[blueodum]

"It went something like poker players sell a certain rush, some sort of dream of a better place for the losing player for a while, and then finally the 'pro' ends up with most of his money and the loser leaves feeling empty, discouraged and not feeling good about his losses. Sort of what you feel after doing some extacy, coke or another drug. Obviously not the same feeling but you get the point."

No. CASINOS do this. The winning poker player is just a small cog in about 1% of the operation. Casinos inflict far more negative externalities than all the pro poker players in the world combined. And yet this is considered a legitimate business, in that very few people will ask a casino manager what they contribute to society.

This is the main point to be made about this topic. It shouldn't be arguing about whether poker is "productive" (in a narrow economic sense it is not) or whether it "contributes" to society (in the broad sense it must, since so many people engage in this activity voluntarily.). These terms are subjective and you'll never get everyone to agree on what they mean.

A pro poker player is merely playing a role within the poker economy. A role that must exist because, of necessity, some players must be winning players while most others must be losing players. If it were not so the whole system would break down and there would be no poker industry as we know it.

It is the stigma attached to the professional gambler (sportbettor, blackjack card counter, backgammon pro, poker player etc) that is the real issue.

Over the years a lot of jobs have evolved to serve the needs of societies and frankly we would be better off if many of them just disappeared. For example, do we really need the ridiculous number of consumer products that are available to us? Think of all the raw materials, time, energy, labor and thought power devoted to these things. In a rational sense it is a huge waste of resources.

But people are seduced into thinking that having them would be a good thing, would make their lives better (like a drug, getting a new "toy" creates a temporary high).

If the entire advertising industry were phased out over the next three decades we would all be better off.

Why is there not a similar stigma attached to all these other marginally useful (at best) jobs?

Addressing a point made by another poster:

As far as the argument about many intelligent people playing poker instead of discovering cures for cancer... Well, this is inevitable in a society where individuals are allowed to choose their own profession. Maybe someone who was destined to invent a brilliant new technology, didn't because he was more interested in other things and took a job at a bank instead.

Do you think it would be a good idea to force people to go into professions based on what some sort of "objective" test determines them to be suitable for?