Poker is neither moral nor immoral - maybe

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe poker causes more good to people (in form of money & entertainment) than bad, since most losing players don't lose too much money compared to how much they own.

[/ QUOTE ]
Poker is a zero-sum game when you include all players (meaning including the rake, tips, etc).

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not necessarily a zero-sum game if you also value the entertainment and not just profit.

[Double Down]

Great discussion. I have been a professional poker player for two years now and have on occasion struggled with the morality issue (the issue being whether or not there is a morality issue). I would think that my job was essentially to take people's money and I did not offer any sort of product or service in return. At least the kid at McDonald's gives the customer a crappy burger. What was my service?
This thinking would really bring me down, and interestingly enough would have a major effect on my poker results. I would lose a lot, even though my play was the exact same (SNG specialist, ABC pushbot poker, but I would run terribly)

But this is faulty thinking. First of all, I do offer a service, and that is the service of a person to play poker against. Yes, the other players provide the exact same service for me. But it's not as if I am seeking out people to take advantage of. Besides, on any given day, a player that is less skilled than me could take my money.

The much deeper philosophical truth here is that we are placing moral values on certain unbiased actions and things such as winning, losing, money, and why people play poker.

It is we who are making the assumptions that winning=good, losing=bad, and that the reason why people play poker is for the money.

We do not know what is best for other people. Sometimes people aren't even aware of what is best for themselves. They may claim that they play to win, but it could be that the reason why some people continuously play badly and lose is because at some level, they need to have this experience of losing to come away with some sort of life lesson.

Basically, we are 100% responsible and in control of what happens to ourselves. Similarly, other people are 100% responsible for themselves.

If we beat someone at poker and they lose money, it is 100% their decision if they decide to come away from this experience negatively.

My .02

[kerowo]

Is eating immoral because some people overeat? How about drinking? Maybe team sports? Poker is not very different from those except the not needing it to live thing. Anything can be abused or done to the point of harm, that doesn't make it immoral. It makes the person who is being harmed and continues the activity a poor decision maker.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Great discussion. I have been a professional poker player for two years now and have on occasion struggled with the morality issue (the issue being whether or not there is a morality issue). I would think that my job was essentially to take people's money and I did not offer any sort of product or service in return. At least the kid at McDonald's gives the customer a crappy burger. What was my service?
This thinking would really bring me down, and interestingly enough would have a major effect on my poker results. I would lose a lot, even though my play was the exact same (SNG specialist, ABC pushbot poker, but I would run terribly)

But this is faulty thinking. First of all, I do offer a service, and that is the service of a person to play poker against. Yes, the other players provide the exact same service for me. But it's not as if I am seeking out people to take advantage of. Besides, on any given day, a player that is less skilled than me could take my money.

The much deeper philosophical truth here is that we are placing moral values on certain unbiased actions and things such as winning, losing, money, and why people play poker.

It is we who are making the assumptions that winning=good, losing=bad, and that the reason why people play poker is for the money.

We do not know what is best for other people. Sometimes people aren't even aware of what is best for themselves. They may claim that they play to win, but it could be that the reason why some people continuously play badly and lose is because at some level, they need to have this experience of losing to come away with some sort of life lesson.

Basically, we are 100% responsible and in control of what happens to ourselves. Similarly, other people are 100% responsible for themselves.

If we beat someone at poker and they lose money, it is 100% their decision if they decide to come away from this experience negatively.

My .02

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying professional poker playing is immoral. But this is not a good defense of your trade. You are not providing them 'someone else to play against' because there are plenty of people for them to play against...plenty of amateurs. If you are a prop or a shill or something, and you actually are keeping games running, thats a slightly different issue. But you aren't just some warm body...you are a professional.

[BIG NIGE]

If poker is neither moral nor immoral, then it must be amoral.

[chillrob]

I have read some books (can't remember which now) in which a professional has claimed that he provided "entertainment" for the losers. However, as vhawk said, there are plenty of amateurs that are just as fun to play with as the average professional, and probably more fun, as a losing player might not lose as quickly against them.

However, I know some players enjoy playing against the very big-name pros just to be able to say they played against them, so they are definately providing entertainment (like when a fish gets busted at the WSOP by Brunson and has a story to tell for the rest of their lives). Mike Caro's stories about playing with a crazy image back in the day always sounded like it would be entertaining to play with him.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker is a zero-sum game when you include all players (meaning including the rake, tips, etc).


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not necessarily a zero-sum game if you also value the entertainment and not just profit.


[/ QUOTE ]


All gambling games are zero sum (or positive ) if you look at it this way. Most anytime two parties enter into a voluntary transaction, at the very least you are looking at zero sum and usually positive sum ( or increased wealth ) to the system.

Where the negative sum aspect of certain rare transactions, such as a seller selling heroin, comes into play is when one party to the transaction is making an irrational decision that results in more harm to him and those surrounding him then the good (or entertainment )that was derived.

With certain people, gambling games will sometimes fall into this negative sum category. My question is: do we, as beneficiary parties to the transaction, owe a moral duty to those few persons who will be harmed? Do we have a responsibility, from a moral perspective, to try to figure out who the irrational players are and not play with them? Especially when we know in advance that we will likely run across a few.

[lucksack]

It's immoral to let the sucker keep his money.

[arahant]

Here's my take, and it crosses several of the replies, so I just made my reply to yukon...

I don't believe in some sort of ultimate morality, so I'm not going to claim that poker is right or wrong. And of course, I play, or I wouldn't be here.

At the same time, I don't see how one can consider poker moral under any common definition. You mention being able to be charitable more, which would clearly be a moral 'plus', but I think that the very existence of poker games leads to suffering. And not just for the losers, either. I truly believe that I would be a 'better' person not playing.

When you play live, if you pay attention, you'll see the suffering on almost everyone's face (I know that sounds touchy-feely). So many people are angry, or upset, or arrogant, or mean-spirited, or whatever...the emotions at the tables I've played at are just overwhelmingly negative.

This doesn't really apply to either home games, or higher stakes games, but for the vast majority of casino players, I think it does. And I'm not sure how to feel about online or tournaments, either, but I irrespective of the quality of the opposition, I truly believe that poker causes suffering.

That said...conflict is part of life, the mass of people will always have suffering, there is no such thing as a genuine morality, etc...

But if you object to suffering, then if you MUST play, do your best to make everyone have a good time...That's what I do to ameliorate my guilt [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I have read some books (can't remember which now) in which a professional has claimed that he provided "entertainment" for the losers. However, as vhawk said, there are plenty of amateurs that are just as fun to play with as the average professional, and probably more fun, as a losing player might not lose as quickly against them.

However, I know some players enjoy playing against the very big-name pros just to be able to say they played against them, so they are definately providing entertainment (like when a fish gets busted at the WSOP by Brunson and has a story to tell for the rest of their lives). Mike Caro's stories about playing with a crazy image back in the day always sounded like it would be entertaining to play with him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Phil Ivey and Doyle Brunson are somewhat of a different story.