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 [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
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).

[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.

[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.

[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.