", the producers do...but the ecomomy still profits from actors and actress'. Same with poker players.

Phil Hellmuth writes a book, Barne's and Noble get rich, too.

Edit to add on incase I was too vague: The travel channel has made money from WPT. Casino's make money because of travel channel. Stock in casino's... DVD producers have made money from Howerd Lederer's Limit video. I don't understand why this is such a heated debate.

[tomdemaine]

I think the word that you are looking for is utility, it is a fantastic word that we use in economics which is basically a catch all for any circular proofs you want to make. Assume people are rational (big assumption but there you go) they wouldn't spend money on a product (poker) unless they derived some utility (happiness, a gambling fix etc) from it the casino and other players are combining to provide this "utility" and are therefore productive members of society. The Pro may not derive utility from the action of playing like the donator bu s/he derives it from the money s/he makes everyone concerned is effiiently maximising their utility and therefore is completly justified in an economic sense.

Can you tell I'm puting off doing a macroeconomics essay? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Sixth_Rule]

[ QUOTE ]
and other players are combining to provide this "utility" and are therefore productive members of society.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm....it's true that other players combine to make a game possible but the specific question here is about poker proffesionals. These games and this utility would exist without pro's. Poker would actually be more entertaining without Pro's as it would be easier for bad players to win money or just stay around longer.

Poker Pro's are more like daytraders who see a bunch of people gathering and moving alot of money around and find a way to take advantage.

[toots]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the word that you are looking for is utility, it is a fantastic word that we use in economics which is basically a catch all for any circular proofs you want to make.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, I'm gonna put that one in my book of quotes.

That's a good 'un.

[tek]

How do most professional athletes benefit society?

All I see are overpayed rapists and steroid users showing poor social behavior to young children.

[darydarling]

My problem with these threads are that you always begin with "are poker players contributing to society?"
But the question you answer really is..."are poker GAMES contributing to society?"
You are not just your job. Whether you are a banker, lawyer, poker player or drug dealer.
There are drug lords in Columbia who actually provide for more for their society than most Americans with "reputable" jobs.
My point is this. One thing I am not a pro player, only recreational. But I know pro players who do more than just play poker. They organize charity events some of them even evolve around poker. Mike Sexton is one person that comes to mind who is trying to get the poker community more involved in things like this.
So yes a poker player can contribute to society. It's all about life choices.

[toots]

[ QUOTE ]
How do most professional athletes benefit society?

All I see are overpayed rapists and steroid users showing poor social behavior to young children.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been a good day for my ever expanding quotes repository.