Is poker an ethical way to make a living?

[Triumph36]

Because the essence of making money is that one provides a service, or makes a product; the essence is *not* competition, though that is what allows for better products, better service, and a better economy. In poker, a player is not doing any of this. That's the whole point of capitalism: it operates on the principle of competition, but the assumption is that everyone operating in their own self-interest will create a robust economic system; if the system failed to do that, capitalism would've died out a long time ago. The professional poker player is competitive, and so on that level poker is *like* a whole economy unto itself, but he fails to fulfill the other half of the equation: he provides no service and makes no product. Only the top professionals can say that they provide a service; those whose celebrity status makes other players want to play with them, or those who play in televised poker events. No online player is going to brag that they got to play with AceAce420 or ShipIt65 (although Spirit Rock is another matter).

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. Microbob's blackjack dealing job was also providing a service, albeit one which he found unethical. Capitalism operates on the greed and stupidity of others. But don't run to me with examples of people who sell and market useless crap, or other vaguely unethical professions: there is a demand for them. But as Abe Lincoln said: "If gamblers were annually swept, from the stage of existence, by the plague or smallpox, honest men would, perhaps, be much profited by the operation."

[Pocket Trips]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the essence of making money is that one provides a service, or makes a product; the essence is *not* competition, though that is what allows for better products, better service, and a better economy. In poker, a player is not doing any of this. That's the whole point of capitalism: it operates on the principle of competition, but the assumption is that everyone operating in their own self-interest will create a robust economic system; if the system failed to do that, capitalism would've died out a long time ago. The professional poker player is competitive, and so on that level poker is *like* a whole economy unto itself, but he fails to fulfill the other half of the equation: he provides no service and makes no product. Only the top professionals can say that they provide a service; those whose celebrity status makes other players want to play with them, or those who play in televised poker events. No online player is going to brag that they got to play with AceAce420 or ShipIt65 (although Spirit Rock is another matter).

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. Microbob's blackjack dealing job was also providing a service, albeit one which he found unethical. Capitalism operates on the greed and stupidity of others. But don't run to me with examples of people who sell and market useless crap, or other vaguely unethical professions: there is a demand for them. But as Abe Lincoln said: "If gamblers were annually swept, from the stage of existence, by the plague or smallpox, honest men would, perhaps, be much profited by the operation."

[/ QUOTE ]

Great response. But in no way does it answer my question of how is poker "on the edge of being honest." Poker not being productive we agree on but there is a HUGE difference between not being productive and not being an honest way to make a living. Just because a job does not "provide a service for the betterment of humanity" does not make it unethical. It does make it a less valuable job to society. In the classic question about having the option to save 7 people from a nuclear holocaust to rebuild civilization. I am sure no one is going to opt to save the poker player over a scientist, but that does not make the poker player's job unethical.

As far as your Abe Lioncoln quote, If you honestly agree with this statement then again I have to ask why are you even here on 2+2? Don't get me wrong, you have as much right to be here as anyone else and I really do enjoy debating issues like this, I am just wondering why anyone who thought that gambling would be best eradicated by a plague wouild spend time on a web site dedicated to a gambling game?

[purnell]

"In poker, a player is not doing any of this. That's the whole point of capitalism: it operates on the principle of competition, but the assumption is that everyone operating in their own self-interest will create a robust economic system; if the system failed to do that, capitalism would've died out a long time ago. "

What the heck does capitalism have to do with the ethics of playing poker?

[Warren Whitmore]

To hell with society. A bit bitter perhaps. Just paid 30K to society for absolutly nothing. Let the witch doctor/Attila sort em out later.

[Triumph36]

It is an 'honest' way to make a living. It's also a terrible way to make a living. That's more of my point: unless one thinks they are at the top of the game, it's just a bad idea to become a professional poker player. Yes, it is honest, although it involves constant deception, and ethical, though angle shots are very common to the game. But it's still not good.

I didn't say gambling would best be eradicated by a plague, Abe Lincoln said that. Poker is a somewhat degenerate activity. Don't get me wrong, I'm going to go play online after I finish this post. I'm just not sure what poker does to a person's character.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the essence of making money is that one provides a service, or makes a product; the essence is *not* competition, though that is what allows for better products, better service, and a better economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to throw in on the idea of everyone working in their self interest to the betterment of society. I think you have a skewed view of the economic system. The economic system of earth is a marginally positive sum game. Right now we are pulling massive amounts of non-renewable resources to fuel our economy. Its easy to have a non-competitive job when there are massive amount of resources being thrown around. Its easy to be an artist when people have enough disposable income to support an entertainment industry. The first world is getting its wealth from somewhere and eventually its going to be gone. When that happens we'll see how non-competitive the economy will be.

[disjunction]

Yes. Knowledge of game theory is more developed because of poker, and this helps humanity in a number of ways.

At worst, you are not actively contributing to the destruction of national/global resources like other professions (although this does depend on what you spend your winnings), you are just passing money around.

[Triumph36]

Marx said that capitalism always requires new marketplaces or the system will break down. Consequently, if the economy ceases to be positive-sum, something entirely new will come about. My original point still stands that competition is not the essential part of capitalism; providing a service is. One needs to be competitive in order to provide the best service or product. Therefore, competition is the means to an end. I made no statement about the seeming 'non-competitive'-ness of today's economy.

Under your apocalypse scenario, professional poker players will be the first to go anyway. Who's going to be depositing their extra money into Party Poker when gas is 15 dollars a gallon?

[AKQJ10]

Sorry to jump in so late in the thread, but I don't get this at all:

[ 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.

But a more subtle question: True or false? "The expert poker player plays a similar role to his opponents that the house plays in other gambling games such as slots, keno, or Caribbean Stud." I think I partially agree, in that the games can't go without opponents. (Of course fish can play fish, which is part of why I disagree.) But the house actually pays the overhead to house the slots, whereas I don't pay any of that to make my opponents' poker game possible. I let them pay the rake. ;-)

[fearme]

not really, but does this really matter?