Poker is Good for You

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget that poker can be addictive and is an addiction to many people. This is a big reason why 'they' want to ban poker

[/ QUOTE ]

Banning something because it can be addictive to a small number of people is silly.

Should alcohol be banned because some people choose to misuse it/abuse it?

And why would it be a better idea to ban poker than cigarettes, which are also addictive, but cost many people their lives and not just some poker chips?

[Poker Clif]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget that poker can be addictive and is an addiction to many people. This is a big reason why 'they' want to ban poker

[/ QUOTE ]

Banning something because it can be addictive to a small number of people is silly.

Should alcohol be banned because some people choose to misuse it/abuse it?

And why would it be a better idea to ban poker than cigarettes, which are also addictive, but cost many people their lives and not just some poker chips?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I would make the case that if any one substance should be banned, then it should be alcohol. I worked in a rescue mission for 12 years, and just from that small sample, which you can extend to an awful lot of friends and family members that are affected, alcohol definitely has a negative affect on more than a few people.

Some of the effects are obvious and intuitive, such as drunk drivers, lost jobs, and broken homes(often including domestic violence). But there are other, less obvious costs both to individuals and society.

I saw a television show on one of the big three networks where an ER doctor was asked what percentage of what he sees in the ER is alcohol-related. Without hesitation, he said 50%.

He gave as a typical example someone who is treated for a broken arm, when the cause is the person getting drunk and falling down the stairs.

To put it another way, 50% of the cost of running an ER, and who knows what percentage of other health care costs, is devoted to alcohol

If we are going to talk about which habit or addiction is worse, it's alcohol. Nothing else comes close.

[JKratzer]

i thought it was well written and certainly brought up many good points, hopefully it will have the desired effect.

unfortunately i don't think it will, at least to me it came across as too much propaganda/biased agruments. i don't disagree with anything said in the article, just the tone in which it was delivered.

maybe (hopefully) it's just me.

[Poker Clif]

[ 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 agree with the first part of your argument, not so much with the second part. Don't forget that poker can be addictive and is an addiction to many people. This is a big reason why 'they' want to ban poker and unfortunately Sklansky's doesn't say anything about this in his article.

[/ QUOTE ]

From the article, footnote number one:

1 We assume, of course, that you will not become obsessed with poker or play for higher stakes than you can afford.

[Al Schoonmaker]

You wrote: "it is preaching to the choir, and will have zero impact on those mindlessly opposed to gambling."

First, as Mason clearly said in his Publisher's Note, this article is not addressed to you. It is addressed to the general public.

Second, it may not convince some people who are "mindlessly opposed." By definition, someone who is "mindless" is immune to logic. But it will have some impact on a few of the people who dislike poker, but don’t understand it. We also hope that it will have substantial impact on the most important group, the people who don’t have strong opinions either way.

A central principle of political science is that most elections are won in the center. Some people will always vote this way, and some people will always vote the other way, no matter what you say or do. Their minds are often made up before the campaign begins.

So smart politicians aim for the center. They spend their time and money trying to appeal to the “undecided” voters. The party or candidate who wins their votes wins most elections. They are the people we hope to reach, and we would appreciate the help of anyone who is worried about poker’s future.

Regards,

Al

[JackCase]

[ QUOTE ]

So smart politicians aim for the center. They spend their time and money trying to appeal to the “undecided” voters. The party or candidate who wins their votes wins most elections. They are the people we hope to reach, and we would appreciate the help of anyone who is worried about poker’s future.

Regards,

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

The people in the center on this issue do not care enough about it to do anything. If they are currently vaguely against poker and logical arguments change their minds so that they are vaguely in favor of legalizing it, nothing has changed enough to make it happen. The center is still going to be ruled by inertia, and any action will be spurred by the extremes, where people do care enough one way or another to do something.

My own view is that online poker will be legalized in this country, and that the impetus will be economics. One option is that the Feds will see that prohibition is unenforceable and will opt to regulate and tax it. Another option is that some party of interest with sufficient resources will challenge the Feds in court and win.

A scenario for the second case would be a state legalizing online poker and offering to serve any US player. Any number of states would love to have some big internet poker sites as part of their tax base. Few states actually ban playing online, and most experts believe that the federal wire act does not apply to poker. But it will take a definitive court case to settle the issue.

None of the scenarios discussed above would be affected by changing anyone's mind with logical arguments about the non-economic benefits of poker. Frankly, I believe that even a disinterested reader with an open mind would dismiss this article as self-serving and as failing to address the core reason for playing poker: to try to win money. (That was my general impression of the article, and I am 100% behind the intent.)

[Poker Clif]

[ 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.

[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.

[seemorenuts]

There's another issue that hasn't been addressed specifically.

There are some skills that poker can teach that are very difficult to come by using other methods.

An argument against ubiquitous poker in our culture is the idea that the valuable ideas need not be known by all citizens, just the rulers... lol.

This article touches on the idea tangentially (is that the right word here? Naah...)

http://mail.google.com/mail/?realattid=f...14d712dd4687206

[baggins]

ok article. not great, in my opinion, as far as content goes.

as far as a final published product with a clear purpose to address people outside of it's own community, i'm surprised at the spelling, grammar and punctuation errors.

you'd think it would have been edited.