Let's face it Poker isn't good for Society

[mojobluesman]

I hate to be contrarian on this issue because I enjoy poker so much, but it's explosive growth can't be good for society and the country in general.

1. There are people on the other end of our winnings. It's all very impersonal when the other guy is just a figure on a screen, but they are real people. They have wives, children, bills to pay etc... Some actually are children. Many are losing money they cannot afford to lose. We use them and take advantage of them.

2. It hardly makes sense for many of the most talented and intelligent members of society blessed with the ability to make their living playing poker to be dedicating those special gifts and that energy towards a gambling game instead of becoming doctors, scientists, technical wizards and other things that make people's lives better.

3. For now, all the profits are going to foreign companies that contribute little or nothing back to our tax base.

Of course it can be argued that there are all sorts of other gambling games out there that are legal, but that doesn't mean those things are any good either. They are also generally regressive in nature and take money from those that can least afford to lose it. At least some of those forms of gambling are less personal. We go out searching for fish and suckers to take money from.

[BGnight]

[quote
2. It hardly makes sense for many of the most talented and intelligent members of society blessed with the ability to make their living playing poker to be dedicating those special gifts and that energy towards a gambling game instead of becoming doctors, scientists, technical wizards and other things that make people's lives better.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is an idiotic statement. Do you want me to list the other 1000 professions that serve no useful purpose to a healthy society.

[MNpoker]

Please tell me how our society would be worse off if we outlawed McDonald's. (And only allowed Fast Food chains to sell food that meets certain 'healthy eating' requirements)

Benefit to society IS NOT a requirement for something to be legal, ESPECIALLY in a society that considers itself to be 'free'.

[Hock_]

Why does poker need to be good for society? Why does anything I do have to be good for society?

Go save the world if you want to; good for you. But don't force me to do or not to do anything because of your personal views on what is good and what is not. IMHO, it's exactly that type of freedom -- to do or not do whatever each of us wants so long as it doesn't harm others (in a way that is involuntary -- which playing poker clearly is not) that is at the core of this country's unequaled success. If you start messing with these basic freedoms, THAT's when you really start to pose a serious danger to society.

[mojobluesman]

I have no problem with you playing poker for a living. However, assuming you are as talented an individual as I suspect, I also have no problem saying that IMO society as a whole would be better served by you making another career choice. That doesn't mean I think you should be mandated to do something else. Just that we would all be better off if you did.

[mojobluesman]

There are many life choices that provide little benefit to society. Poker just happens to be one of them and near the top of the list. I don't want it to be illegal. I'm just pointing out the reality.

[MNpoker]

What if his second choice of occupations was to be a 'welfare receipient'?

You could make the EXACT same arguments about professional athletes.

[mojobluesman]

[ QUOTE ]
Please tell me how our society would be worse off if we outlawed McDonald's. (And only allowed Fast Food chains to sell food that meets certain 'healthy eating' requirements)

Benefit to society IS NOT a requirement for something to be legal, ESPECIALLY in a society that considers itself to be 'free'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about making it illegal?

I don't want to make poker illegal. I don't want to make Mcdonalds illegal either.

I just have no problem pointing out that children eating tons of Mcdonalds is not a very good idea for the society as a whole because of health issues. Neither is having our best and brightest dedicating their lives to poker.

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with you playing poker for a living. However, assuming you are as talented an individual as I suspect, I also have no problem saying that IMO society as a whole would be better served by you making another career choice. That doesn't mean I think you should be mandated to do something else. Just that we would all be better off if you did.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's very nice of you, but would your opinion change if you knew I was a lawyer? I probably cause a lot less mischief as a poker player.

[BGnight]

Day trading and real estate investing should be outlawed. These take about the same amount of "work" by very smart people, but are not shunned by society and they serve no purpose to make anyone's lives better.

[AKbear54]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to be contrarian on this issue because I enjoy poker so much, but it's explosive growth can't be good for society and the country in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much worse for "society" are attempts by our "leaders" to tell folks what they can and can't do. It is not government's job. If someone has a problem with the things I do, they always have the option of trying to convince me it is "evil" or "not good for my family." However, it is also my right to ignore them. I think I am the only one who can make correct decisions over my life, as I am the only one who has all the information to make those decisions. If I make a bad decision, then I must suffer the consequences myself.

[ QUOTE ]
1. There are people on the other end of our winnings. It's all very impersonal when the other guy is just a figure on a screen, but they are real people. They have wives, children, bills to pay etc... Some actually are children. Many are losing money they cannot afford to lose. We use them and take advantage of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

See above. If they make bad decisions, they must suffer the consequences of those decisions. It is not up to me, or our "leaders" to make those decisions for them, or to even prevent them from making those decisions.

One definition of virtue is making the correct decision. How can one be virtuous and make the correct decision if one of the options are taken away from them. Also, a correct decision for one person may not necessarily be the correct decision for another. Poker is a perfect example. For some, playing poker is a correct decision. It's fun, entertaining, relaxing, and sometimes profitable. If it's fun, entertaining and not profitable, it still may be a correct decision if you can afford your losses. If you can't afford the losses, then it is a bad decision, and you must suffer the consequences so you may learn from those bad decisions.

This is called life.

[ QUOTE ]
2. It hardly makes sense for many of the most talented and intelligent members of society blessed with the ability to make their living playing poker to be dedicating those special gifts and that energy towards a gambling game instead of becoming doctors, scientists, technical wizards and other things that make people's lives better.

[/ QUOTE ]

The best thing for "society" is for me to do things I like to do. If I like being a doctor, scientist, or technical wizard (of which I am one of the latter, I suppose) then others benefit as a result of these people's self interest. But do not mistake these folks self interest for altruism. These folks become these professions to make money, not to help others. If they tell you differently, then they are deluding themselves as well as you. That someone else benefits is serendipitous.

[ QUOTE ]
3. For now, all the profits are going to foreign companies that contribute little or nothing back to our tax base.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then the best thing is to do away with any and all restrictions on gambling and allow them to operate on US soil. (I won't get into the whys and wherefores of the hideous idea of taxes in any way shape or form unless it is volumtary)

[ QUOTE ]
Of course it can be argued that there are all sorts of other gambling games out there that are legal, but that doesn't mean those things are any good either. They are also generally regressive in nature and take money from those that can least afford to lose it. At least some of those forms of gambling are less personal. We go out searching for fish and suckers to take money from.

[/ QUOTE ]

Illegal or not, good or bad, people will find a way to fill a need. Basic law of supply and demand says so. If 4 people in North Dakota demand a product or service, then someone, somewhere is going to find a way to provide it. If it's 4000 people in the northern US, then there will be more people willing to provide it. If it's 80 million people in the United States, then I will guarantee there will be people from all over the world working to provide it. Nothing, and I do mean not a thing, can be done to prevent it. Nor should anything be done.

[mojobluesman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with you playing poker for a living. However, assuming you are as talented an individual as I suspect, I also have no problem saying that IMO society as a whole would be better served by you making another career choice. That doesn't mean I think you should be mandated to do something else. Just that we would all be better off if you did.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's very nice of you, but would your opinion change if you knew I was a lawyer? I probably cause a lot less mischief as a poker player.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Yes it would. I would tell you to give up your law practice and focus on your poker game. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[mojobluesman]

I would simply point out that online poker is already illegal in most places. Most of the legislation being discussed is about enforcing existing laws. What you should be complaining about is not the new laws, but the existing ones.

[Megenoita]

Good post. All good points. You just have to remember that you're posting in a poker forum, lol.

[mojobluesman]

[ QUOTE ]
Good post. All good points. You just have to remember that you're posting in a poker forum, lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew I wasn't going to win any popularity contests. But considering I think about these kinds of issues more as an adult than I did when I was younger, I wanted to express them. As you get older, sometimes the pleasures and convenience of making money certain ways is not as important as serving a useful purpose and avoiding trying to take advantage of others.

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Day trading and real estate investing should be outlawed. These take about the same amount of "work" by very smart people, but are not shunned by society and they serve no purpose to make anyone's lives better.

[/ QUOTE ]

And if we're trying to protect senior citizens, outlaw daytrips from retirement communities to casinos so they can play the slots. Throwing their lives away, one quarter at a time.

[MyTurn2Raise]

Hampering free-market capitalism is more harmful to society

[niss]

Good point.

It also is bad for society that baseball players make millions of dollars a year, while teachers are vastly underpaid.

I thus propose making baseball illegal.

[checkmate36]

fold pre-flop.

[Chuck_D]

I'd rather be dead than have someone tell me "you have a skill for numbers/maths etc, you are now forced to work in X profession as "We" think thats best for society"

[Niediam]

1. Fair enough. And based upon that same reasoning we should also eliminate restaurants, smoking, cars which get less than 40 MPG, movies, and alchohol.

2. Wouldn't this also apply to lawyers, CPAs, etc?

3. Other countries definately need the money more. /images/graemlins/smile.gif If anything this would be an argument for internet gambling based upon your first two points...

[grapabo]

[ QUOTE ]
Day trading and real estate investing should be outlawed. These take about the same amount of "work" by very smart people, but are not shunned by society and they serve no purpose to make anyone's lives better.

[/ QUOTE ]

People who oppose online gambling will tell you that this analogy is flawed, and for a good reason. While day trading and real estate investment involve educated speculation like poker does, there is a product at the end. Day trading results (either second-hand or directly) into capital for the businesses being invested in, and real estate investment is the risk involved in a project that will have some commercial value.

In poker, on the other hand, the risk is artificially created when blinds and antes are placed in the pot. And the end result is not something being produced of value for anyone except the winner of the night and the casino.

That said, I don't agree that something has to be useful in order to be legal. (Otherwise, Howard Stern would be shunned to underground radio.)

[snakekilla88]

"3. Other countries definately need the money more. If anything this would be an argument for internet gambling based upon your first two points... "

I dont give a [censored] about people in other countries to be honest until we fix our own problems. The majority of American's are not doing to well economically, (except for like 1 percent which accounts for the extremely wealthy).

I am ashamed that all the profits are going to foreign companies that contribute nothing back to our tax base. Basically playing poker is like shopping at Wal- Mart, its in the long run its hurting America.

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to be contrarian on this issue because I enjoy poker so much, but it's explosive growth can't be good for society and the country in general.

1. There are people on the other end of our winnings. It's all very impersonal when the other guy is just a figure on a screen, but they are real people. They have wives, children, bills to pay etc... Some actually are children. Many are losing money they cannot afford to lose. We use them and take advantage of them.

2. It hardly makes sense for many of the most talented and intelligent members of society blessed with the ability to make their living playing poker to be dedicating those special gifts and that energy towards a gambling game instead of becoming doctors, scientists, technical wizards and other things that make people's lives better.

3. For now, all the profits are going to foreign companies that contribute little or nothing back to our tax base.

Of course it can be argued that there are all sorts of other gambling games out there that are legal, but that doesn't mean those things are any good either. They are also generally regressive in nature and take money from those that can least afford to lose it. At least some of those forms of gambling are less personal. We go out searching for fish and suckers to take money from.

[/ QUOTE ]


http://kwest.net/desk-top_publishing/graphics/places/FLAG/USSR.GIF

[Niediam]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont give a [censored] about people in other countries to be honest until we fix our own problems. The majority of American's are not doing to well economically, (except for like 1 percent which accounts for the extremely wealthy).


[/ QUOTE ]

That is a very nieve view... the average American has no worry at all about food, shelter, or clothing.

Not to hijack this thread... but I also wonder if sometime in the future if very pro-America/anti-restoftheworld views like yours will be viewed in same light as pro-white/anti-black or pro-male/anti-female beliefs are today.

[snakekilla88]

How can you even compare racism/sexism to my economic beliefs. They are two seperate issues not to be compared.

The average american will soon have to worry about food, shelter and clothing....just wait. You can thank corporations like Wal Mart. The rake given to pokerstars surely is not helping the AMERICAN economy.

Its easy to sit back and say, think about how lucky we've got it compared to starving kids in blah blah...Yet, our country's downfall will stem from ignorant people supporting companies overseas.

[snakekilla88]

I found this post to hit a mark with me so I emailed stars about it, and here is their response...


""Very interesting email. I am going to answer as honestly as I can but
please understand, these are my thoughts only. Most of what you have
written discusses the morality of gaming in general. Having spent the
past
20 years in the gaming industry, I hope that I draw upon my experiences
enough to share my opinions with you.

1) As with any form of entertainment, there will be people that develop
control problems. That much is a given. As a society, we are not
prepared
to shut down all the bingo halls, pool halls or bars because a small
percentage of the population is unable to maintain control over their
indulgence in such activities. Certainly, the operators cannot be held
responsible for those individuals.

Having said that, the operators certainly have a moral obligation to
ensure
that they respond when such a problem does become evident. At
PokerStars,
when a player writes to us saying that they have lost control, we close
their accounts permanently.

It is not fair to say that anybody is being "taken advantage of"
anymore in
poker than in another sporting event. If you play a round of golf for
$25
with an obviously inferior opponent, are you taking advantage of him?
Not
at all. In many cases, your opponent will know that he is taking the
worst
of it but is willing to risk his money in hopes of improving his
ability in
the game.

2) I am certain that many poker players could become doctors or lawyers
but
honestly, it is neither your nor my right to make such a judgement. We
all
have choices and if an individual elects to be a poker player, so be
it.
That is what our forefathers fought for when they went to war; the
right to
make such choices.

3) The revenues from Online gaming sites do not support the US or
Canadian
economies but that is because the governments of those countries have
elected to oppose online gaming for various reasons. I would not be
overly
surprised if that changes in the near future as both governments
realize
that online gaming is here to stay and is growing as an industry.

Pokersites are located in different countries around the world and they
serve an international audience. The countries in which sites operate
do
benefit from the revenues generated by the games.

I hope that answers your questions. If there is anything else that I
can do
for you, please don't hesitate to ask.""

Regards,

Larry
PokerStars Support Team

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
How can you even compare racism/sexism to my economic beliefs. They are two seperate issues not to be compared.

The average american will soon have to worry about food, shelter and clothing....just wait. You can thank corporations like Wal Mart. The rake given to pokerstars surely is not helping the AMERICAN economy.

Its easy to sit back and say, think about how lucky we've got it compared to starving kids in blah blah...Yet, our country's downfall will stem from ignorant people supporting companies overseas.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's so ignorant, and on so many levels, it's actually kind of disturbing. But it's also a threadjack, so I'll let it go.

[IronDragon1]

This is honestly the dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum

And I've spent lots of time in both SMP and Politics

[snakekilla88]

This thread got a little off track and I apologize for giving my extreme political beliefs. Lets just drop it.

[PairTheBoard]

When the History of the 21st Century is written it will report that the most Profound Historical Phenomenon of the Century was the spread in world wide popularity of the game of Poker - especially the online version. Islamic Fundamentalists, Chinese and Korean Communists, Fanatics of all Stripes, and Terrorists of every persuasion ALL became enamored with the game. As people around the world came together in the brotherhood of bad beats they discarded their petty differences in the realization of the really important things in life, like how to play Top Pair Top Kicker when reraised All-In late in a tournament. True World Peace was achieved mid Century when the Doctrine of Human Rights was expanded to guarantee access to Online Poker Terminals to every man woman and child on the Planet.


PairTheBoard

[NickMPK]

I agree with the OP almost completely. I personally enjoy poker and like that I can make money from it, but I would not say it is good for society. Were I an elected leader charged with making determinations about what is good for society, I would probably lean toward making online gambling illegal.

And I would feel like I was wasting my talents if all I did with my life was play poker.

You cannot exactly compare professional poker players with professional athletes. Pro athletes make their money as entertainers: other people pay to watch them perform. Athletes add value to the world by creating a product that people want to buy. Pro poker players don't add any value to the games they are in; these games would still exist even if no one played professionally.

There may come a time when the upper echelon of pro poker players are paid like entertainers, but it is not here yet, with a few exceptions of freerolls like the PPT and the hourly rate paid to the players on High Stakes Poker.

I would equate poker with day trading or real estate investing, but I don't think those are good for society either.

[BGnight]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hate to be contrarian on this issue because I enjoy poker so much, but it's explosive growth can't be good for society and the country in general.

1. There are people on the other end of our winnings. It's all very impersonal when the other guy is just a figure on a screen, but they are real people. They have wives, children, bills to pay etc... Some actually are children. Many are losing money they cannot afford to lose. We use them and take advantage of them.

2. It hardly makes sense for many of the most talented and intelligent members of society blessed with the ability to make their living playing poker to be dedicating those special gifts and that energy towards a gambling game instead of becoming doctors, scientists, technical wizards and other things that make people's lives better.

3. For now, all the profits are going to foreign companies that contribute little or nothing back to our tax base.

Of course it can be argued that there are all sorts of other gambling games out there that are legal, but that doesn't mean those things are any good either. They are also generally regressive in nature and take money from those that can least afford to lose it. At least some of those forms of gambling are less personal. We go out searching for fish and suckers to take money from.

[/ QUOTE ]


http://kwest.net/desk-top_publishing/graphics/places/FLAG/USSR.GIF

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a cooler looking flag than ours. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
This is honestly one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this forum

And I've spent lots of time in OOT

[/ QUOTE ]

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot exactly compare professional poker players with professional athletes. Pro athletes make their money as entertainers: other people pay to watch them perform. Athletes add value to the world by creating a product that people want to buy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, going to a baseball game and spending >$100 on tickets, tiny souvenir (sp?) bats, cotton candy, hot dogs, cheap watered down beer, and ice cream just to sit around for 3 hours watching a bunch of egotistical blowhards on steroids hit a ball around is a MUCH better use of time and money than to play poker.

[ QUOTE ]
Athletes add value to the world by creating a product that people want to buy.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what makes sports events good for society is the fact that it's bought and sold to the consumer at a fixed price?

[ QUOTE ]
There may come a time when the upper echelon of pro poker players are paid like entertainers, but it is not here yet, with a few exceptions of freerolls like the PPT and the hourly rate paid to the players on High Stakes Poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

So paying to watch pros play poker is perfectly fine but playing the game isn't?

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
Day trading results (either second-hand or directly) into capital for the businesses being invested in

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. The business got their money a long time ago. Your money is going to the previous shareholder and your broker in return for that % ownership in the business. Day-trading is gambling (complete with a healthy rake), and the only difference between that and poker is that day trading also helps keep the market liquid and prevent overcorrections.

[ QUOTE ]
In poker, on the other hand, the risk is artificially created when blinds and antes are placed in the pot. And the end result is not something being produced of value for anyone except the winner of the night and the casino.

[/ QUOTE ]

Entertainment has value. Most people willingly pay a high price to be entertained. We live in an era of $9 movies, $60 concerts, $150 cable TV bills, and $200 sporting events. People don't pay this much for things they see as having no value.

Win or lose, poker is fun. Things that are fun (movies, music, sports, sex, drugs, and gambling) all have value--despite what the puritanical or "socially-conscious" side of you might think.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
I am ashamed that all the profits are going to foreign companies that contribute nothing back to our tax base. Basically playing poker is like shopping at Wal- Mart, its in the long run its hurting America.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take you seriously when you quit playing poker, stop shopping anywhere but the highest priced local retailers, and start sending the IRS more of your money than they ask for.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the OP almost completely. I personally enjoy poker and like that I can make money from it, but I would not say it is good for society. Were I an elected leader charged with making determinations about what is good for society, I would probably lean toward making online gambling illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me get this straight. You enjoy doing something, but if you had the power you would deny other people the right to do that very same thing. So while it's okay for you personally, you would know better than others about whether it's okay for them.

Either poker is bad or it's not. If you think it's not, you should keep playing with the rest of us. If it is, you should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking of playing.

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot exactly compare professional poker players with professional athletes. Pro athletes make their money as entertainers: other people pay to watch them perform.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's not like they'll ever have poker on ESPN or anything. How ridiculous. Even if they did, who would watch it?

[ QUOTE ]
Athletes add value to the world by creating a product that people want to buy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like these?
http://www.trademarkpoker.com/website/gaming/smallpictures/10-aecc.JPGhttp://www.trademarkpoker.com/WEBSITE/gaming/smallpictures/10-777pl.jpghttp://www.trademarkpoker.com/website/gaming/smallpictures/16-CFBH.jpg

[ QUOTE ]
Pro poker players don't add any value to the games they are in; these games would still exist even if no one played professionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Golf and tennis and every other sport would still exist even if no one played professionally. What's your point?

[ QUOTE ]
There may come a time when the upper echelon of pro poker players are paid like entertainers, but it is not here yet

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, those guys don't make any money.
http://www.oddjack.com/HACHEM.jpg

[ QUOTE ]
I would equate poker with day trading or real estate investing, but I don't think those are good for society either.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly do you think is good for society, and why are you here instead of doing that?

[samgodot]

Debates concerning legislation always attract libertarian reactionaries, and libertarian reactionaries love the slippery slope argument as much as they love a good conspiracy theory. Introduce legislation to restrict online poker and suddenly the sky is falling, and the nation's constitution and freedoms are under attack by the nefarious dark forces of the socialist state.... But seriously...

The OP raises legitimate issues, both moral and legal, and the debate over legislation is a healthy one. In my opinion, I think online poker is an offshore mafia racket, and it's had a pretty good free rake over the past few years. Exactly what social impact it is having, I'm not sure, because I haven't seen the data, but my guess, based on my my own participation in the phenom, is that it's not just a small minority of players losing control. Internet and gaming are a potent mix, so proceeding with caution, even legislation, may well be in society's benefit. One thing is for sure, we need more social science on the issue, rather than Pokerstars propaganda or anti-gaming hyperbole.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
The OP raises legitimate issues, both moral and legal, and the debate over legislation is a healthy one. In my opinion, I think online poker is an offshore mafia racket, and it's had a pretty good free rake over the past few years. Exactly what social impact it is having, I'm not sure, because I haven't seen the data, but my guess, based on my my own participation in the phenom, is that it's not just a small minority of players losing control. Internet and gaming are a potent mix, so proceeding with caution, even legislation, may well be in society's benefit. One thing is for sure, we need more social science on the issue, rather than Pokerstars propaganda or anti-gaming hyperbole.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since each individual is a member of society, why wouldn't society be best served when each individual has the freedom to use his own money that he earned with his own time and energy to do whatever he chooses so long as he doesn't harm another through force or fraud?

[MNpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Day trading and real estate investing should be outlawed. These take about the same amount of "work" by very smart people, but are not shunned by society and they serve no purpose to make anyone's lives better.

[/ QUOTE ]

People who oppose online gambling will tell you that this analogy is flawed, and for a good reason. While day trading and real estate investment involve educated speculation like poker does, there is a product at the end. Day trading results (either second-hand or directly) into capital for the businesses being invested in, and real estate investment is the risk involved in a project that will have some commercial value.

In poker, on the other hand, the risk is artificially created when blinds and antes are placed in the pot. And the end result is not something being produced of value for anyone except the winner of the night and the casino.

That said, I don't agree that something has to be useful in order to be legal. (Otherwise, Howard Stern would be shunned to underground radio.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Options trading creates nothing and ZERO of the funds go to capitalizing any company.

Most day traders were (are) options traders.

Analogy stands. IMO

[MNpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot exactly compare professional poker players with professional athletes. Pro athletes make their money as entertainers: other people pay to watch them perform. Athletes add value to the world by creating a product that people want to buy. Pro poker players don't add any value to the games they are in; these games would still exist even if no one played professionally.


[/ QUOTE ]

Paying $250,000 to golf a round of golf with Tiger Woods:
Good, entertainment value.

Jerry Buss sitting and playing poker with the best players in the world even though he acknowledges he is not as good as them:
Bad, no entertainment value.

Should not be allowed.


Got it.

[driller]

Please. You could argue what is and isn't good for society until the cows come home. How come rock stars make so much more than school teachers. That's not right! There outghta be a law, but first hang all the lawyers.

If winning money makes you feel bad THEN DON'T DO IT, but don't come (here, especially) and think you can make the rest of us feel guilty.

Probably only Sklansky or possibly Malmuth are capable of deciding the great questions like this. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Maybee607]

The people that we make money off of in poker are people that choose to sit down and place there money on their poker game. This is the essence of freedom IMO which makes it such and important asset to have around as an American. You cannot say that poker is a bad thing if you can place all of its ill effects on the very free will of the people that choose to place it. Poker is not a natural disaster. Poker is a choice. Just like alcohol or pot. It may or may not be completely determintal to some and beneficial to others but in the world we live in today what isn't? To put legislations on freedoms is like putting people in cages. Why can we even have a discussion on such things as the morality of poker with out even identifying with its essence which is simply the personal choice that is embraced by freedom. In sum, those who say that poker is bad society are talking in completely abitrarily and ignorantly. To those of you who do, I ask that you take a step back and look and the bigger picture!

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You cannot exactly compare professional poker players with professional athletes. Pro athletes make their money as entertainers: other people pay to watch them perform. Athletes add value to the world by creating a product that people want to buy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, going to a baseball game and spending >$100 on tickets, tiny souvenir (sp?) bats, cotton candy, hot dogs, cheap watered down beer, and ice cream just to sit around for 3 hours watching a bunch of egotistical blowhards on steroids hit a ball around is a MUCH better use of time and money than to play poker.

[ QUOTE ]
Athletes add value to the world by creating a product that people want to buy.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what makes sports events good for society is the fact that it's bought and sold to the consumer at a fixed price?

[ QUOTE ]
There may come a time when the upper echelon of pro poker players are paid like entertainers, but it is not here yet, with a few exceptions of freerolls like the PPT and the hourly rate paid to the players on High Stakes Poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

So paying to watch pros play poker is perfectly fine but playing the game isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

When people sit down at a poker table, they are not paying for the experience of watching professionals take their money. They are paying for the experience of playing the game. The value of that experience does not depend on professional poker players being at their table. The game would be just as enjoyable for them, if not more so, if everyone at the table were an amateur, and the presence or lack of pros doesn't affect whether the game happens or not.

This is not true of professional sports events. We get our entertainment from watching the professionals, and this experience would not exist if the professionals did not exist.

When we are watching poker on TV, we do depend on professionals for the enjoyment of the experience. We want to see the best player in the world do what they do best. But the viewers aren't the ones paying these players, it is the other players in the tournament that are paying them.

Poker will be equatable to professional athletics when the players are paid like golf and tennis pros are....out of prize pools provided by TV and ticket sale revenue.

Note that I think that any money made by pro players through the sale of books or merchandise is productive work. It is only the moeny they make off other gamblers that I see as unproductive.

Also, there may be a few exceptions to this. Andy Beal and other players in the Big Game are paying to play against only the best players in the world. They would not get the same enjoyment out of playing just anybody. But I think the productivity of being personal entertainers for a handful of rich gamblers is pretty marginal.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the OP almost completely. I personally enjoy poker and like that I can make money from it, but I would not say it is good for society. Were I an elected leader charged with making determinations about what is good for society, I would probably lean toward making online gambling illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me get this straight. You enjoy doing something, but if you had the power you would deny other people the right to do that very same thing. So while it's okay for you personally, you would know better than others about whether it's okay for them.

Either poker is bad or it's not. If you think it's not, you should keep playing with the rest of us. If it is, you should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking of playing.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is a difference between the choices I make in my own life versus the choices I would make if charged with the welfare of millions of people.

Not everything that I do is good for society. No one can be purely altruistic. We all do things for our own enjoyment in our free time that does not really have value to anyone but ourselves. Poker is one of those things.

But I think you should strike a balance between making ourselves happy and doing something worthwhile. I don't see how professional poker alone strikes that balance.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
When people sit down at a poker table, they are not paying for the experience of watching professionals take their money. They are paying for the experience of playing the game. The value of that experience does not depend on professional poker players being at their table. The game would be just as enjoyable for them, if not more so, if everyone at the table were an amateur, and the presence or lack of pros doesn't affect whether the game happens or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry dude, but poker is a game of skill. It's a game of skill whether or not there are any pros at the table. If you have a table of 10 amateurs playing for fun, it's inevitable that a couple of them will end up with the money in the long run. If they're playing high enough, the better players might be able to make enough to live off of. If they realize they could play poker for a living, they usually will do it.

As long as poker exists, professional poker players will exist.

[bcubed72]

The first objection I have to criminalization of poker is that it would be ineffective. Every time gov't tries to legislate away an attractive vice, people have ALWAYS found ways to indulge it. Prohibition was meant to end the ills of alcoholism. Didn't happen. How many of you bet illegally on the NCAA basketball tourney? Despite incarcerating millions, drugs are readily available in our cities; for those under 21, it's actually easier to get than beer!

Simply put, it's not governemnt's job to get us all to behave in a manner it deems to be most productive: there has to be a compelling need to regulate voluntary behavior. For instance, if people were, IN MASSE, holding up stores to support their gambling habits, THEN the gov't might be obligated to move against poker (although remember it still probably won't accomplish its objective.) To the best of my knowlege, I've only heard one case of internet gamblers resorting to crime.

Additionally, my Econ teacher would point out that people spend money to maximize utility; for some fish, the entertainment value of sitting down at a $3/6 table might exceed the cost of gambling (just as I knowingly play the occasional BJ game, knowing that as a non-conuter, I give about 1% to the house.)

Frankly, if the gov't is so concerned about the ills of gambling (hard to credibly believe as it actually ADVERTIZES to create customers for its rigged 50% cut lottos), then they should LEGALIZE it, TAX it, and use the proceeds to fund programs for problem gamblers! (Probably should do the same thing w/ pot, too, but that's for another web site.)

[sarsen]

Cat poop.

In response to 1. wheres the evidence for these statements? These are generalized comments and are often used to demonize gambling. What is the overall percentage and number of players that can't 'afford' to lose? What are the numbers on the 'some' are children. This is all vague, clap trap. Provide the data.

In response to 2. How do you know that the 'most talented and intelligent' members are wasting our 'special gifts' on poker. Please. According to the NYTimes, the estimated number of poker players in the US is 50 million, somewhere between 1 in 5 and 1 in 6. (World wide it's estimated at 150 million). The subset of poker players in the world is relatively small. The subset of those that are a) professional players and b) could have talent in other areas is even smaller. My point is it's a big assumption that they could make peoples lives better in other areas.

3. So what, that's capitalism. If you don't like it leave.

[ QUOTE ]
They are also generally regressive in nature and take money from those that can least afford to lose it.

[/ QUOTE ]

no proof. Stop blowing smoke.

[Slappy002]

I think there's no question society loses out when it's best and it's brightest dedicate themselves to poker.

Society also loses out when average or stupid people dedicate themselves to poker.

I for one am glad to have dedicated myself to poker and deprived society of what I could have become (i.e. writer/diplomat/sociologist/pshychiatrist WHO KNOWS).
Why? Because this society sucks for people who didn't get good parents and failed to luck out into some kind of lottery winning or lucky break to make it all peachy.

Society does not deserve what I could potentially contribute.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is a difference between the choices I make in my own life versus the choices I would make if charged with the welfare of millions of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're damn right there's a difference, and that difference is, according to your own statement, you would deny another human being the very rights you embrace for yourself. Hypocrisy doesn't begin to describe it.

[ QUOTE ]
Not everything that I do is good for society. No one can be purely altruistic. We all do things for our own enjoyment in our free time that does not really have value to anyone but ourselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you said yourself you would lean toward making those very things you do illegal for people other than yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
But I think you should strike a balance between making ourselves happy and doing something worthwhile. I don't see how professional poker alone strikes that balance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think *I* should decide what activities bring balance to *my* life, and anyone who would try to force me to do otherwise can go [censored] themselves.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, if the gov't is so concerned about the ills of gambling...then they should LEGALIZE it and not give in to bleeding-heart nanny-staters who would steal winners' money to fund support-groups for losers.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Dustin M.]

[ QUOTE ]
But I think you should strike a balance between making ourselves happy and doing something worthwhile. I don't see how professional poker alone strikes that balance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think *I* should decide what activities bring balance to *my* life, and anyone who would try to force me to do otherwise can go [censored] themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn straight.

[Margon]

You can add many social ills to the list along with gambling...

Smoking, Drinking, Fast Food, etc.


Are they all bad? Yes.


But, I am gonig to play some online poker after work, then I am going to go out with friends and likely eat some bad food (wings, nachos, etc.) and drink too much. Right now I am going to grab some fast food for lunch.

Margon

[NickMPK]

So is there any moral difference between being a professional poker player and a drug dealer, besides the fact that one happens to be illegal? Both are profiting off the addictions of other people.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]

So is there any moral difference between being a professional poker player and a drug dealer, besides the fact that one happens to be illegal? Both are profiting off the addictions of other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Likewise bar owners. I [censored] hate bar owners.

[The Bryce]

Let's face it. Stupid people / suckers aren't good for stupid people / suckers.

[Curtrosity]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to be contrarian on this issue because I enjoy poker so much, but it's explosive growth can't be good for society and the country in general.

1. There are people on the other end of our winnings. It's all very impersonal when the other guy is just a figure on a screen, but they are real people. They have wives, children, bills to pay etc... Some actually are children. Many are losing money they cannot afford to lose. We use them and take advantage of them.

2. It hardly makes sense for many of the most talented and intelligent members of society blessed with the ability to make their living playing poker to be dedicating those special gifts and that energy towards a gambling game instead of becoming doctors, scientists, technical wizards and other things that make people's lives better.

3. For now, all the profits are going to foreign companies that contribute little or nothing back to our tax base.

Of course it can be argued that there are all sorts of other gambling games out there that are legal, but that doesn't mean those things are any good either. They are also generally regressive in nature and take money from those that can least afford to lose it. At least some of those forms of gambling are less personal. We go out searching for fish and suckers to take money from.

[/ QUOTE ]
1. I have no problem taking money from the douche bags at the casino. These same people who have families to feed and bills to pay get scammed by religion to donate money when the money could be put to better use. These people who have families and bills to pay are adults and choose to spend their money in any way they find enjoyable or necessary. If they enjoy playing poker then what's the harm? It is not more of a waste than giving those religious jackasses on tv money. Money doesn't buy you a spot in a place that doesn't exist.
2. Are you honestly claiming that poker players are some of the most talented and intelligent people in society today? Poker players are usually lazy and found poker to come natural to them. Poker players are arrogant assholes, the good ones anyway.
3. It's not like we go to a different country and spend our profit there. I don't usually travel to gibraltar to shop for shoes.

[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]

2. It hardly makes sense for many of the most talented and intelligent members of society blessed with the ability to make their living playing poker to be dedicating those special gifts and that energy towards a gambling game instead of becoming doctors, scientists, technical wizards and other things that make people's lives better.



[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it doesn't make sense, because it doesn't happen. You make an invalid assumption that invalidates this part of your argument ... that is that "many of the most talented and intelligent members of society blessed with the ability to make their living playing poker" are a statistically significant group of people. They aren't.

I'd venture a guess on the high side that 1000 poker players who make their living playing poker could become "doctors, scientists, technical wizards, etc." Looking at the US alone, we are a country of 300 million. 1000 poker players, 300 million residents. No issue.

NCAces

[lilsewon]

I'll go ahead and take a different view and agree with your statement. By no means do I think poker or gambling is necessarily "good" for society. It's a game that may ruin many-a-people's lives for those that don't know how to handle it. Nonetheless, the money is too good, and as a college student, I can make 5-10x as much as a normal college student makes in 1/2 the time. I love poker, even though it may not be "good".

[tshak]

At the risk of being redunant with other posts, I have to stress the fact that there are *many* parasitical professions that society would be better without, but I don't think that poker in general is one of them. Poker at least provides a form of entertainment, whereas many parasitical professions simply suck money out of the system. I would agree that society would be better if a brilliant poker player instead helped find a cure for cancer, but this viewpoint is impractical and can be said for almsot any profit-driven profession.

[NapoleonDolemite]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to be contrarian on this issue because I enjoy poker so much, but it's explosive growth can't be good for society and the country in general.

1. There are people on the other end of our winnings. It's all very impersonal when the other guy is just a figure on a screen, but they are real people. They have wives, children, bills to pay etc... Some actually are children. Many are losing money they cannot afford to lose. We use them and take advantage of them.

2. It hardly makes sense for many of the most talented and intelligent members of society blessed with the ability to make their living playing poker to be dedicating those special gifts and that energy towards a gambling game instead of becoming doctors, scientists, technical wizards and other things that make people's lives better.

3. For now, all the profits are going to foreign companies that contribute little or nothing back to our tax base.

Of course it can be argued that there are all sorts of other gambling games out there that are legal, but that doesn't mean those things are any good either. They are also generally regressive in nature and take money from those that can least afford to lose it. At least some of those forms of gambling are less personal. We go out searching for fish and suckers to take money from.

[/ QUOTE ]


1) As soon as state governments sanctioning lotteries (while banning poker), you can talk to me about poker being bad for society. The government has the best house edge of them all and they mislead the public about what the funds are used for (around here it's supposed to be education) in order to sell it to build revenues. People have freewill. They don't have to play poker or play the lottery. Unless you want to ban all gambling you can't ban poker and be consistent.

2) Some of us don't believe that we as individuals should be subject to "what is best for society" when it comes to our personal decisions. Some of us don't live for the good of "society" whatever that is, but for ourselves and our loved ones. In short, f*ck society. If someone wants to help society, they will, they shouldn't be coerced into it.

3) Then our country should wise up and make it legal. Our counrty has a huge debt. Do you think it's because of poker, or dubious spending by politicians? I'm going with B.

[AAAA]

when people lose control with gambling, alcohol or drugs they do have victims other than themselves, or even their own families!

Why do you think crime and even white collar crime happens when someone's gambling addiction and losses get them to embezzle funds? Why do your homeowner's and auto insurance premiums go up? to cover the cost of people stealing thousands of dollars worth of computers and personal property to support a drug habit that could cost only pennies!

I am Libertarian, but one who continues past the original feel good ideas of laissez faire and considers the long term consequences. Changing too fast can cause more harm than good too!

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to be contrarian on this issue because I enjoy poker so much, but it's explosive growth can't be good for society and the country in general.

2. It hardly makes sense for many of the most talented and intelligent members of society blessed with the ability to make their living playing poker to be dedicating those special gifts and that energy towards a gambling game instead of becoming doctors, scientists, technical wizards and other things that make people's lives better.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about stock traders? Baseball players? Anything in the entertainment industry?

"3. For now, all the profits are going to foreign companies that contribute little or nothing back to our tax base. "

So, if Congress would make it legal in America, poker would then be a good thing? Can we make drug pushing legal and taxable then?

" At least some of those forms of gambling are less personal. We go out searching for fish and suckers to take money from."

I'm not sure why this makes poker "bad"

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hate to be contrarian on this issue because I enjoy poker so much, but it's explosive growth can't be good for society and the country in general.

2. It hardly makes sense for many of the most talented and intelligent members of society blessed with the ability to make their living playing poker to be dedicating those special gifts and that energy towards a gambling game instead of becoming doctors, scientists, technical wizards and other things that make people's lives better.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about stock traders? Baseball players? Anything in the entertainment industry?

"3. For now, all the profits are going to foreign companies that contribute little or nothing back to our tax base. "

So, if Congress would make it legal in America, poker would then be a good thing? Can we make drug pushing legal and taxable then?

" At least some of those forms of gambling are less personal. We go out searching for fish and suckers to take money from."

I'm not sure why this makes poker "bad"

[/ QUOTE ]

If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.

Or something like that.

[heavychips]

"To desire to acquire is truly something very natural and ordinary and always, when men do it who can, they will be lauded, or not blamed; but when they cannot, and want to do it anyway, here is the error and the blame."

- Machiavelli

Everyone wants to win, but not everyone can. Go to a bar, take home a hot chick, and don't worry about it.

[nhtool]

Have you noticed the cost of prescription drugs lately? It's not as if research scientists and doctors don't exploit the hell out of people's needs in order to make a big profit.

The fact is, the way you interact with people on a day-to-day basis has a much greater effect on the world than what you do for a living.

Poker can feel like a seedy undertaking, but it also presents a level of freedom and financial well being that can be used for the benefit of those in need. Poker is my main source of income, but I don't feel as though it prevents me from being a productive member of society. In fact, I'd say it enables me to be a MORE productive member of society.

As far as the people on the other end, the ones who are losing, they are going to blow their money on something stupid anyway. At least if I take it I can put it to good use. Seriously, do you think you deserve their money less than Philip Morris, the Gap, Budweiser, or whatever other entity would have inevitably received it otherwise?

Ultimately, what poker players provide is competition, and competition is what fuels this country. So stop feeling guilty and get back to the tables.

[mojobluesman]

I read of lot of the comments on this thread and one thing is obvious. Few people actually read what I said.

Nowhere did I say I want to outlaw poker, mandate what other people should do with their life, or ram my values down other people's throats. As a libertarian, that's the furthest thing from my mind.

I was simply pointing out all the social downsides and limited social upside of what I have chosen to do with my spare time. Sure there are other things that are even worse. However, finding things that are worse doesn't make playing poker better. IMHO, the downsides aren't even debatable.

Extremely bright and gifted people are spending various amounts of time trying to take advantage of less blessed people for money without creating or doing anything of value to society. It's all about personal pleasure, convenience, and personal gain. If that's what you choose to do, so be it. It's your right and I woudn't want it any other way.

However, it's hard to argue that someone with equal blessings that chose to be a doctor (one simple example) that goes on to operate on your father's cancer and save his life may have made a choice that brings added value to us above those of poker.

Pointing out no-brainer things like that has nothing to do with me wanting poker to be illegal, forcing you to become a doctor, or accepting my values.

It was my attempt to point out the obvious to a mature audience of extremely gifted people - some of which may not give it enough thought because of their youth.

[Guthrie]

[ QUOTE ]
1. There are people on the other end of our winnings. It's all very impersonal when the other guy is just a figure on a screen, but they are real people. They have wives, children, bills to pay etc...

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not up to me to tell people how to spend their entertainment dollar.

[ QUOTE ]
Some actually are children. Many are losing money they cannot afford to lose. We use them and take advantage of them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Parents are responsible for their children using the Internet. I don't chat with little girls and try to get them to meet me for sex in a motel, but if a teenager can make a deposit at a poker site and lose it to me, that's his parents' problem, not mine.


[ QUOTE ]
2. It hardly makes sense for many of the most talented and intelligent members of society blessed with the ability to make their living playing poker to be dedicating those special gifts and that energy towards a gambling game instead of becoming doctors, scientists, technical wizards and other things that make people's lives better.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm in that group. I was kicked out of my chosen field for being too old. I'm now living in a small town where there are absolutely no employment opportunities whatsoever for me other than minimum wage. I'm also caring for my elderly mother and need to be at home most of the time. Internet poker is the perfect job for me.

[ QUOTE ]
3. For now, all the profits are going to foreign companies that contribute little or nothing back to our tax base.

[/ QUOTE ]
The same can be said for virtually all US manufacturing which has been exported to China, and now virtually all US back office jobs which have been exported to India.

So what if the poker sites make money and keep it outside the country? I play a lot in the afternoon, so I am earning foreign exchange by taking money from the Europeans.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course it can be argued that there are all sorts of other gambling games out there that are legal, but that doesn't mean those things are any good either. They are also generally regressive in nature and take money from those that can least afford to lose it. At least some of those forms of gambling are less personal. We go out searching for fish and suckers to take money from.

[/ QUOTE ]
The amount of money lost by fish and suckers to Internet poker pales in comparison to the amount sucked up by state lotteries. People who play Internet poker have enough sense and money to get a computer, get an Internet connection, and make EFTs. The vast majority of people who play the state lotteries, particularly the scratch-offs, are much poorer, much less educated, and will be far more impacted by their gambling losses.

So when you succeed in shutting down all state lotteries, come back and post and I'll join in helping you shut down Internet poker.

[AAAA]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm in that group. I was kicked out of my chosen field for being too old. I'm now living in a small town where there are absolutely no employment opportunities whatsoever for me other than minimum wage. I'm also caring for my elderly mother and need to be at home most of the time. Internet poker is the perfect job for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually, this might make poker and other businesses like them positive EV for the world at large!

consider the job opportunities in third world countries where the poker and casino jobs are some of the best around! in that respect, we are redistributing money around the world! that IMO is a good thing right now for the Real Long Term.

in other words, i believe it is to my personal advantage to have the women in iran and iragq have an education and access to the internet to be able to eventually overcome the tyranny of their religious leaders.

it isn't a quick fix to educate people but it is the long term best idea to have the world better educated and less in need of criminal activities to have a chance to live decently!

[IndyFish]

[ QUOTE ]
1. There are people on the other end of our winnings. It's all very impersonal when the other guy is just a figure on a screen, but they are real people. They have wives, children, bills to pay etc... Some actually are children. Many are losing money they cannot afford to lose. We use them and take advantage of them.

2. It hardly makes sense for many of the most talented and intelligent members of society blessed with the ability to make their living playing poker to be dedicating those special gifts and that energy towards a gambling game instead of becoming doctors, scientists, technical wizards and other things that make people's lives better.

3. For now, all the profits are going to foreign companies that contribute little or nothing back to our tax base.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to deny that online poker has some downsides (especially to the most irresponsible members of society), but the downsides are nowhere near as bad as many people are claiming IMHO.

1. Personal responsibility. If an idiot is willing to bet his house on online poker, he is dumb enough to find another way to lose his money if poker didn't exist. State lotteries and especially scratch-offs are examples.

2. I am a "technical wizard" by day, if you consider electronics tech a "wizard". /images/graemlins/smirk.gif I build and test Emergency Alert equipment (good for society) and poker in no way interferes with that. The vast majority of online players are not professional gamblers, just people looking for entertainment after work.

3. Legalize online poker and the US will reap the benefits. As an American, I love my country. I would gladly play at an American site if given the opportunity. Until then, my meager winnings (some from overseas players) help to support my local merchants. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Online poker, in the hands of responsible adults, is a good thing.

[AAAA]

what he said!

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to deny that online poker has some downsides (especially to the most irresponsible members of society), but the downsides are nowhere near as bad as many people are claiming IMHO.

1. Personal responsibility. If an idiot is willing to bet his house on online poker, he is dumb enough to find another way to lose his money if poker didn't exist. State lotteries and especially scratch-offs are examples.

2. I am a "technical wizard" by day, if you consider electronics tech a "wizard". I build and test Emergency Alert equipment (good for society) and poker in no way interferes with that. The vast majority of online players are not professional gamblers, just people looking for entertainment after work.

3. Legalize online poker and the US will reap the benefits. As an American, I love my country. I would gladly play at an American site if given the opportunity. Until then, my meager winnings (some from overseas players) help to support my local merchants.

Online poker, in the hands of responsible adults, is a good thing

[/ QUOTE ]

[mojobluesman]

I certainly think state lotteries are at least as bad for society as poker (actually worse), but I fail to see how pointing out other things that are bad makes poker better.

Selling heroin is also a career choice, but that doesn't make poker a good choice, only better than selling heroin.

[AAAA]

lotteries are the most regressive taxation possible. they are a terrible return and hit the lowest income brackets.

i guess there is one other regressive tax. when companies that produce food, housing or medications are expected to pay a tax on the profits of their businesses...those taxes aren't paid by the businesses, they are just added costs to the poor people paying the price for the food or medicine.

some day, people are going to understand that businesses never pay taxes, they only collect them!

[No_Foolin'?]

Sorry, but you're an idiot. Try as they might, neither philosophers nor economists can ultimately define or quantify "well-being" and neither can you. Clearly, many people derive something they experience as being beneficial from playing poker, whether they win or lose. You are playing judge and jury by concluding that these perceptions are to be considered null and void. Congratulations on exposing yourself for the authoritarian-posing-as-contrarian that you are.

[ESKiMO-SiCKNE5S]

this is the best post ive ever read on 2+2

nh mojo

[titonopar]

You need to keep in mind that A. People with gambling problems are gonna gamble one way or another B. People with gambling problems need to become responsible for themselves and end their problem, why are we suppose to feel guilty about taking someone's money when they are willfully taking part in the wagering. C. Based on your logic of that argument, we should take down all activities with which people have addictions (alcohol, cigarettes).
What the government shoudl do is legalize so it oculd be taxed and regulated instead of spending money on banning something that is only immoral to the illogical

[titonopar]

amen

[NapoleonDolemite]

[ QUOTE ]


Extremely bright and gifted people are spending various amounts of time trying to take advantage of less blessed people for money without creating or doing anything of value to society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to Earth. It has and always will be this way.

Enjoy!

[NewGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I read of lot of the comments on this thread and one thing is obvious. Few people actually read what I said.

Nowhere did I say I want to outlaw poker, mandate what other people should do with their life, or ram my values down other people's throats. As a libertarian, that's the furthest thing from my mind.


[/ QUOTE ]


Mojo,

You sparked an interesting exchange. I took away at least two things:

1) The average 2+2'er has a reading comprehension ability on par with a 6th grader. I think I counted >20 reponses attacking you for wanting to make poker illegal when you (twice) pointed out that you did not believe that should happen.

2) People have an irrepressible need to justify their own actions. For 90% of people, this overrides their already limited ability to examine their own behavior or alter their own perspective in any significant way.

Anyway, thanks for the breath of fresh air in the forum.

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
The average 2+2'er has a reading comprehension ability on par with a 6th grader. I think I counted >20 reponses attacking you for wanting to make poker illegal when you (twice) pointed out that you did not believe that should happen.

Anyway, thanks for the breath of fresh air in the forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most true statement I have read on here in a while.

And 6th grade is being generous.

[webmonarch]

Well, I finally figured I would weigh in here:

I think you are exactly right. Poker is not good for society. On the other hand, I think society is better when individuals have the freedom to pursue their interests and do what they want, so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. Poker (along with liquor, tobacco, etc.) is something that people like. As long as they are playing against willing people, its fine.

So, while Poker may not be helpful, per se, the fact that it is available to those who do make our society better (researchers, policy professionals, teachers, whoever), and potentially makes them happier than they otherwide would be, it can be a useful part of the "total picture."

[Stoo_Pot]

Why don't we have 'poker welfare' where the losing players get a cut of the winning players profits!! That way nobody wins except the controlling body woop de doo. Oh yeah, that's socialism.

[RagnarPirate]

I'm one of your "most talented and intelligent members of society" (your words not mine) who has a full time highly productive day job as a physician. Playing poker in no way diminishes this activity. I enjoy all my work.
I love competition and get great personal joy from having a successful part time poker career as well.
In addition, despite your claims (and those of many others), poker is not gambling. I hate gambling. You will not find me playing the lottery, slots, roulette, craps, or blackjack. Poker is a competitive game of skill that includes random variation (not luck). It is no accident that professional poker players can have substantial careers that last decades.
As far as taxes, the less the better. The govenment provides no added value to the poker industry and should not be allowed to steal the property of individuals.

[MNpoker]

Easily my favorite new poster. As usual right on.

What is GOOD for society is when people can have the Freedom to do what makes them happy. Poker falls into that category.

Now: Pretty much anything that people do will have both good and bad effects (outside of the good ones of people enjoying life more due to the freedom of being able to do as they please) on the aggregate of society.

Pretty much anything in extreme excess is bad.

You don't mention that you think poker should be outlawed so I won't comment on that either.

However to make a blanket statement of 'poker is bad for society' is wrong. It has good and bad points.
How is poker good?
- Teaches children game theory
- People who play it think. There are many studies that show an active mind is a good thing.
I have no question in my personal experience that when my mind is active studying or whatever, I am also far sharper in other areas as well. That most Americans don't every really 'think' is a huge detriment to society (and IMO to themselves, but that's their choice).
- It's social, even on the internet (though you could easily shoot me down there). So I'll go with it gives people who may not otherwise have something in common a reason to interact and possibly become friends. (Interaction with others, even on an internet discussion forum is good for society)
- It teaches morals. Look at the general outcry when Justin Z cheated. Most poker players believe in and live by 'rules', even if they thought they would never get caught. Those who don't are osticized (deservedly so).

We could play this little game all day.

[RagnarPirate]

where do you play MN? I'm on UB mostly.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

In addition, despite your claims (and those of many others), poker is not gambling.

David Sklansky and Ed Miller disagree.

"Gambling" does not mean there's no skill involved. It doesn't mean that nobody can be better than their opposition. It just means there is a wager involved, and the individual outcome of each wager is unknown to the participants.

[MNpoker]

Party and WSEX.

[RagnarPirate]

Hold'em poker is predominantly a game of skill (I think we agree on this. If not read California court statements and my comments below). Your definition of gambling would include ALL financial interactions including stocks, mutual funds, business investments, and INSURANCE.

A.)
Tibbetts v. Van de Kamp, 271 Cal.Rptr. 792, 222 Cal.App.3d 389 (1st Dist. Ct. Appeal, 1990) held that Texas Hold’em was not a stud poker game and therefore, under Section 330, could be played at the Oaks, a licensed cardroom. [4]

"A game is not to be regarded as one of skill merely because that element enters into the result in some degree, or as one of chance solely because chance is a factor in producing the result. The test of the character of a game or scheme as one of chance or skill is, which of these factors is dominant in determining the result?” People v. Settles, 29 Ca App Supp 2d 781, 78 P 2d 274 (Appellate Department, Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, 1938.)

Facts, not authorities (even ones I greatly respect such as Slansky and Miller) are the basis for knowledge. The fact is that there are many professional poker players with mult-decade careers based on long-term skilled play of poker.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Hold'em poker is predominantly a game of skill

Yes, but with about a 35% short-term luck factor. It's this luck factor that makes it possible for a significant number of skilled players to make money.

You're making the same flawed assumption that many others make: That "gambling" presupposes a game of pure chance.

Is a pool player who bets money on his games gambling? Of course he is. Do golfer's bet when they play? Do chessplayers ever put money on a match? All of the above are examples of games that have a much smaller luck factor than poker, yet in each case, the participants are gambling.

From Merriam-Webster online

in Entry: 1gam·ble
Pronunciation: 'gam-b&l
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): gam·bled; gam·bling /-b(&-)li[ng]/
Etymology: probably back-formation from gambler, probably alteration of obsolete gamner, from obsolete gamen (to play)
intransitive senses
1 a : to play a game for money or property b : to bet on an uncertain outcome
2 : to stake something on a contingency : take a chance
transitive senses


Poker absolutely fits this definition.

your definition of gambling would include ALL financial interactions including stocks, mutual funds, business investments, and INSURANCE.


Sure seems to fit the definition in the dictionary. In fact, the comparison is precisely the one that should be made when explaining the nature of being a poker pro. For example, the average guy on the street buys stocks based on what somebody tells him. In many ways, he might as well be playing craps because he has no clue why the stock price may go up or down in the short run. But the investing pro has a storehouse of knowledge that the average guy (and probably the average broker) has no clue about. Thus Mr. Pro has a much higher expectation than the average guy. However, the pro does not have perfect knowledge and may indeed go broke in the short run when something out of the ordinary happens.

Now obviously, the variance for professional investors is lower than for poker pros (day traders may be the exception), but the concept is the same.

"Gambling" does not mean relying on luck to make money. Bad gamblers try to get lucky. Smart gamblers learn to only gamble when the odds are in their favor.

[Sierra]

Then for your own moral conscious, please quit the game immediately. We'll all be right behind you.

[KaneKungFu123]

Many thing arent good for society. who cares?

[DrewDevil]

Anything that creates wealth is good for society. The online poker industry, which did not exist 10 years ago, is now a $12 Billion a year business. Many, many people are becoming wealthy in poker... most of them may be the owners of the sites, but it seems there are lots of online players making money too.

Then what do they do with that money? Spend it, invest it or save it, they are now creating wealth for other members of society. Wherever the money flows, that is a benefit.

Poker is very good for society.

[Ryan_21_MOB]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO society as a whole would be better served by you making another career choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont care what "society" wants. Society dont pay bills around this place.

Furthermore, if anybody has a problem taking another persons money playing poker or feels bad about it then they need to quit playing and find something else to do. Because thats what poker is, a battle for money. Its the essence of the game.

[DING-DONG YO]

Sht, you have ** already?! It's only been a week!!

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Sht, you have ** already?! It's only been a week!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Two *'s is nothing, he has committed suicide and risen from the dead as well.

[Ryan_21_MOB]

[ QUOTE ]
Sht, you have ** already?! It's only been a week!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I got two ** from posting on OOT. All I did was voice my opinion on why I thought it was a good idea to carry a concealed firearm and provided statistics as to why and I guess the mods dont agree with that opinion so they give me **??? I dont understand wtf that is all about. OOT is a weird place.

[chicagoY]

Oh, it's a heckuva lot better than the young and the talented rotting in bureaucracies. Poker increases the amount of capitalist individualists and thus makes it of particular value.

[chicagoY]

Yes, that it doesn't support our tax base and increase the size of a kleptocratic government makes it a good in itself--you self righteous boob.

[chicagoY]

I agree, and I ask that you continue to make these excellent high quality posts when your time allows, Ragnar.

[tsrcess]

hmmmmmmmmm "society" is composed of many elements. the two largest of which are probably consumption and production. when we work for a living, we produce something of value. this value or wealth that we have created we then utilize to satisfy (consume) our basic needs (food, shelter, etc) and to indulge our entertainment desires. poker functions in both production and consumtion modes, that is, poker allows some to earn a living while providing entertainment to others. from the production point of view, i don't believe it to be any less honest or dishonorable than any other way to earn a living (afterall, the free market gives us as many occupations as we're willing to pay for-there is never a real shortage of any skill). from the consumption or entertainment point of view, it's certainly is not harmful in moderation (and isn't that true of most entertainmens?)....

[Jim C]

[ QUOTE ]
Anything that creates wealth is good for society. The online poker industry, which did not exist 10 years ago, is now a $12 Billion a year business. Many, many people are becoming wealthy in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a HUGE difference between "creating wealth" and "becoming wealthy". Poker does not "create" wealth, it simply moves money around (from bad to good players, with the operator taking a piece).

You have used the term "wealth" in two different ways. In the first case, as of "creating wealth", what is meant is something that is not a zero-sum game. In other words, the "whole pie gets bigger." When Edison created the lightbulb, he created wealth for society.

The second way you've used the word "wealth" has a very different meaning of to "accumulate money." In this second use, the whole pie doesn't necessarily get bigger. Poker is an example of a situation where it doesn't. Poker is a zero-sum game. No *incremental* wealth is created. Money simply is shifted around.

When people say that "wealth creation" is good for society, they mean the first use of the word. The emphasis is on *creation*, whether that's lightbulbs, bridges, clean water systems, computer software, or whatever. When people use their intelligence to create, society benefits.

Of course there are ancillary business that are creative in support of poker (like the software or book publishing businesses), but that isn't the point. Poker itself (and all gaming) does not create wealth for society. The most it can do is create wealth for *you*, but that is an entirely different idea of "wealth".

I think this is a very interesting thread. In particular, this has reminded me of Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Kohlberg found that moral reasoning develops in an individual through a heirarchy of "pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional". At the pre-conventional level, there is a "self-interest orientation", which basically translates into "[censored] you, I can do what ever I want." At the conventional level, the orientation is on "social order and authority". Finally, at the post-conventional level, the orientation becomes "universal ethical principles."

Well, we see all three of these levels in the various responses to OP. Unfortunatley, most of them are of the "[censored] you, I can do whatever I want" variety, which is pre-conventional.

What is fascinating is that responses at the post-conventional level, that of universal ethical principles, seem to agree with those at the pre-conventional level! This is because the universal ethical principle of "individual liberty and freedom" comes into consideration. People operating from a genuine center of autonomy, which means total and radical self responsibility, will believe that in order to honor the humanity of everyone, people must be empowered to determine their own destiny -- that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Indeed, the US Founding Fathers were clearly operating from the post-conventional level of moral development.

These words can be used as excuses for the pre-conventional crowd who believe that they can and should be allowed to "do what ever they want." Notice the huge difference in attitude of the responders, however! They are not the same response at all!

As one progresses through Kohlberg's levels, one moves from "self-care" to "clan-care" to "universal-care". In other words, the effect of our actions on others becomes more and more important to us. I believe this may be part of the concerns of the OP. As we become conventional and (hopefully) post-conventional in our moral orientation, our own greedy self interests become less of a factor for us as we begin to try to live in accord with social (at the conventional level) or universal (post-conventional) moral principles.

I think these concerns are extremely important. I also agree with the OP that poker (and gambling in general) is bad for society. However, I also believe in the universal principle of individual determination and liberty.

The question is NOT whether gambling should be legal or not. From my perspective, individuals should be allowed to engage in any fully informed transaction that doesn't hurt others. That includes wagering on whatever they want. Period. (Yes, people would consider me a libertarian.)

The more important question is, if we become concerned with more than our own (or our own country's) greedy self interest, how do we view our participation in an activity and industry that may be "harmful" to many people?

It is a very difficult question. I submit that those who have tried to put words in the OP's mouth by suggesting he is in support of criminalization of gambling are those who either don't care about this issue (pre-conventional), or just don't want to consider it.

Professional poker is a predatory activity. In my opinion, at the post-conventional level, whether you think it is morally acceptable to participate in this is going to depend on whether you think you are providing something of value in excange for the money you earn. My own opinion is that yes, we are. We are providing "action". We are willing to play a game with people who want to compete with us and we give them the opportunity to win money from us. It is also extremely important to remember that most people don't view gambling from an EV point of view. For most gamblers, it is simply entertainment. By "giving action", and even by playing at all, we provide that entertainment. We also give them the opportunity to play better than us and win our money! It is a fully-informed transaction, and the losers benefit. It is very important to understand how and why they benefit if you are concerned with your participation in gambling.

Once we realize that the loser at poker benefits in some way (entertainment, excitment, social interaction, commeraderie, relaxation, whatever), we should remember that he is the one who must be empowered to make decisions for his life. In other words, when we say that the activity is "harmful", we are actually just judging his choices using our own value system. It may not be harmful to him at all, and at the very least, we should let him make that decision for himself.

Like any activity in life, if persued with the goal of achieving greatness, poker has a lot to offer a person. At the very least, perhaps we provide an example to others that self-development in poker is possible, and that it is possible to win consistently.

My guess, though, is that most of us will eventually find, as Barry Greenstein did, that poker alone will not satisfy our (post-conventional) moral obligation to be of service to others. He has found a great way to resolve that for himself, and I think he is a good example for us.

The most important thing is to feel comfortable that you are not directly injuring others. That is a personal, moral dilemma. I don't feel that I am. I feel that I am providing worthy competition for the money I earn. The losers can choose to stop playing. If they don't, it is not for me to judge them. We do not compel others to play, they play voluntarily. Especially on the internet, they know exactly how much this choice is costing them. That's good enough for me.

When I say that I believe that poker and gaming are bad for society, I just mean that I think people are making poor choices by gambling (as non-winning players). But it isn't up to me to make that decision for them either through legislation or by refusing to play with them. At any moment, they can make the excellent decision to become a winning player with all of the personal growth that will entail. Poker, then, actually provides an opportunity for something good to happen to people if they choose. That they don't is sad.

Jim

[TheRock69]

I have to agree that it is bad for society. People that start playing have a hard time stop playing. When the games start to get really tuff and barely profitable we will see if pros are going to be able to walk away. I would guess that they would not be able to until they are broke. I say this because what would motivate a person to quit when he/she made so much money so easily in the past.

[one_eye_mike]

What we call the market is really a democratic process involving millions, and in some markets billions, of people making personal decisions that express their preferences. When you hear someone say that he doesn't trust the market, and wants to replace it with government edicts, he's really calling for a switch from a democratic process to a totalitarian one. An excellent example is when people demand that government confiscate the earnings of wealthier Americans to give to poorer Americans. Michael Jordan is much wealthier than I, but whose doing is that? It's decisions made by millions upon millions of people who prefer to fork over their money to watch him play basketball. I'd be just as rich if they were willing to do the same to watch me play. When someone condemns Jordan's earnings they are really condemning the voluntary decisions made by millions of people.

Tyrants always condemn and seek to replace the market process with government coercion because tyrants do not trust that people behaving voluntarily will do what the tyrants think they should do.

Walter E. Williams

[Girchuck]

These pro players in other sports, where do they come from?
What does it take to train a professional athlete?
How many guys playing hoops for fun for every NBA star?
How many baseball semipros for every major leaguer.
Does the dream of making it to the big leagues have value?
Who trains the poker pros?

[Girchuck]

The pros know that game selection is the main skill.
If game selection is poor the pros will have to make other arrangements. Probably go down limits.
Most pros who can't survive with reduced win rate will find other means of making a living.

[blueodum]

When people say that "wealth creation" is good for society, they mean the first use of the word. The emphasis is on *creation*, whether that's lightbulbs, bridges, clean water systems, computer software, or whatever. When people use their intelligence to create, society benefits.

*******

I think you are applying wealth creation a bit too narrowly.

Take a pokerroom in Vegas. The people who created this room create wealth in the sense that they provide a venue, complete with ambience, for people who want to play poker. For this they earn money from the players and in turn employ people (dealers, waitresses etc) to provide services to their patrons. The room and services would not exist if people did not desire to play poker. Hence the game of poker, in a very real sense, has created the wealth that is provided in this context.

Similarly, hair salons and hair stylists create wealth by providing a service that the patrons view as making their lives better. Wealth creation is all about making our lives better, so these kinds of services should be included.

And so should online poker rooms. They have created a platform by which geographically dispersed people who wish to play poker, may. There is little doubt that the patrons consider this to be a valuable service that makes their lives better (mostly in the form of the thrill/challenge of intellectual competition, I would guess). Thus everyone involved in fascilitating online poker is creating wealth.

One has to look at the poker economy as a whole, with the players being the essential, but far from the only, component. There is definitely plenty of entertainment/enjoyment produced in the poker economy as a whole (I don't think I need to enumerate all of these). Therefore, poker is a wealth creating phenomenon.

[ShakeZula06]

"It's immoral to let a sucker keep his money" some guy Matt Damon quoted from a movie that would suck if it wasn't about poker.

I think the most importaint thing that society should promote is self-responsibility. Making poker illegal is protecting dumb people from losing money. Should we not be rewarded for good actions and punished for bad ones?

I'm tired of the God Damned nanny state we live in. It lives because the idea of the government dependent society appeals to the dumber people in society who 1) are too lazy to create there own wealth through hardwork 2) to dumb to understand the implications of policing morality and/or strong centralized absolutist government.

As others have said, eff society. What we do in our lives is make actions that we believe will best achieve our objectives in life. If your top priority is bettering society, create a charity, write a book, educate people etc. if your like the majority of people in the world and are concerned about benifiting yourself, and your immediate family and friends, then you do what will make you the most money, with the least stress, most happinenss, etc. For some, that means either supplementing your income or living off of playing poker.

Who are you to tell him what to do with his life and how to benifit he/she and their friends and family? Who has that right? Nobody on earth, I'll tell you that much.

And for those that will say "what about people that murder people to get there money, or rape a woman to fullfil his sexual needs, he was just benifiting himself" ask yourself if the victims consented to such treatment. Now ask yourself if people that lose at a poker game consented to playing that game.

"absolute power currupts absolutely"

[gmack15]

[ QUOTE ]
1. There are people on the other end of our winnings. It's all very impersonal when the other guy is just a figure on a screen, but they are real people. They have wives, children, bills to pay etc... Some actually are children. Many are losing money they cannot afford to lose. We use them and take advantage of them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this, but at the same time, people who do not need to play should not play. I am sorry if they are playing with money that they do not have and are losing. Most of these individuals are adults who can make their own choices about how to allocate their money. If they want to spend it on poker, then so be it.

I know it is -EV to play in traffic, therefore I don't do it. I do no need someone to tell me as a 21 year old "don't play in traffic". I do not think that we are taking advatage of them. It is similar to grocery store. Someone comes in and offers you $20 per pound of steak when you only charge $10 per pound. If they are willing to give you more than you ask for, is it still taking advantage of them? People need to stop blaming their losses in poker on "others" and need to take responsibility for themselves.

[ QUOTE ]
2. It hardly makes sense for many of the most talented and intelligent members of society blessed with the ability to make their living playing poker to be dedicating those special gifts and that energy towards a gambling game instead of becoming doctors, scientists, technical wizards and other things that make people's lives better.

[/ QUOTE ]

For one thing, look at the amount of people who are dropping out of college to play poker? I am sure the percentage is way less than 1%. If the entire college population was playing poker, then we could justify this statment. However, I go to one of the largest universities in the nation, and I can count on both hands the number of people who play poker to generate income. With the exception of people that you have met on this forum, how many people do you know "quit their 9 to 5 to play poker for a living"? I am sure the answer is very low.

Most of "whiz kids" are not going give up their school/grades to attempt to become a poker pro. Becoming a winning player takes a lot of time. We all know that. We have all been there. Most people in this world lack the patience and the persistence to become good at poker. That is why they stay in school and become doctors and scientist.

[ QUOTE ]
3. For now, all the profits are going to foreign companies that contribute little or nothing back to our tax base.

[/ QUOTE ]
First we lose a lot of money to oursourcing as well. I am not sure which one loses more money, but a lot of jobs are given away overseas, which creates more jobs here.

Hmmm well if us 2+2ers can see this, then why can't the government? The tax money that the government would make from bringing these companies to US would be huge. Yes, most of the profits are going to foreign companies. Is that our fault? No. The issue is with the government ignorance.

[ QUOTE ]
We go out searching for fish and suckers to take money from.

[/ QUOTE ]

No we don't. They come to us. Do you send email's to 'fish' and 'suckers' to come play with you? I don't. They willing sit down at the tables and click "Fold" "Check" "Call" "Raise" just like we do. I doubt that someone is forcing them to play poker.

I am sorry to say this, but I think poker/gambling is good for society for the reasons I have just mentioned.

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate to be contrarian on this issue because I enjoy poker so much, but it's explosive growth can't be good for society and the country in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody seems to want to deal with your main point.

I am in the UK so the country I worry about ain't the same - our situation is different in that gambling is legal with bookmakers on every high street, casinos rare - tightly regulated but legal, online poker legal and Party listed on our stock exchange.

In the past few years the government has made efforts to keep bookmakers on shore (they cut the tax on the punter but got an agreed levy on the bookies profits, the bookies got more business and put in fixed odds machines so now they pay more tax and more dividends than before). They are now looking at agreeing a tax and regulatory environment that can bring online poker setups on shore. I guess we are doing what some here would advocate for the US.

Anyway back to whether Poker is good for society....I think it is.

Point one is about the youth of today and the skills and attributes poker can develop.

The trend in the UK seems to be towards being more materialistic (more like the US?) but also celebrity obsessed. I think the materialism is a product of greater wealth and not necessarily a bad thing - if it is ambition rather than greed. The celebrity for celebrity’s sake is less defensible. Role models are mostly sports or maybe music related. Appearance above substance. Having Bill Gates make billons helped the nerd out but poker players have potential advantages as role models. You do need to understand the maths, you need to be able to think, it is an intellectual battle. Now I think that is good for young people to see an intellectual pursuit that is rewarding, competitive and offers a chance of celebrity, or at least playground respect.

Pre the playstation generation as a kid I spent hours (OK days) playing crib. It is why I can add up. Today poker and being numerate go together. I want young people to be able to add up and poker and other card games helps with this. Mental arithmetic in the age of the calculator is only learned through games.

There are many other poker virtues for the young to learn, patience, discipline, money management, return on investment, an understanding of other people, strategy……all need to be learnt and taught, all are of benefit to society.

It is not just the young there are some things adults need to learn to improve our society. There is an idea that there is a way to eliminate risk, that risk taking is somehow a bad thing and that if something bad happens someone has to be to blame and can thus be sued. Understanding risk is an important skill for individuals and society. People panic about phone masts which pose no risk whilst happily chomping on high fat processed food. More importantly though poker is, in our risk free world, one way to let people experience both triumph and disaster. Those two impostors to be treated just the same by those with character.

On top of a failure to understand risk many do not understand proportions, probabilities or even basic percentages. Poker can help teach about these. It might just help out our democracy if people learn about such basic concepts for analysing information.

So that is point one – Poker can teach individuals important skills and lessons and through poker people can develop character.

Point two is about happiness.

Jeremy Bentham’s “greatest happiness principle” talked of the greatest good for the greatest number. Now poker as a competition has the potential to create misery for the losers but essentially this only happens to a small minority who have other problems related to gambling in general not poker. In the MTT the winner is very happy, the final table pretty happy, those ITM pleased, those on the bubble wired but excited and many losers will still have had their money worth, having enjoyed their entertainment, an active participatory entertainment not the passive consumption of the movie goer and the TV junkie. It seems clear to me that an MTT, indeed most poker games, are a net positive in terms of human happiness.

Now the US declaration of independence talks about the inalienable right to pursue happiness (not that Bentham saw this as inalienable more a convention developed over time or a right granted by the state rather than natural and universal) – I struggle to work out how banning Poker can be considered constitutional really but I guess that’s for you to sort out over there. Anyway Poker increases happiness, according to Bentham the goal of society.

Point three is about social integration.

Poker is a social activity. When I play in home games or at a casino I mix with paupers and millionaires, people of all races and all occupations. I meet people that I would never normally meet. There is a night or two of poker than a night in the pub.

Society has become more divided over time. There are greater disparities in wealth indeed there is segregation by wealth. For the home games I meet with people from areas of town I wouldn’t normally meet people from, I even go to areas of town I wouldn’t normally go to. This has to be a good thing - communication across the social divide is informative and I suspect beneficial to all. Over a deck of cards I have talked about founding and selling million pound companies, what it is like to compete in a pole dancing competition, how much a binman (garbage-man) makes in tips at christmas, how delivering milk can fit with a gambling lifestyle, what it is like to be a lawyer, dentist or accountant I have even talked many times with a woman with a horrifyingly distinctive number crudely tattooed on her arm (though not about the holocaust or that infamous mark). It is easier to chat at blackjack where you play the house not each other but poker friendships tend to be stronger than blackjack acquaintances.

I believe that having social environments where people from all walks of life meet each other is beneficial to society, indeed as there are fewer places where this happens than before the card room becomes more important to society. Every town should have one.

Finally I want to say that it is irrelevant to the legality question whether you think it is a good thing for society if Poker becomes more popular and more widespread. There are loads of reasons for this, partly because whether illegal or not the popularity will stay pretty much the same but mostly because making poker illegal does not solve any of the associated problems – indeed it introduces new ones.

Legal poker lets you regulate it – no under 18’s, no drunks you could even rescind the memberships and logons of problem gamblers. Gamblers Annoymous could have a system that allowed all members to bar themselves, the courts could order such a ban. In the UK no under 18s get into casinos, casinos are not used for money laundering – why would you launder money where your ID is proven and the CCTV and membership logs show what you did. Legal poker also let’s the business be legit and pay it’s taxes, employ people on the books and provide a quality service. It let’s us choose the venue or site with best value or most trusted with our money

Illegal poker let’s the bad guys in, whether that is a mob run den or the criminal extorting money from the pros. Maybe someone waiting to rob the winner of his cash because the illegal den is not trusted to pay you out by cheque. Making poker illegal just makes problems for gamblers, gives control to criminals and prevents regulation from protecting the vulnerable - young, drunk or problem gambler. It does not protect anyone.

Things are very different here in the UK, we are still waiting for the new casinos to be licensed, running tournaments without a casino license is problematic so people who just want to run legitimate poker events would need a casino licence but a licence belongs to a building and requires having house games and slots, not quite the point for those of us who want a game of skill not a house edge but we do seem to be doing better than the US and we are heading in the right direction.

For me it is odd that the highly regulated UK is ahead here but I’ll give you an example of regulation that works for us. In the UK water companies cannot disconnect people for non payment. They can get court orders for the money, even deduct it in small amounts from benefits or pay cheques but they cannot cut people off. In Detroit last year 40,000 people had their water cut off, many for months and months. For me it is bizarre that a credit card company cannot pay a deposit to a poker site but a water company can disconnect someone with no money but kids from one of life’s necessities. Guys - your legislators have a funny idea about what freedoms are important and what the consequences of making consenting activities illegal does. They also have a funny idea about what people need protecting from. I think a baby needs protecting from having their water cut off, not a law to stop their dad playing a low stakes ring game online while doing the 4am feed.

Anyway I am rambling now so to sum up:

I think Poker is of benefit to society. On the whole I think participatory activities are better for society than passive entertainment consumption be it TV, film, spectator sports. Poker develops people’s skills and capabilities and is a social activity that breaks down divides.

Even if I am wrong and poker is bad for society making poker illegal and so more difficult to access does not really protect anyone, it leaves the most vulnerable and the rest of us exposed to extra costs and risks for no gain. It stops the industry contributing as it should via taxes and helps line the pockets of crooks but if anything it makes helping the problem gambler harder. The problem gambler is not stopped by petty rules, they will gamble (or quit) anyway.

[whitepotatoe]

[ QUOTE ]
I am sorry to say this, but I think poker/gambling is good for society for the reasons I have just mentioned.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the need to be sorry for having a logical view of the world. Poker is good for society, and I am proud of the fact that I am smart enough to realize that.

[Jorge10]

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot exactly compare professional poker players with professional athletes. Pro athletes make their money as entertainers: other people pay to watch them perform.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker players make their money as entertainers as well. Do you think its not fun for bad players to play poker? They probably have a lot more fun than professionals do because they play a lot more hands. Poker players provide entertainment by being in the game. There is nothing more fun to a bad player than sucking out in a hand. I know this because everyone enjoys this even good players. All the comments of anger towards bad players are normally because they are jealous that they didnt get lucky.

The reality is that there are a lot of things that are of no use for society. Professional sports are horrible for society, much worse than poker. Cities have to pay millions for stadiums that are obselete in 20 years. Then the players make millions from the money the people pay to go watch them. Its truly horrible if you think about it. Does this mean I will stop watching sports? Of course not. I enjoy watching sports. I like to be entertained. Life would be very boring if you could only spend money on things that were good for you and could never spend money on things that are purely for entertainment. Whats the point of living if you cant have any fun?

[Mark1]

You have got to be kidding me. Every business does EXACTLY the same thing as a poker player. This includes the Church, schools, government, etc., etc., etc. When you speak of making a contribution to society from scientists, maybe we should thank Oppenheimer for making the world a better place, or Einstein or any other of the well-known inventors. Let's not even mention the Church, which has throughout its history waged a war against the non-believers of any religion in order to promote their philosophy and control their people. If the Vatican emptied their vaults, I'm reasonably confident that the money gained could do a lot to eradicate world hunger and suffering in general. From my experience, the only honest people are poker players because when you sit down at a game it is fair. Try and find that anyplace else in society.

[theDetroitKid]

the vatican also could repay all the victims of sexual molestation caused by their priesthood.

[Snafu'd]

[ QUOTE ]
The average american won't have to worry about food, shelter and clothing....thanks to corporations like Wal Mart.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[BHold]

Your argument is severely flawed at it's most fundamental level: you assume that a certain profession can be beneficial or harmful to society.

Every entity in this world lies at equilibrium. Professions are of course included within this statement.

You wrote that for us to win in poker someone else must lose, this we all know is true. However, you must apply this same concept to everything else (most times the application is much more difficult).

Lets say one can measure an entity's levels of "production" (for lack of a better word). Say a given entity (or profession) can produce "+10" Happiness, well then it must also create "-10" Happiness.

You mention a scientist as a "good" profession. While science has created a lot of conveniences in today's world (I'm simply assuming you find this to be positive), it will also inevitably lead to the decline of said conveniences. As the Earth's recourses are being depleted there will come a time where these products and services we use today will face a shortage and eventual extinction. This is just one of the infinite aspects in which a single entity (scientist being the example), must always reach equilibrium in the short and long-run (although I only outlined the long-run example of course).

For the color "black" to exist there must also be a "white". For you to be happy, there must also be someone that is sad (This may not be an idea you're comfortable with or want to acknowledge, but it along with all other things must be at equilibrium somehow). We cannot all be "happy", or else there will be no one that is "sad" for us to compare ourselves to - if everyone were to suddenly increase their happiness to level "3" (to give it a quantifiable value), then the level "3" would now be the new "0", the new equilibrium to be measured against.

I realize this idea is philosophical in nature and is not the response the original poster was looking for, but I believe it is the first concept anyone should understand. It is the fuction every single entity in this world follows, as well as the whole of all entities.

Basically, I'm trying to say that whether you are a poker player or a doctor you are not going to be "good" or "bad" for society. Incriminating poker players for not "helping" society by becoming doctors or scientists is simply ignorant.

[popniklas]

OP is obviously correct. Also, please note that he has not said anything about making poker illegal.

[AlphaGun]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with you playing poker for a living. However, assuming you are as talented an individual as I suspect, I also have no problem saying that IMO society as a whole would be better served by you making another career choice. That doesn't mean I think you should be mandated to do something else. Just that we would all be better off if you did.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. I don't think society would be better off. Probably about the same.

The reason for this is based on economic principles.

It has been established that a professional poker player can be considered to take money from other people but most of these people at least get some form of entertainment for it. In theory, at least, a rational person would not play poker unless the utility they derive from it (the chance of the win) is greater than the cost (losing the money).

Let's also look at how a professionsl poker player contributes to society after taking money from someone else (but at the same time providing some sort of utility to that person).
1. The player may purchase goods or services, which ultimately add to the income of others in our society and creates employment.
2. The player may save, perhaps by investing in shares in corporation, many of which employ the doctors and other professionals that have been spoken so highly of in this post.
3. The player pays some of their winnings in taxes, which contributes to society.
4. The player may purchase government bonds, which provide capital for government social programs.
5. The player may donate money to charity.
etc.

Thus, in my opinion, an intelligent person can contribute to society in many ways. Yes, they could become a doctor or scientist or whatever. Or, they can make money some other way and in doing so, make purchases that provide income to many others in society, provide the capital to corporations that hire doctors, scientist, and inventors etc., pay their taxes, and possibly donate to charity.

In my opinion, neither option makes society better off.

[daPlayboy]

It may not be good for society but it's been very good for me!

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with you playing poker for a living. However, assuming you are as talented an individual as I suspect, I also have no problem saying that IMO society as a whole would be better served by you making another career choice. That doesn't mean I think you should be mandated to do something else. Just that we would all be better off if you did.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. I don't think society would be better off. Probably about the same.

The reason for this is based on economic principles.

It has been established that a professional poker player can be considered to take money from other people but most of these people at least get some form of entertainment for it. In theory, at least, a rational person would not play poker unless the utility they derive from it (the chance of the win) is greater than the cost (losing the money).

Let's also look at how a professionsl poker player contributes to society after taking money from someone else (but at the same time providing some sort of utility to that person).
1. The player may purchase goods or services, which ultimately add to the income of others in our society and creates employment.
2. The player may save, perhaps by investing in shares in corporation, many of which employ the doctors and other professionals that have been spoken so highly of in this post.
3. The player pays some of their winnings in taxes, which contributes to society.
4. The player may purchase government bonds, which provide capital for government social programs.
5. The player may donate money to charity.
etc.

Thus, in my opinion, an intelligent person can contribute to society in many ways. Yes, they could become a doctor or scientist or whatever. Or, they can make money some other way and in doing so, make purchases that provide income to many others in society, provide the capital to corporations that hire doctors, scientist, and inventors etc., pay their taxes, and possibly donate to charity.

In my opinion, neither option makes society better off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another contribution to society is that (assuming he is as capable in some other area as he is at poker) he opens up a job in "legitimate" businesses. The person who qualifies for that job is not likely to have the poker skills, so the poker player has contributed to the extent that his job replacement earns more than he otherwise would have.

[Mike Jett]

This thread pisses me off to no end.

That is my contribution.

[brendanb438]

The air we breathe isn't good for society. Lets make it illegal.

Really though it doesn't matter if it's gambling, strippers, drugs whatever. People who are degenerates are gonna find a way to ruin their own lives. Why not let this way benefit some of us by making our lives better.

This is harsh thinking but this is a harsh world we live in these days.

Brendan

[Merovingian]

If playing poker makes the particular individual happy, then I would say it is good for society and the economy. If they like doing it and are good at it, they are going to experience satisfaction and self worth. This is turn will increase the quality of life for those that play and enjoy it, which is a contributing factor the economic model of a healthy and successful society. A happy and satisfied society means reduced crime rates, reduced health care needs, and increased spending into the economy.

Although I doubt online poker is going to solve societies problems, it will have an advantageous effect on those that play and enjoy it.

[r1base14]

Spoken like someone who has an economcs background....I agree with your analysis. i happen to have a B.A. in economics, so I may be biased.
R

[idmtchris]

Well from the MBA side, I argue that it is good for society. Anytime we are pumping money into overseas economies. We end up increasing our GNP indirectly. We may be losing billions in unclaimed taxes, but taxes are the least efficient way for the US to make money. The return of US dollars spent at gambling sites, who invest in US markets and have employees who purchase US products probably out weighs or atleast levels out the lost taxes revenues.

[Fishodeath]

[ QUOTE ]

3. For now, all the profits are going to foreign companies that contribute little or nothing back to our tax base.


[/ QUOTE ]

This made me think, if America as a country, inlcuding all players net profit/loss is a "winning country" then I would argue that poker is in fact GOOD for the economy. Poker players would acutally be hard at work pulling money into our tax base. This would be true of course for any country that had a net profit from all its players.

These numbers would be impossible to find, but America does have the pull of the vegas pros. Either way I think this possibility is real enough to question the truth of your statement.

[NY60]

Well my good man, I too am a lawyer...and I must say with the exception of the few free cases I have taken on (no nonsense....real life people in need of help who could not afford a lawyer)my legal career has contributed very little to society despite the fact that I have gotten paid very well for it...in poker I too have made money and I don't think there are any cryin children out there or any father of four stranded on the street because of it....besides you know as well as I do that as lawyers...we can really screw up a person's life just by doing what we do best!!!!!!

[Reef]

OP,

what about the $$$$$$$$$$ donated to charity each year by poker players who wouldn't have otherwise been able to donate if they didn't play?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
OP,

what about the $$$$$$$$$$ donated to charity each year by poker players who wouldn't have otherwise been able to donate if they didn't play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Contributing to a bloodsucking charity is not good for Society. The money lost in the tourney used to pay the winners would do the country more economic benefit by being used on goods and services rather than contributing to charities.

[NY60]

Here..Here...brother I feel your pain and relate TOTALLY...you may just as well convinced me to accept my wife's offer to move to CA so that I can purse this full time!!!