Does social responsibility extend to poker?

[gamblore99]

I just read Storks post "Just witnessed the worst part of poker" as well as the responses. I think I'm the first one to agree with him...to some extent. I know you guys all say be responsible, have some self control, but some people just don't. Doesn't anyone feel some sort of social responsibilty to look out for other people? Someone gets addicted to drugs, people say its his fault, but everyone still shuns the drug dealer, feeling he is still partly responsible for the degradation of the addict. We say the drug dealer is an immoral person.

I know we play poker to win money, but is there anyone who's money you wouldn't take?

If you know a man is addicted to gambling, you know that if you play you will certainly win. You also know the money being played for will have serious consequences on your addicted opponent. Would you take his money? Would it be wrong to take his money?

I think it would be wrong to take his money. I would like to believe I wouldn't take his money, though the situation has never happened. I think doing so would be the same as being a drug dealer.


I'll try to support and defend my position when I hear some responses.

[Bluffoon]

If I really felt that someone had a serious problem I would go as far as talking to them about it.

Like telling them that I thought they had a problem and telling them they should leave and get help. Then it is up to them.

If they choose to stay then its game on.

[gamblore99]

[ QUOTE ]
If I really felt that someone had a serious problem I would go as far as talking to them about it.

Like telling them that I thought they had a problem and telling them they should leave and get help. Then it is up to them.

If they choose to stay then its game on.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason this person is sitting at the table with you is because they can't control there addiction. If they could, they really wouldn't have an addiction. A person with an addiction has a distorted perception of reality and will most likely not be able to help themselves. In reality, i don't think your really doing much here.

[Bluffoon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I really felt that someone had a serious problem I would go as far as talking to them about it.

Like telling them that I thought they had a problem and telling them they should leave and get help. Then it is up to them.

If they choose to stay then its game on.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason this person is sitting at the table with you is because they can't control there addiction. If they could, they really wouldn't have an addiction. A person with an addiction has a distorted perception of reality and will most likely not be able to help themselves. In reality, i don't think your really doing much here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't save the world and it's not my job anyway.

[The13atman]

This topic was extensively covered here and here.

The general consenus was that you can try and stop someone from playing if you know they have a problem, but once they're at the table it's all out war.

<assholery> If you have a problem with that, maybe you should try taking up checkers [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] </assholery>

[TripleH68]

I am a casual horseplayer, hence the handle TripleH. It seemed to me whenever I stopped in at the local horse parlor the same group of guys would be there. Some of them responsible players enjoying some recreation. Others were obviously edgy and displayed the signs of gambling addiction. Many of them seemed to be searching for something in their lives. A sense of worth. Something.

One day a representative from Gambler's Anonymous stopped by handing out flyers and preaching about how help was available, etc. They laughed him out of the joint. Crumpled up the flyers and threw them away. They got ANGRY! My point is they did not want help. Period.

So in the end refusing to play poker against a loser really does nothing. Someone else will give him a game. He will seek it out. He does not want help. Maybe he needs to hit rock bottom? I don't know.

I think there is something interesting in the game being heads up versus full table. Would you feel less responsible if you were at a full table with this fella? What if he were another "anonymous" gambler pouring his money into pari-mutuel pools at the horse track?

Gambling addiction is sad, but inevitable. I could not fault you if you took advantage of an opponent.

[gamblore99]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a casual horseplayer, hence the handle TripleH. It seemed to me whenever I stopped in at the local horse parlor the same group of guys would be there. Some of them responsible players enjoying some recreation. Others were obviously edgy and displayed the signs of gambling addiction. Many of them seemed to be searching for something in their lives. A sense of worth. Something.

One day a representative from Gambler's Anonymous stopped by handing out flyers and preaching about how help was available, etc. They laughed him out of the joint. Crumpled up the flyers and threw them away. They got ANGRY! My point is they did not want help. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]
ok

[ QUOTE ]
So in the end refusing to play poker against a loser really does nothing. Someone else will give him a game.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is the heart of the issue. Or at least the way I see it. I should have put this in my original post. I know this person will find another game, He will probably hit rock bottom anyway. But I think there is a very strong case that you should not contribute to his destructive behavior. If I see an old lady walking in a really bad neighborhood, and I am just about certain she is going to get mugged, is it ok for me to mug her so I can reap the reward with the same consequences for her? If everyone refused to give him a game, he would have no one to play with and could not feed his addiction (He may not necessarily be cured). This is wishful thinking, but just because something is going to happen, and because others will commit what I am contending here to be an immoral action, doesn’t make it ok for you to commit that same immoral behavior.


[ QUOTE ]

I think there is something interesting in the game being heads up versus full table. Would you feel less responsible if you were at a full table with this fella? What if he were another "anonymous" gambler pouring his money into pari-mutuel pools at the horse track?

[/ QUOTE ]
I made it heads up to simplify this argument and to avoid diffusion of responsibility. I think it’s a much clearer case of right or wrong if its just you, for right shouldn’t depend on what the people next to you are doing, and often it does. I know I would feel a lot less responsible, and I think that’s partly why I am able to continue to play. The responsibility seems a lot less real when the addict is anonymous.

[tdarko]

if i didnt know i took money from a gambler in the situation you mentioned then in no way would i feel guilty. if i knew about his situation i would probably just leave the table and find another fish (plenty in the sea yada yada yada). it is truly sad what gambling and other vices do to people's lives.
oh and for you haters that cant possible get over the fact that posts WILL repeat, because not all people have all day to thumb 2+2 to see if a topic has been covered (almost all have)then you can just skip the post and move on.

[gamblore99]

[ QUOTE ]
if i didnt know i took money from a gambler in the situation you mentioned then in no way would i feel guilty. if i knew about his situation i would probably just leave the table and find another fish (plenty in the sea yada yada yada). it is truly sad what gambling and other vices do to people's lives.
oh and for you haters that cant possible get over the fact that posts WILL repeat, because not all people have all day to thumb 2+2 to see if a topic has been covered (almost all have)then you can just skip the post and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't know that he has a problem, than you can't possibly know what to do, so you can't take appropriate measures to help him. Whether its immoral to make assumptions without sufficient evidence about the players mental state is another arguement. but i think it is a safe assumption and one that we can hold to be true here.

[Bellagibro]

It was tough seeing all the carnage when I was a full time player in the B+M before online poker was availible. I would see tonnes of guys get wiped out. This was back when we played 10-20 holdem against a $10 rake/hand. Some I liked enough to give some advice to but in the end, only those that recognize their problem can go about solving it.