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

[Jack Ruby]

Dima,

Players choose the stakes they play at.
Anybody if they wish can play poker for free at many sites if they choose too.

If you want to compete at a certain level, you need to have the game.

Lots of Amateur golfers would love to play Augusta during the masters. Maybe Tiger Woods should be banned.

The poker sites make money by providing a service.

The game is very democratic in nature.
Anybody with skill can compete and those with enough skill can earn a living at it.

No different than any sport.
Similar to golf, the very best receive endorsement income.

[Dima2000123]

[ QUOTE ]
Dima,

Players choose the stakes they play at.
Anybody if they wish can play poker for free at many sites if they choose too.

If you want to compete at a certain level, you need to have the game.

Lots of Amateur golfers would love to play Augusta during the masters. Maybe Tiger Woods should be banned.

The poker sites make money by providing a service.

The game is very democratic in nature.
Anybody with skill can compete and those with enough skill can earn a living at it.

No different than any sport.
Similar to golf, the very best receive endorsement income.

[/ QUOTE ]
What does any of it has to do with professional poker being or not being productive? What you say is true, but it's also entirely irrelevant to the question at hand. The game may be 100% fair and democratic and whatever, but if it's a zero-sum game, then it's not productive. If somebody is making an actual living playing a zero-sum game as opposed to playing it for entertainment, then that someone is having an unproductive job.

[Jack Ruby]

Not a zero sum game.
Provides entertainment for many.
An opportunity to make money for others.

Why is there a distinction between poker players and athletes, actors/artists?

[Jack Ruby]

Dima,

It's the market that sets demand.

It would be easy to argue that Basketball player contribute nothing but people and corporations foot the bill.

Losing players for the most part bankroll the poker scene. No one is forcing them to do so.

You argue that is not what they want.
I would argue that is reality.

[Dima2000123]

[ QUOTE ]
Not a zero sum game.
Provides entertainment for many.
An opportunity to make money for others.

Why is there a distinction between poker players and athletes, actors/artists?

[/ QUOTE ]
The distinction is that entertainment for the players would still be in poker without the pros, probably even more of it. OTOH, without athletes there is no sports for others to watch, without actors there are no movies for others to watch, etc.

[twoblacknines]

Why is this argument still going on? It is simple:

1) Playing poker as a pro doesn't really contribute to society

2) That's ok though, you can contribute in other ways if you feel so compelled.

3) Stop with the "pro's provide entertainment for the average guy wanting to play a game of poker" argument. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If someone wants to find a game online there are thousands of games going. I'm sure they would have no trouble finding a game if pro's didn't exist.

And entertainment? Most online pro's rarely chat. It's the average joe playing online that chats and provides an entertaining atmosphere.

Do you really believe that people wouldn't be able to get poker games going in Vegas without pro's? They sure seem to do just fine getting roulette games going.

[Dima2000123]

[ QUOTE ]

Losing players for the most part bankroll the poker scene. No one is forcing them to do so.


[/ QUOTE ]
Again, it is not necessary to pay the pros to play poker. In fact, most people would rather avoid buying the services of the pro poker player when playing poker if they had a choice. People are sort of forced to play with pros if they want to play poker, you can't walk into a casino and demand to be seated on a table filled only with recreational players. I really don't see what's so hard to comprehend in what I'm saying, so I'm really dumbfounded as to why I have to repeat the same [censored] point over and over again.

[Dima2000123]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is this argument still going on? It is simple:

1) Playing poker as a pro doesn't really contribute to society

2) That's ok though, you can contribute in other ways if you feel so compelled.

3) Stop with the "pro's provide entertainment for the average guy wanting to play a game of poker" argument. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. If someone wants to find a game online there are thousands of games going. I'm sure they would have no trouble finding a game if pro's didn't exist.

And entertainment? Most online pro's rarely chat. It's the average joe playing online that chats and provides an entertaining atmosphere.

Do you really believe that people wouldn't be able to get poker games going in Vegas without pro's? They sure seem to do just fine getting roulette games going.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for reinforcing my feeling of sanity.

[Jack Ruby]

Market place determines demand... not some dudes arguing on the net.

[NYplayer]

My playing poker contributes to society because I can earn the same amount of money in less time than I would at another job. Therefore I have X more hours per week. i can spend those hours with my family, doing social work, etc.

People have said that what a poker player does in his extra time may contribute but that the poker itself doesn't. Well i would argue that since playing poker gives me more time then it contributes to society because I am a slice of society and having more hours to put towards whatever i decide is valuable to me is an increase in productivity.