[excession]

I have always had an issue with the Gambers Anonymous test as it applies to poker.

Youcould replace Gambling with Chess/World or Warcarft/Model Traing Collecting/Amateur Dramatics and lots of people would still come out as an 'addicted' to any hobby they spend of a lot of time doing. So what? The more time you put into an activity that requires time and skill to master the larger it will loom in your life. Addicted is just a perjorative term for something that's important to the 'addict' and that he isn't willing to give up.

The reason why gambling 'addiction' is seen as a particularly bad thing is because most gambling has no +ve side (financailly or intellectually) and will lead to serious financial damage to the 'addict'. He/she is then stuck in a cycle of denial and desperation to win the lost money back.

Poker IS different to games played against the house. It is a game of skill played for money between consenting adults. It has all the attributes of a fascinating and challenging game.

The vast majority of players around the world (esp. online players) treat it as they would a game of chess or scrabble with a chance to win a bit of pcoket money thrown in.

The pros and wannabee pros at 2+2 are a tiny % of players worldwide. The gambling addicts who poker ruins are at the other extreme and of those gambling addicts whose lives are made far worse through poker the vast majority would have done exactly the same at another game anyway.

So at what stage should the state intervene to protect adults from themslelves? To stop a small number of lives being damaged by something that gives pleasure to millions? Can the state efectively intervene? see - drugs, alcohol, sex, the free market etc?

Or are you arguing more on moral than utilitarian grounds?

Do you just object to competitive play for money generally?

Or the cynical nature of the professional poker player who seeks the easiest money available no matter the personal cost to the loser?

I think it's the latter - the age-old - 'granny/drunk at the table' problem.

But in an online age where no-one has to play for higher stakes than 1c/2c, why is one player somehow responsible for another sitting at their table?

We haven't invited them, encouraged them or got them drunk; it isn't the only game in town; we aren't peeking at their cards; they can get up at any time at the click of a mouse. We have no personal bond with them and no responsibility for their actions.

Everytime we buy a pair of sneakers or put gas in our tank in the West we are profiting from someone else's misery. Wallow in your own guilt if you like, but don't criticise DS for posting an article outlining the positive aspects or poker or accuse him of hypocrisy.

Poker has been crippled by the religious right in the US, whose own genuine hypocrisy knows no bounds...

No-one else understands or will advocate for poker players except poker players as you must surely understand.

There is a certain smell of troll in your position in this thread I'm sorry to say..