What good are we? As poker players, are we socially responsible?

[adsman]

You have a very simplistic view of the stock market and how it works. If someone makes money on the stock market, somebody else is losing money. It's not all plus plus. I have a friend who was a top futures trader for over 20 years. He told me some harrowing stories of people losing everything they had trading futures. Stories of manipulating the market which could have far reaching effects on producers, many of whom exist in the third world and can be financially destroyed by a few clicks of the mouse in London. A lot of people don't know what they're getting into. The stock market caused the great depression for chrissakes. Has poker done the same?

Poker is simple. You know what you're getting into. You sit down and play. You may lose or you may win, but you take the risk and it's obvious that it is a risk beforehand. You can then take responsibility for your actions and the outcome. Can you do this on the stockmarket? Every broker will tell you, buy this and you'll make money. Nobody is ever going to tell you that if you sit down at a poker table then you're going to make money.

I also find it amusingly ironic that you harp on about poker players and our "use" to society and then happily list alcohol, one of the most destructive elements in society today, as your countries claim to fame.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Regardless of *how* you make your living, if you're not asking society to support you, you're being socially responsible.

[slickpoppa]

What about being a hired hitman?

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. Becoming a doctor doesn't automatically make you any better for society in general than becoming a poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Take away all the doctors in the world.

Now take away all the Poker players in the world.

Which has the biggest effect on society?

Surely that example goes a long way to demonstrating "value to society"?

Ian

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how. If you suddenly eliminate tens of millions of people from the world, I'm pretty sure the impact will be much bigger than taking away all the Dr's. And while I wouldn't want to be in surgery when you took away all the Dr's, I wouldn't want to be driving on any interstate in the US when you took away all the poker players (or, on the other hand maybe I wouldn't care cause I'd be gone too, but I sure hope my wife and daughter aren't in the car when I disappear when I'm driving the car).

So, because it would have such a tremendous impact on society to disappear all the poker players, obviously poker players are of much greater value to society than Dr's.

--Zetack

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi all,

[Note: The first paragraph is just some personal background info so you can skip it if you are not interested:
I am currently at a crossroad in my life when I am going back to the third world country where I was born and starting to orginize my life there. As I am also finishing up my first year of playing poker for recreatinal pursposes, I have been thinking whether from a personal point of view it is worth it and whether it is socially responsible to invest any more of my time and effort into poker. (Don't get me wrong: I have profitted from the game and if I manage to repeat my achievements from this first year, I will be able to make a decent living at home...) Here are the thoughts that have been going through my head:]

What good is poker? Socially and in general, what purpose do we serve as poker players? We expend a lot of time, money, physical and emotional energy playing a negative sum game. Nothing of any value is created in the process. Would the world benefit if more resources (man-hours and so on...) are devoted to poker instead of something else? I would say no. In fact, it would be worse off...

The more I think about it, the more I get convinced that playing poker is a totally unproductive activity (this is from a general and not personal point of view). The game rewards a few players financially and leaves the majority worse off (that is a statistical fact). In the meantime it takes its emotional and health toll on almost everybody. Yeah, there might be recreational value to playing but if recreation would be my primary motivation, there are many other hobbies out there that do not threaten with high probability to hurt my bank account and my health. And even if I turn out to be ones of the very few "lucky"/"able" ones who actually profit from the game, that would also automatically make me one of those same few "lucky"/"able" ones who either directly or indirectly are the reason for the financial, emotional troubles of the rest "unlucky"/"unable" ones.

I mean, what exactly is poker? It is money exchanging hands. The websites, casinos, the rules of the game and so on are just vehicles that facilitate the exchange. A few people win from the exchange and their wins are less than what the majority loses. The difference is taken by the facilitating casino/website as a fee. Part of that fee is reinvested in the "infrastructure" of the poker world to provide better service, employ more people and so on... Is that the most efficient allocaton of that money? Probably not. I think it would be more beneficial if that low-skilled laborer in India or Aruba or wherever providing support for my exchange of money called poker was instead employed to produce something of value (a computer part or even some cheap item sold at Wal-Mart) . I don't think it would make much of a difference to the laborer and something productive/useful would come out of the whole process.

Anyway, just wanted to share the thoughts that have been going through my head lately. Those thoughts were a spontaneous attempt to look from a more general and unbiased perspective at the activity that I have been involved in for almost a year now.

I think a natural answer to some of the questions that I aksed in this post would be that poker is a voluntary activity and it is primarily intended to provide recreation and entertainment to people. The fact that it is voluntary, though, doesn't make poker socially beneficial. Which leads to my other question, individually each player and together as a poker commmunity are we socially responsible?

Don't get me wrong. I am not preaching against playing poker or gambling in general. I will probably continue to play regularly but I just want to see things the way they are. If I am involved in an unporoductive activity that is borderline socially irresponsible, I would like to at least know it.

Just trying to start a discussion that would hopefully make me feel a little better about playing and taking other people's money
Bate

[/ QUOTE ]

Bate, no offense, but I find your thought process on this to be very scattered.

First you ask what good is poker...but then you appear to want to limit "good" to the production of things of value. Somehow you tie this into financial gain to individuals. Then without defining production, things, or value, you appeart to reject the commonest meaning of those words and you seem to include (in a later post) anything that provides something whether tangible or not that people want. Except that if what people want is to play poker somehow that doesn't count.

And oh yes, don't let me forget, the would the world be better off if more man hours would be devoted poker as opposed to something else line. You say no, and yet wouldn't that depend on what the something else the manhours were going toward? I'm sure, for example, there are a few tens of thousands of manhours in this country spent on committing spousal abuse, I'd much rather see those manhours spent on poker, but hey, that's just me. Or, wait, was the question not whether poker is good, but whether it is the maximum good we could find for the time...well hell what activity passes that test?

Ok facetiousness aside. You seem to be working backward from your conclusion, that poker is not socially useful, so the definitions of your words slide to support that.

Personally I can not come up a with a definition of positive social utility that includes everything I think clearly has positive social utility that also excludes voluntary participation in poker.

And finally, to nit--negative sum? Look the vast majority of poker players will never set foot in a casino or play in a raked game. For that pool of players, poker may be a zero sum game financially but is not a negative sum game.

--Zetack

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Last I checked, Murder was already illegal. I guess I erred by leaving out the phrase "as long as how you earn your money does not intiate violence or fraud."

All right, I'll de-lurk and say something about this.

The older I get, the less I care about "stuff". Making things -- televisions, jewelry, furniture, cars, whatever -- uses energy and resources. It's actually bad for the world to make too much stuff. Especially cheap stuff like you find at Walmart, that lasts a few months and then hits the landfill.

So I don't believe that making stuff, beyond the necessities of food, shelter, a bit of clothing per person, is a societal good.

It takes a very small portion of our population to fulfill our real needs. Maybe one-fifth of all the people working in the US create something necessary to life. It takes only 2% of our population to feed us, for example. Plus another few percent to build homes and provide health care. Maybe add in utilities and emergency services. Teachers. What do we really need?

So that leaves at least half our workers doing something unnecessary.

What would happen if all the unnecessary work stopped? Loads of previously employed people would be bored out of their skulls. They'd start roaming the streets and rioting, or searching for new games

Don't underestimate the value of giving people something interesting to do. Setting up after school programs to play basketball lowers truancy and street crime. Letting people be bored is a societal evil.

And I want experience. Far more than I want some new thing. I want a chance to test myself, and learn. I want to compete, and stretch myself in ways that nothing but the competition of other people can provide. I want the thrill of action -- and it is more thrilling when I have something on the line. If I couldn't risk my money, would I have to risk my body? Say, by taking up boxing?

In the terms of economics, anything someone voluntarily gives money for is a good. I'm willing to pay for it. You and all your opponents are willing to pay for poker. So it is a good.

But if you are looking for a more meaningful definition of good -- consider that entertainment is worth a lot more than you are giving it credit for. The Romans found they needed to provide bread <font color="red">and circuses</font> to keep peace in the streets. Currently, we've noticed that "Man will always use his most advanced technology to amuse himself". There must be something truly important about amusing ourselves, if we will go to that much trouble to do it. After all, if you were healthy and sheltered and clothed and fed and didn't enjoy any of it -- what would be the point?

And it's often while amusing ourselves that we make our greatest discoveries. Poker has inspired deep insights into the math of random outcomes. It has helped many people know themselves better, and become more able people. It maintains mental fitness, even among the elderly.

And remember, the Communist experiment failed. It does not work to try to provide good to all without the motivation of gaining good for yourself. So maybe we need the training in competition and selfishness.

There are very deep things about being human that emerge and gain play through our games. Likely more than we can reach through analysis on a forum. I was asking the questions you're asking a couple years ago. I like the earlier points that it's your experience and gained wisdom that you take with you, and also that living your passion is extremely valuable. I'd also like to observe that games generally take a human ability to the edge -- they are like muscle isolation exercises for the mind. Very useful.

Thank you for opening the topic. I've enjoyed hearing the responses.

Ok, re-lurking.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
And oh yes, don't let me forget, the would the world be better off if more man hours would be devoted poker as opposed to something else line. You say no, and yet wouldn't that depend on what the something else the manhours were going toward? I'm sure, for example, there are a few tens of thousands of manhours in this country spent on committing spousal abuse, I'd much rather see those manhours spent on poker, but hey, that's just me. Or, wait, was the question not whether poker is good, but whether it is the maximum good we could find for the time...well hell what activity passes that test?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just had a funny thought. The more money the good poker players take from the bad poker players, the more the bad poker players have to work to regain that money. So if good poker players win at a rate higher than the bad poker players make working, the bad poker players have to become more productive members of society. Since there are only something like 5-10% of players that are pro, the pros are increasing the productivity of the player pool several times over [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[livinitup0]

Poker (if taken seriously) is about money. I dont check-rasie people because it helps put clothes needy children in the world, or put a turkey on Tiny Tim's table.

Its not my responsibility to make sure that people that have no personal impact in my life are taken care of. I do however, feel that it is my responsibility to help my friends and family, plus I still give to local charities and benefits, just because of:
A) socialogical obligation / guilt
B) Its may be a cause I feel passionately about.
C) It makes me selfishly feel better about myself (this is true with everyone, as it goes back to the Joey and Fibi's "there is no selfless act" episode)

Let's be honest, can anyone reading this right now honestly say that they wouldn't be annoyed if some phone-jockey called them up right now and asked for a donation to some random Charity?

Doing something beneficial to society is a personal decision, and considering that there is no handbook relating to how to live life (and dont you dare say the bible) this question really has no meaning at all. You want to feel better about yourself? Give yourself something besides money to show for your time? Go join the Red Cross, Im sure they could use you down south and you could probably still play online in your hotel...just make sure you are giving 0.5BB/100 to your favorite charity...or me, if you feel so inclined.

[SenecaJim]

Poker is thriving in this country and we have the time / inclination to do these kind of debates because we are a part of this affluent culture.

Pro sports, musicians, poker, these are entertainment. Some do it for recreation and some for money. The reason some do it for money is because it exists, it is an option, and/or it is something they are good at so they choose it as a way to make a living.

My Mom's Dad was a deep mine coalminer all his life. He provided coal so people could have heat and wouldn't freeze to death. My Dad's Dad was a carpenter. He built a lot of the homes that my friends grew up in and my home too. Because of these homes people did not go homeless.

They did not do this out of responsibility for society, however, they did it to survive and to feed their families. Scabs came in from out of state to take mining jobs during the strike. My Grandad helped see to it they did not take his job. Was that socially responsible? If he had given them his job they would have money in their pocket instead of his.

People that tried mining and couldn't physically take it or the emotional stress of the danger found somthing else. Aspiring carpenters who couldn't drive a nail straight, they found something else. Poker in the true reality of doing what is available and what you are good at to take care of your own and contribute to consumerism, well, it's the same as any job. There are tradeoffs. There are some who can't make it and do it partime like home projects. Or whatever. Poker is poker. Money is money. Competition is competition.

I used to teach school and coach wrestling. We had to stop giving special recognition awards for athletes who excelled. It might make the other kids feel bad or hurt their self esteem becasue they didn't work their butt off all summer and stay after and do drills and wrestle with the coaches. My God. I wish every kid coming through school had to play poker for a semester for their pop and candy money. If anything, I think poker is beneficial to all who play. May we always be fortunate enough to have poker thriving and people playing it.

Sorry, didn't mean for this to be a rant.