Is poker an ethical way to make a living?

[deacsoft]

ethical- Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession.

There's nothing unethical about playing for a living so long as it's done within the rules of the game. AKA: No cheating.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
In general, this is wrong. If you're not getting paid for it, then society doesn't value it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this statement. By this logic, anyone who volunteers at a hospice, homeless shelter, etc. is of no value to society.

There is absolutely nothing unethical about playing poker for a living. But I think you are kidding yourself if you're trying to convince yourself that a professional poker player, by nature of his job, contributes a lot to society. He doesn't.

He might take his winnings and contribute to charity, or volunteer in his free time, etc... but this has nothing to do with his profession. Donating time or money to charity is not restricted to those who play poker for a living.

A pro poker player plays a gambling game for a living. The idea that this is somehow beneficial to society as a whole, or that he's providing an entertainment service like a professional athlete, is a major stretch IMO.

["spaceman"Bryce]

[ QUOTE ]
More ethical than car salesmen, insurance salesmen, and lawyers. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
This is simply not true.Lawyers are important for the construct of society.Not all insurance salesman are bad people.All carsalesman are known to be The devils lowest minions.The secret is to tell them verses from Samuel in the Old testament then their eyes pop out, and they vanish in to thin air it is super cool.

[UttBuggly]

[ QUOTE ]

What I find infinitely more interesting is what seems like a nearly universal attraction for males wanting to become professional poker players. (Insert Freud here.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Toots,

That is an interesting statement. Not competely accurate, based on the "guys" I play poker with, but not completely wrong. I just recently finished Feeney's "Inside the Poker Mind" and thought that "The Illusory Winner" was something to ponder on.

Most of my friends, some of which are very good players, do NOT want to become pros. I, on the other hand, think I probably will...after some more "education".

I don't care for Limit or ring games in general. I live for tournaments. I do well. I've spent the last year or so playing a ton of online events. I've done well enough that I have been playing with OPM (other people's money)for almost a year. Decided to try "live and in color", so last month, I played in 3 casino tourneys, including a WSOP satellite at Harrah's. 7th in my first, modest profit, 3rd in another and the WSOP deal. Three final tables in 3 trys is good, but I haven't quit my day job. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

So, even though I want to "turn pro", I'm not completely deluded into thinking I'm all that.

Semi off-topic...Feeney states that tournament poker isn't "real poker". I disagree. I'm playing real cards with real people and earning real money at a tourney. Playing daily in a casino would seem like a job. And I like to travel, so there's that as well.

OK...super long post...sorry, but I don't think the generalization applies and that's what I am saying.

[TomBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
Only if they pay taxes on their winnings.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are taxes ethical?

Is the way many Governments redistribute wealth ethical, taking money from those that work or work harder and giving it to those that don't work or choose to work less?

Is it ethical for Governments to tax their citizens and use the money to wage wars of questionable justification, killing people and destroying property in the process?

Is it ethical for a Government to administer a Social Security Program, ostensibly to return the money to the contributers when they reach a certain retirement age; but in actuality, to take the money not required to be distributed in any particular year out of the program and use it for other purposes? Is that the type of Government your suggesting should be paid taxes in order to make one's activity ethical?

[toots]

Thanks for the reply.

Yeah, it's not 100% accurate, but this week, it seems like a reasonable approximation. For some reason - that right now eludes me - the notion of "turning pro" has an amazing pull for a lot of people, and those people tend to be male.

To me, it seems like a great way to really screw up an otherwise nice hobby.

Of course, there's the old saying that "All American Men are great drivers, great lovers" - and great poker players? - "just ask them."

From this, it seems like so much about poker seems to boil down to "representin' a big johnsom." Everyone here is a winning player, or at least says so. Suggesting that someone's a poor player, or suggesting that someone move down in limits, is often greeted with the sort of enthusiasm otherwise reserved for the Freudian theory of "castration anxiety."

There are a few other occupations that seem to end up taking residence in a similar place in my mind. Gold prospecting, for instance. The best a person can do is wreck the local economy, especially if the currency is based on gold. Trying to make a living by having a "rock band" would be another. The best you can do there is one more "Me, too" among entertainers, although I can certainly be convinced of the usefulness of that long before I can of gold prospector.

They all seem to have the common thread of "working real hard to avoid work." By that, I mean that there seems to be some specially powerful "Representin' a big johnson" pull to the notion of making a living in such a way as to make a minimal addition to the GNP.

Funny, because when someone decides to become a doctor because he likes playing god, it doesn't even cause a blip because regardless of the motivations, everyone can see the value that a doctor adds to the general population.

[flair1239]

I don't think there can be anything unethical about playing poker for a living as long as you are not cheating.

The players at the table enter a unspoken contract when they sit down, that the winner of the hand will recieve the wagers in the pot (in most cases minus rake). There can be no misunderstanding of intent, and played fairly there is no intention to defraud or decieve (outside the rules of the game).

Some people may find poker morally repugnant, but this is a different issue than ethics.

Also I do not consider it an ethical imperative to "contribute something to society". How am I indebted to society in the first place?

I pay my bills (with both money from my job and money from poker) and abide by the laws of the land (with the possible exception of online poker and the occasional bowl). Just what is my further obligation to society?

I pay taxes on all my earnings without much complaint, because I realise that the United States is a great place to live. But seriously what do some of you people feel that anyone owes to society in general?

[Pocket Trips]

It seems like every week there is at least one thread along these lines asking if it is ethical to make a living playing poker. What this question seems to imply is that it is unfair to take advantage of players who do not play the game as well as professionals do, and that by pressing their small advantages over a long period of time it is almost like professionals are "stealing" from recreational players who are looking to have a good time and "gamble it up."

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. The major difference between competition between companies and poker players is that when Walmart drove Kmart to bankruptcy they weren't sitting across the table from them. It can really wiegh on a players mind to repeatedly see the same person bust out time and time again in a poker game. Especially if the person is genuinely likeable away from the poker table, but a poker player's job is to take the lesser player's money. Is it morally wrong to take this person's money? Not if it is taken through fair play.

The poker world like the rest of the world is very Darwinian. It takes someone who is superior in all aspects of poker ( game play, table selection, bankroll management etc.) to survive. If you work as a company executive in a competitive market place your job usually involves increasing the market share of that business either directly or indirectly. By doing this you in turn decrease the market share of your competition, which will put less food on that company's employeee's tables. Does this make a company executives job unethical? While this may be debatable to some I think most people will agree that it is only unethical if they use illegal means to gain an advantage.

Live B&M poker is like a micro-economy. It is person against person trying to claim a greater share of a limited amount of money. It can really start to weigh on people psychologically when you see the frustrations of people whose money you are taking, and may even feel guilty knowing that you depend on this person losing money in order for you to make a living. That does not make it immoral or unethical, it just makes you face up-close and personal the effects of a game in which there can be no winners if there are no losers.

[purnell]

I haven't read the other's ideas yet, but I will.

Here is my 2 cents:

In poker, as in most (or all?) human endeavors, the strong take from the weak. One thing that makes poker unusual is that the weak are largely unaware of their weakness.

Right or wrong? I don't know.

Do such things as right and wrong exist? I am not convinced that they do.

[purnell]

"A pro poker player plays a gambling game for a living. The idea that this is somehow beneficial to society as a whole, or that he's providing an entertainment service like a professional athlete, is a major stretch IMO. "

Agreed.