Ethics of online poker

[bunny]

I tried searching but didnt find anything similar to what I had in mind. If it's been discussed before, I'd appreciate a link to the thread...

I was curious whether people see anything inherently unethical about winning money from bad players in online poker. I'm not playing much at the moment, but it was a significant source of income for me at one point. (I was not particularly good but ran at around 2BB/100 playing the 3/6 ring game at party so it was comfortable).

It occurred to me at this time that most of the people there had no idea about how to play winning poker. They believed it was all luck, or they had absolutely terrible strategies. The reason I wondered about the ethics is that I was essentially exploiting their ignorance. It's true that they could have talked to pros (my route into poker) or visited sites like 2+2 or read books, whatever. They didnt see any need for this though - they assumed it was all just luck. So was it ethical to play against them? It was an unequal contest which they thought was fair .

[cambraceres]

It is difficult for me to declare anything to be immoral when it is based on circumstances set up by the free will of others. They ask to be there, they ask for their ignorance. It isn't like you are playing unfairly, this would be nearly impossible. You have the same basic choices in the game, and the fact that you are more aware of what those choices mean for your game does not make it unfair. A game such as poker can only be made unfair in terms of an information gap. One must violate the nature of the game as one of incomplete information to cause a meaningful moral quandry.


Cambraceres

[RJT]

Bunny,

This has been discussed 2, possibly 3 times, here on this forum – well at least in the context of Christianity. I am not very adept in using the search function here. I am sure someone will provide you with a link shortly.

RJT

p.s. As I recall, I don't think the threads will provide you with much more insight than things you probably have already thought about. We'll see.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
It is difficult for me to declare anything to be immoral when it is based on circumstances set up by the free will of others. They ask to be there, they ask for their ignorance. It isn't like you are playing unfairly, this would be nearly impossible. You have the same basic choices in the game, and the fact that you are more aware of what those choices mean for your game does not make it unfair. A game such as poker can only be made unfair in terms of an information gap . One must violate the nature of the game as one of incomplete information to cause a meaningful moral quandry.


Cambraceres

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for your answer - this is something similar to what I was thinking. Something I couldnt quite resolve for myself though is suggested by your sentence highlighted above. It seems to me that there is an information gap in that most people I play against are ignorant of probability and ignorant of the fact that it would be useful to them. I have no puzzle with people who play intelligently but worse than me. Even the people who play stupid strategies whose egos wont allow them to become a student. What about the player who is ignorant though - who thinks it is all luck?

(I have to say - these thoughts havent stopped me from playing. Nor do I feel morally compelled to carefully explain to a guy that capping every street with bottom pair is probably not a sound strategy. I just wonder if there is an easy answer I am missing).

[CORed]

I don't see anything unethical about playing winning poker, unless one is knowingly taken advantage of a compulsive gambler, or someone profoundly mentally deficient. Also, unlike a casino, we are not playing a game in which it is impossible for our opponents to gain an advantage.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see anything unethical about playing winning poker, unless one is knowingly taken advantage of a compulsive gambler, or someone profoundly mentally deficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we are knowingly taking advantage of compulsive gamblers, as well as 17 year old kids with their fathers' credit cards. We may not know exactly who these people are, but we know they're out there, and we hope that as many of them as possible find their way to our tables. This doesn't necessarily make winning at online poker wrong, but it should give everyone pause.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
It was an unequal contest which they thought was fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

They thought wrongly, and everyone on the internet has sufficient resources to make an informed decision about gambling. T.S.

[NotReady]

Previous threads:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...amp;sb=5&o= (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3363023&page=&view=&s b=5&o=)

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...amp;sb=5&o= (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2716105&page=&view=&s b=5&o=)

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...amp;sb=5&o= (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3430321&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=)


http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...amp;sb=5&o= (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=3569071&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=)

[shmoosh]

It may be unequal, but it is fair. They have access to the same resources that we do. We have developed poker skills through study and practice, If it was very important to them they could do the same.

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is difficult for me to declare anything to be immoral when it is based on circumstances set up by the free will of others. They ask to be there, they ask for their ignorance. It isn't like you are playing unfairly, this would be nearly impossible. You have the same basic choices in the game, and the fact that you are more aware of what those choices mean for your game does not make it unfair. A game such as poker can only be made unfair in terms of an information gap . One must violate the nature of the game as one of incomplete information to cause a meaningful moral quandry.


Cambraceres

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for your answer - this is something similar to what I was thinking. Something I couldnt quite resolve for myself though is suggested by your sentence highlighted above. It seems to me that there is an information gap in that most people I play against are ignorant of probability and ignorant of the fact that it would be useful to them. I have no puzzle with people who play intelligently but worse than me. Even the people who play stupid strategies whose egos wont allow them to become a student. What about the player who is ignorant though - who thinks it is all luck?

(I have to say - these thoughts havent stopped me from playing. Nor do I feel morally compelled to carefully explain to a guy that capping every street with bottom pair is probably not a sound strategy. I just wonder if there is an easy answer I am missing).

[/ QUOTE ]

I should have been more clear in my original answer. What was meant by the highlighted sentence above can be made clearer by finishing the sentence. A game such as poker can only be made unfair in terms of a gap in AVAILABLE information. The fact that what is given to you and what is given to them is equal, makes the game itself equal. If you play on a ten foot goal, and so do I, then the fact that you can shoot and I can't doesn't compromise the moral integrity of the contest.

Cambraceres

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
We have developed poker skills through study and practice, If it was very important to them they could do the same.


[/ QUOTE ]

But they don’t for the most part, but should this really matter? Poker offers a fair game for a fair wager. I was a prop for several years at a small casino. I would say that on any given day, perhaps half the players or maybe even slightly more, sitting on any given table were lifetime winners. I became friends with the winners and losers alike. The vast majority of the losers intuitively knew that they were losers and budgeted appropriately for the games. Losers will not play at short handed games and will not start games - they want and expect ready made action. They don’t care who they get their “action” from, they just want to play as long as the games are full. I, as well as other winning players provided their entertainment. Very few of these players were pathetic addicts. Indeed, these “losers” came to the poker room for far more than entertainment. They came for a social event which they loved. If this social event were taken away from them, they would be deeply saddened. 95+ percentage of losers, I know for a fact, felt their money was well worth spending. These people weren’t losers in life. Most of them were highly successful in other business endeavors. We look at bad players and think they are complete, helpless idiots. They are not. They are spending their evenings doing an activity that they love and they have neither the time, nor the inclination to improve their game. Indeed, many of the winning players, were people to take pity on when their luck went bad. It was these players who tended to stretch their finances far more than the losing players ever did. Winning players aren’t rolling over the games. Their edge is probably at most 3% and probably on average about 1%. These players aren’t causing problems for anyone. If anything, it’s the house and it’s predatory raking policies that do the most harm for everyone involved. These policies wouldn’t be predatory if the house wasn’t allowed a state granted monopoly. The internet solves this.
I realize I’ve veered from online poker, but surely similar concepts apply.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I should have been more clear in my original answer. What was meant by the highlighted sentence above can be made clearer by finishing the sentence. A game such as poker can only be made unfair in terms of a gap in AVAILABLE information. The fact that what is given to you and what is given to them is equal, makes the game itself equal. If you play on a ten foot goal, and so do I, then the fact that you can shoot and I can't doesn't compromise the moral integrity of the contest.

Cambraceres

[/ QUOTE ]
Good answer, thanks. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
...The vast majority of the losers intuitively knew that they were losers and budgeted appropriately for the games. Losers will not play at short handed games and will not start games - they want and expect ready made action. They don’t care who they get their “action” from, they just want to play as long as the games are full. I, as well as other winning players provided their entertainment. Very few of these players were pathetic addicts. Indeed, these “losers” came to the poker room for far more than entertainment. They came for a social event which they loved. If this social event were taken away from them, they would be deeply saddened. 95+ percentage of losers, I know for a fact, felt their money was well worth spending. These people weren’t losers in life. Most of them were highly successful in other business endeavors. We look at bad players and think they are complete, helpless idiots. They are not. They are spending their evenings doing an activity that they love and they have neither the time, nor the inclination to improve their game. Indeed, many of the winning players, were people to take pity on when their luck went bad. It was these players who tended to stretch their finances far more than the losing players ever did. Winning players aren’t rolling over the games. Their edge is probably at most 3% and probably on average about 1%. These players aren’t causing problems for anyone. If anything, it’s the house and it’s predatory raking policies that do the most harm for everyone involved. These policies wouldn’t be predatory if the house wasn’t allowed a state granted monopoly. The internet solves this.
I realize I’ve veered from online poker, but surely similar concepts apply.

[/ QUOTE ]
I relaxed a bit once I finally met a self-acknowledged losing player who advocated exactly this argument. We chatted for a while and I just couldnt understand why he wouldnt use his brain to play better knowing he was a long-term loser at it. I always thought he was a freak though - makes me feel better to hear this is a common position.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
I just couldnt understand why he wouldnt use his brain to play better knowing he was a long-term loser at it.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's booring to play good poker. Also, it takes a lot of work. Many people who play poker are just unwinding, and (at least in b&m rooms) are there for the drinks and the fellowship. Like I said above, These people aren't idiots. They see full well what it takes to play winning poker and they want none of it, since then, it is no longer a game of fun.

[purnell]

Showing up early for work gives you an advantage over your co-workers (yes, they are teammates, but they are also competitors). Obviously that's not unethical, and I think studying the game of poker in order to gain an advantage over those who choose not to amounts to the same thing.