[seemorenuts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I expect this article to become an important source in the struggle for legitimacy for poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is highly unlikely. Just about anything said in that article about poker could be said about chess or other games not played for money. People opposed to poker will not be swayed by logic.

The people who oppose poker do so because they want to impose their morality on others or because they think that people who gamble are too stupid to make their own decisions. You cannot reason with such people. The moralists are on a mission from God. The nanny-staters are equally irrational in their beliefs that they know better than you how you should live your life.

It is a well-articulated statement, but it is preaching to the choir, and will have zero impact on those mindlessly opposed to gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there is such a thing as a game not played for money. I have rarely been in a chess tournament where there weren't cash prizes involved. And the last I heard, the World Scrabble Championship had a first prize of $50,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

Contract Bridge, other forms of bridge, traditionally.
A wee bit less today? I dunno.

There are lots of reasons to oppose poker that have nothing to do with religion or morality.

Think of opportunity cost, and rival civilizations--technological races. Of course a free society is probably the most versatile, but excess hampers that once in a while--no grand scheme, no oversimplification--change is chaotic.

Picture yourself running a country like China.
There are pros and cons to letting people play poker, and that country (for the sake of our argument) has little to do with moralizing in the religious sense of the word.