poker ethics: do you wonder about who you're taking money from?

[Shoe]

[ QUOTE ]
Not a leach? What service of any value do we provide to society? I take many things of value, both materially and in labor, when i spend the many thousands i have made. However, i have contributed nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of people who work, aren't really contributing anything either. But since they have a "job" that is ok.

[smoore]

Lawyers don't actually make anything of value, most people deem them neccesary.

Managers, by definition, don't make anything of value but there are way too many of them.

Poker players don't provide a service but they do not drain society unless they're on the dole. The lottery is state run and I see poor people buying $20 worth of tix each week. Sure, the 40% tax is put into the community but these people honestly can't afford it.

[bigalt]

[ QUOTE ]

I think the truly afflicted are probably in the minority in the on-line poker world and that most of them are just bad players who saw it on TV and think it's fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually have never met a habitually losing player in real life, though I have followed a few folks on party around from table to table. But yeah I agree that there is probably not too big a truly compulsive gambling population, though most of the folks I know that play on line have had their compulsive spurts.

Is it really a bunch of mes out there, who got turned on from watching on TV and I just happen to have learned it a little bit better than them?

[Benholio]

When playing online, I never consider who I am taking money from. It doesn't bother me at all.

When I'm playing RL with my friends, I sometimes consider who I am playing against when I make a decision. I don't softplay them, but I am much more willing to gamble with a bad hand. For instance, might re-raise all-in with 33 because if I win, thats good, and if I lose, oh well I don't mind losing to soandso.

Playing live with strangers, I don't really care.

[2easy]

[ QUOTE ]
are we not, as habitually winning poker players, bigger leaches on society than people that abuse the unemployment/welfare program? We are taking money straight from the pockets of other people...

I'm not trying to preach fire and brimstone or anything, I'm just wondering if this is something anybody's thought about.

[/ QUOTE ]

im a firm believer in individual accountability, that is to say, it is not up to me to judge other peoples' motivations. and further on that, they are the ones ultimately responsible for what risks they take and in determining what degree of risk is or is not acceptable to/for them. and it is they, and not me, who should decide what they want to do for entertainment and/or competitive stimulation.

regarding taking the money from the pockets of others? does walmart take money directly from the pockets of "mom & pop" businesses? of course they do. but that can be looked at in the context of whether they are doing a service or disservice in doing so.
on the one hand, they are probably providing goods at a cheaper price. on the other hand, they could be destroying the fabric of local ownership and pride in your business and individualized customer service, etc..

i guess all this is to say, that there are many factors/elements to such questions as regards being "leaches". while we as poker players are certainly not curing cancer, i dont think that the only validation one can attain HAS to neccessarily come from ones vocation. what we do with our lives overall, when away from the competition, as well as at it, i think is a more meaningful way of measuring these "greater" philosophical questions you are addressing.

[TGoldman]

Skilled poker players are often called "sharks" for a reason. It's not just a catchy phrase. Just as in nature, card sharks actively hunt for weak/inexperienced players in order to eat them alive. Really the whole idea of "table selection" is all about putting yourself in the situation so that you can take advantage of the weak/inexperienced for your own financial gain.

So is this a bad thing? I know I struggle with it myself sometimes when I see some maniac or uber calling station with the 80%+ VP$IP blow through a few hundred dollars in a short period of time. If someone with those stats is somehow able to run up a few hundred dollars at the beginning, I almost want to scream at them to logoff, withdrawal, and quit while they're ahead. Of course I never say that and sure enough they're broke a short while later.

I'm a practicing Catholic and I actually asked this question to my priest a few months back. He had never heard of online poker, so I had to explain the situation to him and he had several questions to ask. After some discussion, he concluded that as long as my opponents have the same opportunities for improvement that are available to me, and I have no reason to believe that my opponents are playing under the duress of intoxication/addiction, then it is not immoral.

[aargh57]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that's not entirely true, some people don't realise how much debt thy are in, or are compulsive gamblers who can't stop themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are voluntarily putting their money at risk.

If they are not being responsible about it, that's their own damn problem, and they will never kick the addiction by projecting blame onto others.

IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely. This whole way of thinking of behavior as a disease is such a cop out. If you are a good player you have an advantage over a bad one, however, it's a fair advantage. Most gamblers (especially poker players) fancy themselves good at what they do no matter how good or bad they truly are. They have the same opportunity as anyone to improve there game. Now, I know that some may have more of an aptitude than others but you they can still get better. Heck, I would be a huge contributer if I got in a game with some of the posters here, that's why I stick with low limit games I can beat. They can do the same thing as you or I can. Just start telling your mom you lose consistently and that should solve the problem.

[SunOfaJack]

Yes, entertainment value.

And if that isn't enough for you how about this, if you didn't take their money, someone else would, this someone could be immoral, therefore if you consider yourself amoral at worst, then your play is beneficial to society as money is at least flowing to persons with moral better.

BTW, I have found this affect me in live play. A seat opens up and an old granny who doesn't seem to have wealthy sits down with about $300 ($5/$10 limit HE). She knows a bit but is constantly getting outkicked and callind down with weak holdings. I get a good hand head to head with her and normally I would be aggressive, but this time I just call her bets and easily win the pot.
Does anyone soften up a bit in live play, other than for tactical reasons?

For instance, my decision to do this was easy, earlier the TAG at the table got aggressive with her and maximized his win, but the table was obviously annoyed/negative toward him, now this was a table with mostly loose passives who are socializing and having a grand ol time hemorging their chips. So, I passed up an this edge in head to head situation inorder to continue to keep the chips flowing from the rest of the table. However at the end of the night I wondered whether if the table was tough, if I do the same?

A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[aargh57]

Once gave an old granny $3 to fill out her chip rack when she cashed out because I felt sorry for her and as Happy Gilmore said "She's Old!" It's harder to be heartless to an old granny in person than to Bigsmacktalker23 on PP.

[Freudian]

I have no problem whatsoever. They would only have bought crack and beer with that money anyway.