Being told "professional poker doesn't contribute to society."

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure you can say the money will be spent eventually, but you have to consider, the faster the money is spent, the faster the economy is stimulated. The more people out there are making money and spending money, the more the economy grows to meet that demand in expenditure.

[/ QUOTE ]

what makes you think the pro poker player would spend that money faster than the guy he took it from? i'd argue that the poker player is much more likely to put it away and save it for retirement than some schmoe who lives paycheck to paycheck.

[Tien]

Anyways, this argumentation is pretty retarded because playing poker hardly counts as a job in the first place.


Everyone started this game (notice the word "game") not to make money but because they enjoyed it. There is no poker player (notice the word "player") that got into poker disliking it.

So, is it obligatory to contribute to society if we are merely having fun and getting paid to have fun?

[Dima2000123]

[ QUOTE ]
Dima,

The average joe would prefer to skip the game altogether and just get paid.

Players have many choices when playing poker.
Game selection is a pretty big component of winning. Have read some of the pro's have people on the payroll whose job it is to call them when players like notaima sit.

Pretty sure Dallas would rather have played Buffalo again last weekend instead of New England.

What is your point?

The nature of the game is anybody with a bankroll can sit and get paid if they outplay or outluck their opponent.

The game clearly has wide appeal across the globe.

Don't see how you can say a movie actor is legitimate and a poker player is not.

Both help people pass their time.
Haven't come out of the theater too often up a couple of dimes...

Nobody is forced to sit at any table.
Players for the most part are able to pick their games. If they don't think they can hang or don't value the entertainment, no one is forcing them to stay.

[/ QUOTE ]
My point is that amateur players play poker for fun. Fun is good, we want people to have fun, fun is entertainment.

The problem is that amateurs typically have more fun when they're not losing at poker. It's easier not to lose at poker when you're playing with other amateurs, as opposed to pros. Playing with pros make amateurs lose money and have less fun. I don't see how having less fun equates to more entertainment, which you argue is what poker pros produce.

I argue that if anything, poker pros destroy entertainment by making it more difficult for amateurs to have fun playing poker.

[Tien]

So I guess I am wrong when I said poker players contribute anything to society, well neither does jacking off to porn but I still have fun doing it and anyone who brings up the contribution to society crap while I'm drinking beer or jacking off can go screw themselves.

[Lyric]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there some amateurs who quit playing poker because they couldn't find anyone skillful to play against? I would venture a guess that by far the majority of amateurs would prefer to be "entertained" by other amateurs rather than poker pros.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually yes. Ever heard the statement "I need to move up to where people respect my raises?" A lot of beginners have the most fun playing against skilled players, and don't find it amusing to grind out a few bucks value betting idiots all night.

A lot of amateurs actually believe that they can't win because the players at the table are all idiots who never fold.

People love to sit with "world champions" and TV pros. Hell, people love to sit with me in homegames knowing that I play high stakes poker for a living... they find it amusing to try to beat a professional -- and that is part of the beauty of this game. About half the time they will end up beating the pro during that session.

[Dima2000123]

[ QUOTE ]
So I guess I am wrong when I said poker players contribute anything to society, well neither does jacking off to porn but I still have fun doing it and anyone who brings up the contribution to society crap while I'm drinking beer or jacking off can go screw themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
Jacking off does not remove the need for me to have a job, where presumably I contribute to society. Playing poker well enough to make a living off it does.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]

Where in this post do I say that I was in the ivy league, or that I would take any pride in it if I were? What is this chip on your shoulder? In life you have a choice: You can instantly attack any statement you hear, or you can try to understand and learn from your fellow human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

it was in your other post. and i don't instantly attack anything i read/hear, just the stuff that is clearly wrong. there's nothing i can learn from your poor application of logic.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I've made this argument a lot and so maybe I skipped over a part. I thought it was clear that my paper is essentially a glorified poker concept. I actually wrote that line and deleted it in my last post. Therefore, (oops I have to be careful with you when I use the word "therefore") I think getting some of the poker concepts such as sample size, selection bias, the value of information, etc), out there is a good thing for academia as well as the mainstream. Therefore poker is helpful to academia and others.

[/ QUOTE ]

we're not discussing whether or not concepts that are used in poker might have other uses. we're discussing whether a professional poker player contributes anything to the economy/society by playing poker.

yes, writing academic papers is productive. yes, writing books for 2+2 (and hence stimulating learning) is productive. yes, there's many poker-related activities that are productive. that's not the question here.

i understand that you're excited to talk about your paper, but it's a stretch to connect it to this particular topic. i'd suggest you start a new thread if you're interested in talking about it. i don't know what it's about but i'd be interested in hearing about it. i just don't think it's relevant to this particular argument.

[Tien]

As a job itself, poker does not contribute in terms of adding value. Which I will admit.

As a hobby used in moderation it contributes.

But there is a very fine line when a professional poker player calls it a "job" because it is still a game they are playing.

[snorer]

unless you're doing volunteer work or work that has an obvious motivation geared towards social causes, any contribution you make to society with your job is just incidental. not exactly something that makes you brownie-point worthy in the values department. people don't build houses out of genuine concern for their fellow man. my trash guy doesn't come pick up my junk because he cares about my house stinking. it should go without saying that people that are in a position to easily make lots of money have an obviously much better opportunity to significantly help people/society/humanity if that's their concern. the notion that playing poker for a living makes you lack a contribution to society is almost like a euphemism telling me i should do something else. which is bs, because hopefully 10 years down the line i'll be lucky enough to be in a financial position where i can do a lot of real, tangible things to "contribute" more so than the guy that effs you over on your mortgage or the guys they keep sending to my house who still can't fix my cable

"i can't help the poor if i'm 1 of them, so i got rich and gave back to me that's the win/win"

[Abbaddabba]

as any person who has propped at midstakes+ will tell you, games form around the recreational players to accommodate what they want to play.

they may prefer to play against lousy players, but that either isnt an option at that time, or they arent aware of such a game going.

given all of the options they have, they preferred to sit where they did than any of the known available alternatives. which makes them better off by token of the fact that you're there, than they would otherwise be. that is your contribution.



you can call people irrational, that they lack the information to make complete decisions and/or that they're too irresponsible to do what's best for them. but that opens up so many cans of worms that it defeats the purpose of what is being argued.




day trading is a whole lot more suspect, or any kind of trading that involves the buy low / sell high mentality. they dont create any real growth - they just siphon value out of unwitting shareholders from all angles.