Poker = A legitimate profession - Help me PROVE please?

[6max6max]

I started playing professionally 2 years ago. I have made 50K+ each of the past two years, yet I still hear "your just a hustler", etc... from one particular family member.

Is there a good book, etc... that offers some backing for the legitimacy of poker. After all, I spent more time learnig/studying this game than I did getting a masters degree before I truly started to "beat the game".

[weknowhowtolive]

There is a book I read that tells you why NOT to play poker for a living....but i think it has a section that shows what you need to be making steadily over x amount hands for variance to drop out and some other crap that might help them, since most of the book is "you wont make it and shouldnt try."

Cant remember the name but its a good book...its green I think....

[PoorTom]

define 'legitimate profession'. define 'hustler'.

you make your living exploiting other people's weaknesses and taking their money. you don't have a genuinely 'productive' job in many ways. hence you can be viewed as a hustler or parasite.

however, you do so within the rules of a game, in which they knew in advance that was your objective. so in that sense, you're justified in doing so and can legitimately claim some higher standing over simple conmen.

who cares how much time you spent learning poker. the fact is playing poker for a living is hardly noble or 'worthy'. it's fun and potentially profitable, but does have an unsavoury side. so do lots of jobs - advertising, stocks trading, arms dealing, whatever. some people don't like those jobs or the people who do them. deal with it.

[LordBaldrick]

Try likening it - that it being professional poker - to being a professional golfer (or any other sport). You are good at something and you get rewarded for that ability. It's true as PoorTom said that you are going to face issues as to your overall contribution to society. Many professions/activities such as futures trading and playing sport are usually done for pure gain by the principals - but in most cases there are some external benefits - albeit minor ones. In the case of futures traders (who are trading/speculating assets both tangible and intangible for pure gain) the argument usually rests in the liquidity benefits they provide the financial markets. In the case of professional sports persons the argument probably lies along the lines of they provide entertainment - an argument that the tournament poker players could also try. And, to a lesser extent, cash game players.

Perhaps a better argument the said family member should put to you is this - that you are not maximising your ability and wealth. All the time and effort (and display of intelligence) you are putting into poker to make $50k/year could be better put towards something else more lucrative. I know this is the issue that troubles me (along with not being good enough!! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img])

Good luck

Another troubled parasite. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Cactus Jack]

The people who are at the poker tables are playing for entertainment. I provide them with competition and fun. I'm an entertainer of sorts, and punch their tickets when they come to play. I provide a service to the community. Everyone needs someone to look down on, and that's the service I provide.

[NickMPK]

I think poker playing is much closer to something like hedge fund managing than professional sports. Professional athletes are paid as entertainers...the amount of money they can make depends on ticket sales/TV right contracts/sponsorship revenue from third parties. They are not making money off the other players (except for golf/pool hustlers).

Poker players are not entertainers, because the poker game would still exist without the professional players. Tournaments like the PPT and PPL were trying to turn poker into more legitimate professional sports, but they appear to have failed so far.

Hedge fund managers make money for themselves and clients by locating inefficiencies in market without actually promoting productive activity (e.g. buying and shorting a stock at the same time). I think that is a better analogy.

[SenecaJim]

[ QUOTE ]
I started playing professionally 2 years ago. I have made 50K+ each of the past two years, yet I still hear "your just a hustler", etc... from one particular family member.

Is there a good book, etc... that offers some backing for the legitimacy of poker. After all, I spent more time learnig/studying this game than I did getting a masters degree before I truly started to "beat the game".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, sounds like your family member has a problem with you playing poker. Years ago our health teacher gave us a book that might help you deal with your disapproving relative. I don't remember the author, but I think it was called " Entering into Manhood ".

[rakemeplz]

You could probably tell each of your opponents that you were professional and it would barely cut into your profits. Hence, you aren't hustling anybody.

[fraac]

I wouldn't bother trying. I tell people I'm a proofreader. If I dressed less shabbily and shaved more often, I'd say air traffic controller.

Gamblers contribute nothing. Economics guy Nassim Nicholas Taleb disputes this, saying "gambling injects currency into economic life in the form of the expectation of future cash transfers and that, and not just narrowly defined 'productive' activities, may make the world advance."

Perhaps so, but I challenge any poker player to feel that. Drug dealers are more worthwhile members of society, in my opinion. They can at least choose the effect they have, for good or for bad, and feel it.

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't bother trying. I tell people I'm a proofreader. If I dressed less shabbily and shaved more often, I'd say air traffic controller.

Gamblers contribute nothing. Economics guy Nassim Nicholas Taleb disputes this, saying "gambling injects currency into economic life in the form of the expectation of future cash transfers and that, and not just narrowly defined 'productive' activities, may make the world advance."

Perhaps so, but I challenge any poker player to feel that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aaron Brown (a frequent 2+2 poster) wrote a book called "The Poker Face of Wall Street." Among other things he pointed out the very real and positive impact of what was essentially gambling on the developing frontier in the 1800s. Specifically this revolved around "soft money banks" in a new town. Because the banks didn't have any hard assests to back up their currency and the currency was only accepted in the immediate area everyone was "gambling" that the town would be a success. If it wasn't the result was a domino effect where businesses went under and the bank soon followed leaving everyone broke. Lots of other examples in the book that give you a different perspective on the potential positive effects of "gambling."