Is poker an ethical way to make a living?

[XChamp]

[ QUOTE ]
A point that posters aren't making but is very relevant to the discussion re: the ethics of professional poker is the relationship between the poker pro and the gambling addict. There isn't necessarily a "contract" involved when the addict deposits another $500 from his credit card to chase a $500 loss. They can't control it, even if they conceptually understand the risk and perhaps (or not) their comparative lack of skill for the game. Of course, some gambling addicts become profitable poker players (although, I guess they remain addicts, just ones that earn instead of lose). But many others just crash and burn, go bankrupt and ruin their lives. In this way, poker is no different than craps, blackjack or the track for an addict. The addict can't control the addiction -- the love for the long odds, the self-hating masochistic tilt, the promise of instant wealth -- and the pro player feeds off of it. We've all seen them on the tables, and I'm sure most of us here have been on tilt enough to know what the addict feels. I think you have to keep this in mind when running up against questions of morality/ethics and pro poker. People who see it as unethical think of loan sharks with baseball bats and the card cheat, which of course are a thing of the past for today's game. But the outsider also sees the Poker Pro as an exploiter of the addict (the same way that the casinos and the State lottery systems are exloiters of addiction). I don't think it's unethical to play cards for a living, but I think this site should address the topic of addiction more...but why would they do that when the addict is a source of income for the pros, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I wish more was done to educate people about addiction. I have no idea how many people I play with have gambling problems. In my estimate it is very few, but then again I do not play in casinos and rarely talk online. My estimate is purely based on putting action junkies on my buddy list and monitoring their play. They never stick around long, which makes me conclude that they aren't ruining their life playing poker.

[bathroompants]

[ QUOTE ]
A point that posters aren't making but is very relevant to the discussion re: the ethics of professional poker is the relationship between the poker pro and the gambling addict. There isn't necessarily a "contract" involved when the addict deposits another $500 from his credit card to chase a $500 loss. They can't control it, even if they conceptually understand the risk and perhaps (or not) their comparative lack of skill for the game. Of course, some gambling addicts become profitable poker players (although, I guess they remain addicts, just ones that earn instead of lose). But many others just crash and burn, go bankrupt and ruin their lives. In this way, poker is no different than craps, blackjack or the track for an addict. The addict can't control the addiction -- the love for the long odds, the self-hating masochistic tilt, the promise of instant wealth -- and the pro player feeds off of it. We've all seen them on the tables, and I'm sure most of us here have been on tilt enough to know what the addict feels. I think you have to keep this in mind when running up against questions of morality/ethics and pro poker. People who see it as unethical think of loan sharks with baseball bats and the card cheat, which of course are a thing of the past for today's game. But the outsider also sees the Poker Pro as an exploiter of the addict (the same way that the casinos and the State lottery systems are exloiters of addiction). I don't think it's unethical to play cards for a living, but I think this site should address the topic of addiction more...but why would they do that when the addict is a source of income for the pros, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this line of thinking brings other forms of addiction into the mix too. Is it unethical for a bartender to serve an alcoholic a drink? Is it unethical for convenience store clerks to sell a smoker a pack of cigarettes?

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

Being a pro poker player is like being the president of your own small business. Your business is playing poker and claiming as high a market share as you can(money on the table.) In some respects this is no different than any other business. It is a competition that is won by the person/company that best responds to current market conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]

This analogy is pretty poor for a lot of businesses.

The key point is whether or not the transactions of the business are mutually beneficial for both parties. This is easiest to see when you take money out of it and think in terms of trading services.

If you're a woodworker and I'm a gardener, if you come build me a chair in exchange for a landscaping job, we both come out ahead since there's no way I can build chairs as good as you can, and there's no way you can do a landscaping job as well as me. Everybody wins when we do business.

This is obviously not the case at a poker table where one man's gain is necessarily someone else's loss.

eastbay

[TomBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea how many people I play with have gambling problems. In my estimate it is very few, but then again I do not play in casinos and rarely talk online.

[/ QUOTE ]
I also would wonder how many people have a gambling addiction versus those that do it for entertainment.

[RydenStoompala]

What a rambling stream of consciousness you got for replies. I love ethics debates...and root canals.

If by ethical you mean in keeping with the ethical standards of behavior in western society, there's no debate. The professional poker player is a market maker, a sourse of liquidity and a dependable participant in a national passtime frequented by millions of people.

If you are not asking about ethical standards but instead wish to compare the contribution to the "general good" of a professional poker player versus other professions, I would argue that the pro still holds up to scrutiny. I mean, if we are going to drag lawyers into this then pro card players are not even in that league. Pros cant see that far down from where they sit.

[USGrant]

I agree, I think there is a strong analogy betw. bartending and professional poker. I was a bartender and one of my least favorite parts of the job was serving up drinks to regulars who I knew had drinking problems. But the regulars were the profits for the bar (and for me), so I didn't have too much say in the matter outside of getting a different job. I don't agree that there should be more regulation (i.e. that drinking or poker should be further restricted by the Gov), but I think that bars and poker rooms/discussion forums should address the issue of addiction more openly and actively.

[purnell]

"... poker table where one man's gain is necessarily someone else's loss."

This statement is irrefutable. However, I think alot of people would pay good money to get crushed by a 2+2 founder, and in that special case it would be "mutually beneficial".

[Pocket Trips]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Being a pro poker player is like being the president of your own small business. Your business is playing poker and claiming as high a market share as you can(money on the table.) In some respects this is no different than any other business. It is a competition that is won by the person/company that best responds to current market conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]

This analogy is pretty poor for a lot of businesses.

The key point is whether or not the transactions of the business are mutually beneficial for both parties. This is easiest to see when you take money out of it and think in terms of trading services.

If you're a woodworker and I'm a gardener, if you come build me a chair in exchange for a landscaping job, we both come out ahead since there's no way I can build chairs as good as you can, and there's no way you can do a landscaping job as well as me. Everybody wins when we do business.

This is obviously not the case at a poker table where one man's gain is necessarily someone else's loss.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

I am talking about competition between like businesses. If you can explain to me how a wood worker and a gardener compete for the same business your argument might make sense

[Guthrie]

Yes.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Being a pro poker player is like being the president of your own small business. Your business is playing poker and claiming as high a market share as you can(money on the table.) In some respects this is no different than any other business. It is a competition that is won by the person/company that best responds to current market conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]

This analogy is pretty poor for a lot of businesses.

The key point is whether or not the transactions of the business are mutually beneficial for both parties. This is easiest to see when you take money out of it and think in terms of trading services.

If you're a woodworker and I'm a gardener, if you come build me a chair in exchange for a landscaping job, we both come out ahead since there's no way I can build chairs as good as you can, and there's no way you can do a landscaping job as well as me. Everybody wins when we do business.

This is obviously not the case at a poker table where one man's gain is necessarily someone else's loss.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

I am talking about competition between like businesses. If you can explain to me how a wood worker and a gardener compete for the same business your argument might make sense

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't but it's irrelevant.

When you have two gardeners and two woodworkers, the gardeners are going to select the better of the two woodworkers. This motivates the woodworkers to do their best work and makes the economy more efficient, so that you get better woodworking and by the same token better gardening.

If the bad woodworker doesn't get business, he decides that maybe he's better at teaching woodworking than running a business. These market forces then drive the economy towards increased efficiency for bigger net gains for everybody.

There are no such effects in a poker game. Cards move around on a table. Money changes hands. There's no net gain there. Period.

eastbay