[Broke_Joke]

[ QUOTE ]
Insurance = redistribution.

But with the bets being 0 EV (but much variance), they don't redistribute in a determined way, so they only add to a poker player's income variance, not reduce it.

This, I think, is what seemorenuts is trying to say.

And seemorenuts, you were right, I introduced the topic of morality, after Sklansky only asked whether it was admirable (or whether it is wise to admire it).

But given that I did add the topic of morality into the debate, I essentially tried to argue that (perhaps) 0 EV gambles aren't immoral (subjective word given that we haven't defined an ethical system to live by), but introduced two possible areas related to the gambling/poker profession that could be considered immoral. 1, you aren't contributing anything to society, you aren't a producer. But then I suggested that gamblers (and here I really meant poker players), can generate utility in a society. I was imagining televised poker, which so many love to watch. Thus, poker players are analagous to professional sportspeople. Further, the whole gambling process can be utility producing, if the participants are all risk loving (see utility theory). This is because +ve utility derived from winning is greater in magnitude than -ve utility resulting from losing (though rake plays a role too). 2, wealthy people (some of whom are gamblers), should use some of their wealth to benefit others (rather than excessive personal consumption), and to not is immoral.

Obviously, those two points above are only immoral within certain ethical frameworks. You could make a case for them using utilitarianism, for example. You could also argue against them using utilitarianism (such is utilitariansim), by saying that the third SUV generates greater utility than the alternative purchase of 30,000 or so doses of AIDS anti-retrovirals.


seemorenuts, I think I can now better express what I was trying to say in my original post. Suppose you and I were to, over the course of our lifetimes, bet $10,000 on the flip of a coin, once a week. In the long run, millions of dollars would have exchanged hands, but only $10,000 dollars (ignoring the bankroll you would need to maintain to avoid ruin) would have been "wasted" by our gambling habit, when it could have gone to better use in society. Then, when we die, it will enter society anyway. Contrast this with you and I making this same bet, but also buying an SUV each week, costing $10,000 dollars. Over the course of a lifetime, millions of dollars were wasted by our excessive consumption of SUVs, when it could have better been used for the good of society. In sum, when gambling with money, you are gambling your purchasing power. In the long run, with 0 EV gambles, you end up with the same purchasing power you had to begin with, so nothing real happens. However, when we consume goods, something real does happen. Therefore, it is the consumption habits, and not the gambling habits (assuming a long run of 0 EV gambles) which we should chose to admire (or not).

[/ QUOTE ]

TL,DR

Also QTF