My friend got into big trouble

[billyjex]

LOL THANKS FOR THE MONEY FISHES

[Butso]

Poker is undoubtedly exploitative. In particular winning
players and casinos (and online poker sites) exploit losing players.

This is the case for two reasons, relating to psychology and to intelligence.

Firstly, some players cannot bring themselves to quit a game even though they know that playing in the game they are currently playing in is -ve EV for them. The most obvious example of this is when aplayer is tilting.

I've seen this on countless occasions when I've played live poker-and the other players in the game are, by remaining in the game, exploiting the tilting players psychological problem (lack of self control, which it sounds like OP's friend suffers from) which is preventing him from behaving rationally and quitting the game.

Secondly, people who are -ve EV in a game who think they are +ve EV, even though the rest of the table knows he ( a fish) is a losing player. These fish are often misled by the nature of poker (and gambling in general) where losing players can win in the short run but will always lose in the long run. I've often heard losing players describing how they believe they are winning players because of big wins they've had in the past, unable to appreciate
that it was good luck that caused these big wins rather than bad luck causing their overall losses .

Simply put, many people are not intelligent enough to act in their own best interest. Again winning players, by remaining in the game, are exploiting the fish's lack of
intelligence or his lack of understanding of poker.

-poker is indeed exploitative.

[TyFuji]

Poker is just a simplified model of the capitalist system. I read Freakonomics recently and in it the author talked about how Crack dealing is a "tournament", where the best rise to the top and the worst squander their time and money. He said every business in life is this kind of tournament. The long-run game of poker is as well.

Think of it this way - A young kid wants to play NFL football his whole life. He gets a football scholarship at a big university, but he doesn't work hard enough on his game. He ends up getting drafted in the late rounds. He goes to Camp but still plays worse than he could. He gets cut. Now he's out on the street with no degree and no big money contract. Should the NFL millionaires quit the game because of cases like this? Absolutely not.

We're good at what we do, and people chose to want to beat us.

[AlanBostick]

[ QUOTE ]
All in all, gambling is sweeping the nation, and leaving massive destruction in its wake.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like this?

[Unabridged]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One year ago, a guy I knew looked like this:

Top notch undergrad education. Law degree from a top-5 school. Six-figure salary. Tons of disposable income. New car, lots of toys. Bought a condo.

Then he discovered stocks, and eventually, options. Now he looks like this:

Living with his parents. Sold all of his toys. Fired from two jobs. Lost $75k from January through May 2006. Was on the book with a bank whose nickname is "hitman."

Incredible.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the exact reason why I'm considering quitting trading. I never really realised where all the money came from when you win with trading, but this is exactly an example where I do not want to get my money from. I don't trading high stakes, so I'm not trading for big cash like that, but I do play for what would seem a fair amount for most non professional trading people. After a nice tilt-mode of me this week I managed to cut my overall figure down to 450 only, I'm a recreational trader and this seems the right time to quit for me. I maybe sound like a douche, maybe I will change my mind over time but right now I feel unethical about financial trading.

[/ QUOTE ]

situations like this are just symptoms of a capitialist society. in many ways i think poker is more ethical than financial trading. at least in poker everyone who sits down at a table knows what they are getting in for, its like two boxers entering a ring and consenting to fight. with the stock market people don't have a choice to enter the ring, there are millions of innocent bystanders whose jobs and retirement hang in the balance.

[toots]

The big difference between gambling and capitalism is that capitalism is (usually) a positive sum game. As is investing in equities. Gambling is a zero sum game.

Which doesn't make either fair, but it's still a major difference.

[Butso]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is just a simplified model of the capitalist system.

[/ QUOTE ]

not really. capitalist is +ve sum game, poker is a negative sum game.

[ QUOTE ]
I read Freakonomics recently and in it the author talked about how Crack dealing is a "tournament"

[/ QUOTE ]


comparing poker to crack dealing does not do your argument any favours

[ QUOTE ]
Think of it this way - A young kid wants to play NFL football his whole life. He gets a football scholarship at a big university, but he doesn't work hard enough on his game. He ends up getting drafted in the late rounds. He goes to Camp but still plays worse than he could. He gets cut. Now he's out on the street with no degree and no big money contract. Should the NFL millionaires quit the game because of cases like this? Absolutely not.

[/ QUOTE ]

this would be an ok analogy if I were criticising CEOs and the capitaliist system. But i am not.

the point is that my example deals with the adverse effect of exploitation in poker. Capitalism does not exploit-it is just harsh on the losers, like the football player in your example. Poker does exploit, as I reasoned in my first post in this thread.

p.s., if poker was a positive sum game I might agree with you and say that the suffering of the losers in poker might be justified by utilitarian arguments or whatever.

[AKQJ10]

I don't have a whole lot to add. My views are probably closest to jjshabado's, but I am quite conflicted on this whole thing.

Here's just a bit more food for thought:

<ul type="square">[*]Those who rationalize their own detachment from this issue are foolish to do so, for purely pragmatic reasons. I don't mean just rationalizing -- I do that too -- but rationalizing AND reaching the conclusion that it doesn't affect you. Rep. Goodlatte and Sen. Kyl want nothing more than to seize on examples like the OP's to take away our freedoms. Of course it's hypocritical that the Feds have never taken heavy-handed action againsnt the states to stamp out, say, the Virginia lottery or Arizona Indian casinos. But that won't matter if the narrative is entirely constructed by the anti-online-gambling interests out of stories like the OP's. You may think it doesn't affect you, but when the nanny state takes away your freedoms you may reconsider.[*]There's a huge and fascinating element of class conflict here. You see that in the posts above, particularly Quanah Parker's, and he's right. The tragedy that befell the OP's friend is hardly debilitating. (I'm probably not alone here in having been fired from multiple jobs.) A six-figure salary can easily absorb $75k in losses if not for other living above one's means. The well-off generally have resources they can fall back on.

Moreover, distictions of class are one reason I view poker very differently than, say, the state lottery. I would have a much harder time justifying running my own lottery, because I know it disproportionately harms the poor. Certainly not everyone playing poker is rich, but it's hard to look around the table and not infer that most people can afford to donk away several hundred bucks at $1-2 NL. This is one attraction of B&amp;M versus online; at the very least, I wouldn't hesitate to notify casino management if I thought people were playing above their means. But looks can be deceiving, and in the end this is largely a rationalization.
[*]It's alarming to me that anyone would feel defensive about sounding "like a douche" for expressing valid ethical concerns. In fairness no one actually called pizzaro1 anything like that, but I worry that poker culture doesn't look kindly upon weighing the ethical implications of one's decision to play or not to play. I don't see anything judgmental about anyone's posts here -- it's not like anyone's said, "Poker is evil and you're evil for playing it" -- so I don't see the need to pull punches in discussing the societal impact of what we do for fun or for a living.[/list]

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry to hear that your friend has an apparent gambling problem.

While I'd never invite the guy over for a home game, I'd have no problem playing with him in a cardroom or on the net.

[/ QUOTE ]

pretty much my thoughts.

poker education &gt;&gt;&gt; college education

[CaryDarling]

People get ruined by a variety of addictions.
I know people who go broke collecting toys...or having too many cats...or stop working to sit around and record every show imaginable...OCD and compulsive behaviors are a wonderful thing.