Is Playing Poker Professionally Ethical?

[JimMorris]

ÖÖO,
Thanks very much for your great analysis. You effectively summed up many points about poker that I've also come to realize and agree with. It is a complex issue, however, and many of your points can be reasonably disputed as kidluckee has shown. My thought on each of the main issues that you brought up are:

1. "It is a worthless activity." I agree with this, but there is nothing unethical about participating in a worthless activity. I wonder what percent of the population has a "productive" occupation, defined as something that improves other people's lives and experiences. My guess is that very few people would be in this category, because we live in a competitive capitalist economy, not a socialistic/communist society. One can easily debate the societal benefit of many lawyers, politicians, businessmen, marketing professionals, technology professionals, etc. Additionally, it seems that many people who choose a career for altruistic reasons (teachers, social-service workers, etc.) very frequently end up getting mistreated/abused/underpaid/taken advantage of. I know none of this makes poker playing worthwhile, however it focuses more on the point that it could be considered ethical to choose a non-productive occupation in today's society.

2. "Poker has negative psychological effects." I have to agree with kidluckee's rebuttal to this. My father taught special-ed for 25 years and the kids had severe negative psychological effects on him.

3. "Financial effects" This is obviously the big one, and negative financial effects lead to many other related problems for people/families affected. Kidluckee's comments here are totally wrong. In business 80% of participants don't lose and continue losing. More importantly, in business you aren't being deceived into losing more and more. We can say that everyone is responsible for how much they choose to gamble, however, this ignores the addictive elements of the game.

At this point, I don't feel that it's unethical for an individual to choose to play poker professionally. However, I do feel that there are severe ethical issues with the game in general relating to it's deceptiveness and addictiveness. I don't feel that the public is adequately educated about the dangers of playing poker, and the realities/difficulties that are encountered when someone naively attempts to become a winning player. I do think it is reasonable to compare poker to opium, cocaine, tobacco, and other addictive substances. Each of these have significant public education campaigns intended to raise awareness. But poker is glamorized on a dozen TV channels, and the realities of the game are kept secret. Very few people admit to losing lots of money, yet many people obviously do. I'm sure nobody wants to admit to losing lots of money, so the illusion perpetuates because we only hear about the wins, not the losses.

If anybody has any ideas of how to raise public awareness of the realities of the game through studies, articles, a book, etc. then I'd like to hear them. I'm willing to contribute to such a project.

Before calling me a hypocrite, let me clarify my position. I think poker is a fascinating, interesting game, and I do hope to continue successfully playing it. However, the beauty of pure mathematical and psychological competition are degraded when people are deceived into addiction by misrepresentation and glamorization of the game (especially on TV). I'm not blaming TV or anyone else, just acknowledging the the game has inherently confusing/addictive qualities, and I think more should be done to purify it even though it will lower our hourly rates.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
However, the beauty of pure mathematical and psychological competition are degraded when people are deceived into addiction by misrepresentation and glamorization of the game (especially on TV).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are grossly exaggerating by assuming that the majority of losing poker players, especially online, are gambling degenerates. It is much more likely that there is a continual influx of players who lose a certain amount and then quit, including lots of college player wannabes. Plus many of the degenerates are rich and can in fact afford it. As long as you are not hustling known degenerates to play you are not doing anything wrong.

However there is also a qustion of conscience here. My church, the catholic church, teaches that even an incorrectly formed conscience binds. So if you cannot buy the logical and moral arguements that I and others have made and after a period of reflection are left with unresolved doubts, then you should find another primary source of income and only play casually for fun.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3) I can't feel guilty if there's a small percentage out of control addicted to gambling. Just like a beer company shouldn't feel guilty if not everyone can control alcohol responsibly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not conviced here. If heroin was legalized, would you feel guilty selling heroin and profiting from it? This all seems very grey to me

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not selling poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, his argument was he should not feel guilty because his situation is similar to beer companies selling beer when a few acloholics exist and they shouldn't feel guilty.

I was kind of going on a tangent and comparing selling heroin to selling beer.

[Lestat]

<font color="red">1. It a worthless activity. </font>

And I suppose being an actor or baseball player is all important? When you play poker professionally you are in the entertainment business just like they are. Going to the movies is a worthless activity also, but some people enjoy spending their disposable income on this and sporting events. Others enjoy relaxing and gambling it up at a poker table.

<font color="red">2. Poker often has negative psychological effects. It sometimes creates friction between couples. </font>

So can being a CEO of a company, an air traffic controller, corporate law, and countless other professions.

<font color="red">3. Financial effects. </font>

There are many people who have no problem acquiring massive debt without ever having to play poker.

<font color="red"> Ethics of poker aside, how can any self respecting person accept this as their profession? </font>

I don't know. Why don't you ask Tom Cruise, Barry Bonds, or a lawyer the same question? What great contributions do they make to society by engaging in their profession? At least Cruise and Bonds (and poker players), create entertainmnet for people. Most lawyers create more societal problems than they solve.

Btw- What do YOU do for a living?

[ QUOTE ]
do you play poker?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, $200NL online, some STT and MTT.

[ QUOTE ]
If so, then by your own argument, you better stop.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how this follows. Have a look at the list above to see where I think poker fits into the hierarchy of unethical pursuits. It's not strictly black and white.

What concerns me about poker is that many players, including winning players, seem to be unaware of the effects that poker has, or unwilling to acknowledge them. Every second day there's a thread about dropping out of college to become a poker pro, people quitting jobs or missing work or school to play poker. Not spending time with friends and loved ones. Some people think this is a perfectly valid thing to do. I simply want to point out that it's a selfish and useless career path. As far as society is concerned, you contribute less than someone on welfare, and your money sometimes comes from those who can't afford it.

So I will continue to play, but I think it's important to realise that poker is not glamorous and that part of what you do has a negative effect on others and society. It's by no means something that should be stopped or crusaded against (it's not that terrible), but society would be better off without online poker.

[ QUOTE ]
So, either way, I guess you're leaving now, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to oblige you, but I'm here to stay.
[ QUOTE ]
Or are you going to completely discard reason and argue that as long as you don't play *professionally*, then poker is okay? Such an argument would be saying that taking people's money at $10/20 is okay, but taking it at $100/$200 is immoral. Or taking their money 10 hrs/week is okay, but 25 hrs/week is immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all. But I think it's important that people realise that as a full time pro they're doing nothing at all productive with their lives, and own up to that fact.

OP doesn't need to be told this, but I naively hope that someone will read this thread and see poker for what it is.

[Lestat]

Your problem with HUD's now makes perfect sense. You are one with many double standards.

There is no double standard with HUDs. I stopped using them a couple of months ago because I think they are unethical.

[ QUOTE ]
And I suppose being an actor or baseball player is all important?

[/ QUOTE ]
Playing online poker you use your unique talents for exactly one thing - getting money. You provide no secondary benefits. This is what makes poker completely different to any of the professions you listed

[ QUOTE ]
Poker often has negative psychological effects
&gt;So can being a CEO of a company, an air traffic controller, corporate law

[/ QUOTE ]I'm talking about the psychological effects on the people you play against, and beat. I should have made that clearer.

[ QUOTE ]
Btw- What do YOU do for a living?

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Lestat]

<font color="red">I don't use HUDs. I used to but stopped because I think they are unethical. </font>

That's kinda what I meant by double standard, since HUD's clearly are not considered cheating, unethical, or anything of the sort. You also seem to think that poker is unethical, yet you continue playing?

[Lestat]

<font color="red">Playing online poker you use your unique talents for exactly one thing - getting money. You provide no secondary benefits. This is what makes poker completely different to any of the professions you listed </font>

What benefits am I left with after paying money to see one of Robert Deniro's movies? Please tell me, because I must have missed it. I've seen many of his movies, but I can't find a single thing of value to show for it outside of the fact that I was entertained for a couple of hours.

<font color="red">I'm talking about the psychological effects on the people you play against, and beat. I should have made that clearer. </font>

If anything it is just the OPPOSITE!! Big losers come in out of the pits to play poker and SLOW the burn from their losses at black jack, craps, etc. I can't tell you how many times a guy sits in my game and tells me he just lost 30k playing black jack. I feel like I'm HELPING this guy by providing a game he won't lose as much money in as blackjack! He can lose at 40-80 all day long and not lose what he could go off for in one hour at other gaming options in the casino.

You're also WAY overestimating how many people can't afford their poker losses. Losing 50k per year at poker is nothing to some people. Believe it or not, there are many people who have that kind of disposable income. Not everyone who loses at poker is a degerate gambler. They can well afford what they lose at a poker table. Consider a guy who instead chooses to buy a boat and joy ride all summer instead of playing poker. It's all relative dude.

Of the people that ARE degerate gamblers, I submit that they'd find a way to self-destruct anyway.