What good are we? As poker players, are we socially responsible?

[bate_nasko]

Hi all,

[Note: The first paragraph is just some personal background info so you can skip it if you are not interested:
I am currently at a crossroad in my life when I am going back to the third world country where I was born and starting to orginize my life there. As I am also finishing up my first year of playing poker for recreatinal pursposes, I have been thinking whether from a personal point of view it is worth it and whether it is socially responsible to invest any more of my time and effort into poker. (Don't get me wrong: I have profitted from the game and if I manage to repeat my achievements from this first year, I will be able to make a decent living at home...) Here are the thoughts that have been going through my head:]

What good is poker? Socially and in general, what purpose do we serve as poker players? We expend a lot of time, money, physical and emotional energy playing a negative sum game. Nothing of any value is created in the process. Would the world benefit if more resources (man-hours and so on...) are devoted to poker instead of something else? I would say no. In fact, it would be worse off...

The more I think about it, the more I get convinced that playing poker is a totally unproductive activity (this is from a general and not personal point of view). The game rewards a few players financially and leaves the majority worse off (that is a statistical fact). In the meantime it takes its emotional and health toll on almost everybody. Yeah, there might be recreational value to playing but if recreation would be my primary motivation, there are many other hobbies out there that do not threaten with high probability to hurt my bank account and my health. And even if I turn out to be ones of the very few "lucky"/"able" ones who actually profit from the game, that would also automatically make me one of those same few "lucky"/"able" ones who either directly or indirectly are the reason for the financial, emotional troubles of the rest "unlucky"/"unable" ones.

I mean, what exactly is poker? It is money exchanging hands. The websites, casinos, the rules of the game and so on are just vehicles that facilitate the exchange. A few people win from the exchange and their wins are less than what the majority loses. The difference is taken by the facilitating casino/website as a fee. Part of that fee is reinvested in the "infrastructure" of the poker world to provide better service, employ more people and so on... Is that the most efficient allocaton of that money? Probably not. I think it would be more beneficial if that low-skilled laborer in India or Aruba or wherever providing support for my exchange of money called poker was instead employed to produce something of value (a computer part or even some cheap item sold at Wal-Mart) . I don't think it would make much of a difference to the laborer and something productive/useful would come out of the whole process.

Anyway, just wanted to share the thoughts that have been going through my head lately. Those thoughts were a spontaneous attempt to look from a more general and unbiased perspective at the activity that I have been involved in for almost a year now.

I think a natural answer to some of the questions that I aksed in this post would be that poker is a voluntary activity and it is primarily intended to provide recreation and entertainment to people. The fact that it is voluntary, though, doesn't make poker socially beneficial. Which leads to my other question, individually each player and together as a poker commmunity are we socially responsible?

Don't get me wrong. I am not preaching against playing poker or gambling in general. I will probably continue to play regularly but I just want to see things the way they are. If I am involved in an unporoductive activity that is borderline socially irresponsible, I would like to at least know it.

Just trying to start a discussion that would hopefully make me feel a little better about playing and taking other people's money /images/graemlins/wink.gif
Bate

[Xhad]

Where does this conception come from that your income source = your contribution to society?

If you do nothing with your life but play and study poker, I feel sorry for you, but that also applies to almost any job (many of which contribute little or nothing to society at large, BTW).

[dogreplacer]

I think poker is just as valuable to society as any other recreational activity or form of entertainment. For example, take a look at movies. They don't create any tangible benefit for man. You can't live in a movie. You can't eat it. You can't drive it to work.

But movies are fun to watch. And if you want to watch a movie, you have to pay $9.50. And if you want to have $9.50 you have to create $9.50 worth of value and give it to someone in exchange for $9.50. So forms of entertainment are valuable to society not just because people need to be entertained, but because that desire for entertainment motivates them to create value to society so that they CAN be entertained.

And it is the same way with poker. Most people like to play poker because they think it is fun, even though they know they are a favorite to lose. So by playing poker and providing these people with opponents to lose to, you are providing them with the service of entertainment and motivating them to keep creating value to society, because as losing players they obviously won't be able to sustain their poker habit without a steady influx of cash from an outside source.

[Xhad]

Oh don't bring that old nonsense into this.

The fish would have just as much fun if they were only playing against other fish and you know it.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
The fish would have just as much fun if they were only playing against other fish and you know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt, but in some sense that's beside the point. Every fish playing -EV poker is leaving behind a certain amount of value sacrificed for entertainment. Most of that value (until you reach very high stakes) accrues to the house. A little bit of that value is left on the table, and can either be pushed around from fish to fish, hence in the long run given back to the fish, or can be captured by the shark.

Just because the fish would have an equally fun time retaining that little bit of equity (and only losing long-term to the house) because everyone else is playing equally bad, that doesn't really change the dynamics of the situation. That bit of equity is up for grabs. Anyone can study up, learn to play poker, and claim it. Might as well be me.

[Xhad]

Oh, I'm not saying there's anything morally wrong with taking the fish's money, but pretending we provide them a service in doing so is absurd.

[Farfenugen]

We provide jobs for dealers, waitresses. and floorpersons.

Happy?

[SNOWBALL]

low limit tags are a cancer on the games. They multitable so much that they start to overpopulate the games, and bad players end up losing money too quickly.

At middle limits, good players keep games going because they play regularly, so they are, in a sense, providing a service to the recreational players.

All things remaining equal though, poor players would have a much better time just losing to eachother.

[AlanBostick]

I think about this question a lot: Does playing poker for a living meet the Buddha's instruction to purusue "right livelihood"? I can see arguments on both sides, and I haven't come to a solid conclusion.

How we earn money is only part of the equation. Another important part is what we do with the money.

For example, last September I took a big piece of my bankroll and used it to pay for a trip to Biloxi, Mississippi, to do disaster relief work there. I stayed in Biloxi for a month and worked my butt off.

It occurred to me, there, that one way I could lead my life would be a quasi-professional relief worker, traveling to disaster scenes and helping the affected people, and supporting myself and raising funds in between by playing cards. I would be free to drop everything and go at a moment's notice.

Poker would therefore be simply a means to an end, a way of making ends meet so that I could do my real work.

[dogreplacer]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, I'm not saying there's anything morally wrong with taking the fish's money, but pretending we provide them a service in doing so is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so what about all the people who go to a casino and play unbeatable games? They know they're a favorite to lose, but they do it anyway because it's fun. Pretty much all people who do this explain that when they lose money they are just paying for entertainment. So how is this any different? Winning poker players and regulars at cardrooms are far more instrumental in creating and keeping games going than just your average recreational fish. The higher the availability of games, the more people can play. Yes they are going to lose, and yes they probably know this, but they think playing is fun. So since they lose the money to you and the house, how is that really different from them paying you for their entertainment?

[Xhad]

Okay, so what about all the people who go to a casino and play unbeatable games? They know they're a favorite to lose, but they do it anyway because it's fun. Pretty much all people who do this explain that when they lose money they are just paying for entertainment. So how is this any different? Winning poker players and regulars at cardrooms are far more instrumental in creating and keeping games going than just your average recreational fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rocks do a lot more for keeping a game going than TAGs. TAGs take as much money as they can and then if the game goes bad they leave. It's possible that some cardrooms have such a low clientele that the sharks are required for there to be a game at all, but in most cases that's the minority.

[Coffee]

Poker is a hobby to almost everyone who plays, winners or losers. How many other hobbies does one even have a chance of making money? Most hobbies are -EV to the bankroll...this one isn't, unless I'm having a bad run of cards. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I would feel worse for the fish if they never won, bate. Then, that would signal some deeper problem in these people's psyche. Frankly, most fish are just gamblers who have figured out that you lose your money slower playing poker(which is typically correct, compared to other -EV table games).

[ QUOTE ]
that would also automatically make me one of those same few "lucky"/"able" ones who either directly or indirectly are the reason for the financial, emotional troubles of the rest "unlucky"/"unable" ones.

[/ QUOTE ]
What business of yours is it what they choose to do with their own money? No one makes someone sit down with you, bate. This is a point that many miss when feeling "guilty" over playing poker. No one is telling the fish that they HAVE to come lose money to you. They are not strapped to their seats. They can leave any time. You seem as though you understand this intellectually, but not emotionally.

Forgive me for asking, but why is it important to be socially responsible? What does this term mean, exactly? You seem to indicate a sort of paternalism that adults should embody when considering their activities...as though others can't be trusted to make their own decisions about their lives. I am trying very hard not to turn this into a political post, but this sort of thinking is what leads us down the road traveled by both sides of the political spectrum these days, which feels that we are unable to choose not to smoke cigarettes, ride a bike without a helmet, or legally marry people of the same sex. If those are concepts you hold dear, then I humbly submit that perhaps poker is too individualistic a game for you. Otherwise, SNAP OUT OF IT, and go win some money. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[BarronVangorToth]

If you're really worried about being some type of drain on society, make sure that your time on the tables -- especially noticeable when playing live -- that you are an enriching element to all those you play against.

In the end, like JEJ says in Field of Dreams (I'll paraphrase): it is money they have, and peace they seek.

Provide the latter and they won't care about the former.

IF that's a concern for you.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[revots33]

People play poker to either win money or for entertainment. Anyone who says they play poker in order to benefit society is kidding themselves.

[raze]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be more beneficial if that low-skilled laborer in India or Aruba or wherever providing support for my exchange of money called poker was instead employed to produce something of value (a computer part or even some cheap item sold at Wal-Mart) . I don't think it would make much of a difference to the laborer and something productive/useful would come out of the whole process.
Bate

[/ QUOTE ]

Morally, I have a much easier time making my income playing poker than if I were contributing to the ruin of our planet by creating "useful" cheap items sold at Walmart, or for example engineering & making myself a fortune with some new technological piece of crap that makes people even more lazy, stupid, and technologically reliant. I really have a huge problem with this. It really seems to me that the fundamental of business is to exploit SOMETHING (oil, our environment, unskilled card players, whatever) for your own selfish profitability. But anyways my point is what you consider "socially responsible", I consider ignorant and destructive. I am waiting for the day when we run out of oil to burn and CNN calls it a "major disaster".
I rationize poker as a dream job to me in that I am not contributing in a significant way to our terribly destructive consumer society. And yeah I realize that online poker = technology, but to my credit there isn't a casino cardroom within 5 hours of my home =)

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
People play poker to either win money or for entertainment. Anyone who says they play poker in order to benefit society is kidding themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]


The first part is true. However, you can be a benefit while making money OR by entertaining yourself.

In all things...

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Where does this conception come from that your income source = your contribution to society?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're making it a value judgement. It's an economic judgement. Don't take it personally.

[greenroom1]

What about donating a portion of your profits to charity. The most obvious examply is Barry Greenstein. Maybe we all can't afford to give everything to carity (he might keep some of it), but I think giving a portion of your winnings to charity is a good way to live with any type of feeling that you are not being productive to society. If you enjoy playing cards and can make a living and give some to charity then who says you aren't living a productive and meaningful life.

[pvn]

Yeah, but you still haven't contributed anything *new*. You're just donating somebody else's money. The guy you won it from could have donated it himself.

On the flipside, the money you won that you spent on coke and hookers might have been donated to charity by the guy you won it from, had he not lost it.

Like I said, this has nothing to do with "meaningful" - it's strictly an economics question, not a values question. Playing poker itself does not contribute anything. Poker players *may* contribute things.

[Good Idea]

I go to work all day and come home and play with my son. At 8:30 I turn on the TV, fire up the computer and play poker until 11:00. Before I started playing online I had the same routine except the poker part. The money I win goes to buy stocks for my boys college education. You can decide if that is a contribution to society or not.

Regards,
G.I.

[greenroom1]

It is still money going to a good cause. I would venture to say that most money won in poker games doesn't go to charity. Giving to charity insures that a greater good from your winnings is used for a good cause. I think it is the least we can do with some of the money we win.

[pvn]

So if I rob a bank and give the money to charity, then that would count as "socially responsible" or "contributing to society"?

We're not talking about what you do with the money. We're talking about how you get it.

[greenroom1]

Your not robbing the money. You are playing a game, and assuming your not cheating then the playing field is level. Win rate would be determined by skill and luck. I agree that there are many compulsive gamblers out there who are net longterm -EV players. By playing you allow that money to leave the poker table permanently.

[dustyn]

Economically, poker players create employment for the gaming/casino/entertainment industry. Whether it's online or in B&M, the "rake" we pay funds a business that creates jobs for others. While poker in and of itself is a zero sum game with overall limited economic value compared to many professions, professional poker players still create more than zero value.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Your not robbing the money. You are playing a game, and assuming your not cheating then the playing field is level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, yes. The point is that how you make the money is seperate from how you use the money. You can't say that activity A is "contributing to society" just because you take the money made in activity A and give it to charity.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Economically, poker players create employment for the gaming/casino/entertainment industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is consumption, not production.

[TomBrooks]

How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World - A Handbook for Personal Liberty (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0965603679/qid=1136994509/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-9829131-5263817?n=507846&s=books&v=glance) discusses why and how you can live your life the way you want to, unencumbered by notions like you have an obligation to contribute something to society.

PS: The above link takes you to the page where you can read a few pages of the book, but it shows the book costing $70. Redo a search at Amazon (click the author's name) to find it for as little as $25.

[gurgeh]

I have to admit I didn't take the time to read your entire post, but I've seen this and heard this over and over again. If you are feeling a little guilty, that's okay, it's good you're talking about it.

But usually I hear this from people who simply don't like poker and are looking for a way to criticize something they don't even understand. The fact is, it's a cop out. I have never heard this said by anyone who applied the same reasoning to people in marketing, professional atheletes, or anyone in the entertainment industry. No you are not saving the world, but I say that many of us are much better off as people for poker and that all of us are worse off for television commercials. But oh my, poker is gambling, that's very very bad we can't have that so we'll use a completely different set of reasoning than we apply to every other occupation in the world.

Don't feel guilty. Poker is good. Poker, unless you're an idiot who has no interest in developing his game, helps teach you not to think like these people. Remember the first part of Sklansky's title in Poker, Gaming, and Life? It's "Fighting Fuzzy Logic." Don't use fuzzy logic. Don't buy the "What good is poker?" argument, because it's based on a false pretense.