Is poker an ethical way to make a living?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even stock traders are helping the economy in a weird way. There wouldn't be so many sue-happy lawyers out there if there weren't so many sue-happy people, so they too are providing a service.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that any different than the "service" the poker professional plays by keeping games full? People like to sue other people. People like to play poker. In both cases the "service" being provided is of dubious societal value, but the person with the money is willing to pay for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lawsuits and poker games ARE very similar in one respect - they both transfer wealth, but neither creates wealth. The creation of wealth is what drives the economy. You can't have an economy based on people suing each other as the primary activity. Ditto for poker.

[Warren Whitmore]

Well put. I remember reading an article by Marilyn Savant (the highest IQ person currently alive) on this subject. She said there was nothing wrong from an ethics standpoint on poker, chess, backgammone etc. The problem with it was that it pulled the brightest and potentially most productive people out of the societies pool of talent.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Well put. I remember reading an article by Marilyn Savant (the highest IQ person currently alive) on this subject. She said there was nothing wrong from an ethics standpoint on poker, chess, backgammone etc. The problem with it was that it pulled the brightest and potentially most productive people out of the societies pool of talent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this except for the use of the word "problem." It's only a problem if one doesn't believe in personal freedom (not that I'm saying you personally don't).

[jimymat]

Cry baby mother fawkers whining about why were here. Do whatever you want. Never explain. Theres a lot more worse things to be in life.

[popniklas]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />

I agree with this except for the use of the word "problem." It's only a problem if one doesn't believe in personal freedom (not that I'm saying you personally don't).

[/ QUOTE ]

Seeing that as a problem while still believing in personal freedom is entirely possible. There is nothing flawed about that.

As an extreme example, you can be a libertarian and still think that if a person finds a cure for cancer, that would be better for society than if he had played poker instead.

You wouldn't want the state to force him to develop a cure for cancer, but you would probably consider it a problem if he had a chance to do that, but missed it.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
As an extreme example, you can be a libertarian and still think that if a person finds a cure for cancer, that would be better for society than if he had played poker instead.

You wouldn't want the state to force him to develop a cure for cancer, but you would probably consider it a problem if he had a chance to do that, but missed it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see that as a problem. A disappointment, sure, but definitely not a problem.

[maurile]

What Business Are Poker Pros In?
Abdul Jalib
r.g.p, 1999

You can use different perspectives, without accepting one perspective as the correct perspective.

The leech perspective:

I am a leech. You won't find me sucking blood, but I do feed slowly on the money of my hosts. I don't produce any goods or services of value to society. Instead, I have to rely on those who are brain surgeons or lawyers or restaurant owners or drug dealers to go make a lot of money supplying goods and services to society so that I can make a meaningless existence off a portion of what they earn. The transfer of money to sustain my existence is very wasteful, as for every dollar I suck, another dollar leaks into ultimate leeches: the casinos and the government. The fishies would be better off without me. So would the casinos, because I take a lot of money out of the poker economy to support myself. I am a harmful parasite.

The prop perspective:

I am a prop. You won't find me on the casino payrolls, because they don't pay me anything directly - I'm not a hired prop. But I help get games started and support short-handed games, which helps the casino cardroom make money. Sometimes I'm simply the difference between the casino having N tables and N-1 tables going. My objective is to make money for myself, but many of the things I do to make money actually help the cardroom. A healthy cardroom means more money for me, so I'll even make the occasional sacrifice for the cardroom's benefit. I am not a parasite; I am a symbiote.

The entertainer perspective:

I am an entertainer. You won't find me in the Las Vegas yellow pages, but instead at the poker tables. I provide entertainment to the fishies. I even provide entertainment to my fellow professional poker players. The casino charges everyone to play. I charge the fishies even more to play with me, but the charge is hidden in the gambling, just like in the gambling games out on the main casino floor. The fishies usually suspect they are paying some extra charges on average to me, but they also know they have a shot at taking my money. And they are happy to have a game, which I help provide. I try to keep them happy by chatting with them, even talking strategy with them if they want. If they ask if I'm a professional, I'll tell them the truth. If a pot is pushed incorrectly to me, I'll push it to the fishy who can't read his hand any better than the dealer - cardspeak, after all. I can be honest and give them assistance; they are still going to pay me for their entertainment, and in the long run they'll keep coming back for more if they are happy that everything is honest. I am a good host.

The gambler perspective:

I am a gambler. You won't find me playing keno, because I'm a poker player. But I'm not making any apologies to the fishies, because sometimes I'm the fish. There is no way to mathematically prove I am playing with an advantage. Even if I'm a superior player, it's possible for the rest of the table to conspire, either intentionally or unintentionally, to make me play at a disadvantage at any time, no matter what my past track record. There is no optimal poker strategy - how to best play depends on how your opponents are playing, and it can be *impossible* for you to avoid losing on average edge against certain configurations of "suboptimal" opponents. Also, I know with 100% confidence that some players cheat, especially some that look all the world like total fish - that is one case in which I become the fish. I'm betting that I am playing with an overall edge, but it's inherently a gamble, and so there is not a sharp line between winners and losers, professionals and fish. I fear deep down I am a problem gambler.

The wise guy perspective:

I am a wise guy. You won't find me doing hits for the mafia, because I'm too busy running my own racket at the poker tables. De marks brings the monies to play cards, and I send dem home brokes, see? Dey are suckers who *want* to lose their monies. If it wasn't me to take it from them, it would be some odder wise guy to take it from them. If it takes a few moves to ensure dat the suckers lose deir monies to me before some other wise guy, well, den, it takes a few moves. A wise guy should never wise up a sucker, of course, or let dem know dey've been had. Some wise guys have a few scams dey run at the tables to get even more out of the suckers, like selling international calling cards dat don't work. I gotta get in on dat action too. I am the con man dat Doug Grant says I am.

I am a leech, prop, entertainer, gambler, and wise guy, and in that order, so I'm mostly leech and I have hardly any wise guy in me.

[purnell]

"The problem with it was that it pulled the brightest and potentially most productive people out of the societies pool of talent. "

Too bad for the society. It should nurture it's talent pool better.

[greywolf]

[ QUOTE ]

Well put. I remember reading an article by Marilyn Savant (the highest IQ person currently alive) on this subject. She said there was nothing wrong from an ethics standpoint on poker, chess, backgammone etc. The problem with it was that it pulled the brightest and potentially most productive people out of the societies pool of talent.


[/ QUOTE ] Do you have a link to this? or do you remember where you read this article?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Marilyn Savant (the highest IQ person currently alive)

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW, as of 2003, she no longer holds this title - some kid from Portland has it. In fact, she's probably not even close, since that claim was built on her childhood IQ score of (IIRC) 228, but the tests then were wildly inaccurate at the extremes. A more modern estimate for her is around 180.