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

[southerndog]

Doesn't the stock market present a way for people to invest their money in companies, there for giving companies more capital to get bigger?

[SlowHabit]

[ QUOTE ]
theres no argument agaisnt it because theyre right.

so? ty for your money dumbasses now i go snort coke from a bunch of silicontits, have fun at your job sucker.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is hands-down the best answer in the thread.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
theres no argument agaisnt it because theyre right.

so? ty for your money dumbasses now i go snort coke from a bunch of silicontits, have fun at your job sucker.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is hands-down the best answer in the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

"a bunch of silicontits" is a pretty cool expression

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
By and large, "society" is composed of idiots, a-holes, and douchebags. Why would I want to give anything to these people?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I think poker helps bring all the idiots, a-holes, and douchebags in to casinos or in front of their computer so more productive people can be left alone to "contribute" to society.

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe in capitalism? If you believe in capitalism; you believe in the invisible hand theory, and if you believe in the invisible hand theory; then being a professional poker player is ultimately productive.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe in the invisible hand, and no person educated in economics should believe in the invisible hand theory. What every educated person should do is understand the invisible hand theory. They should understand what makes invisible hand work when it does work, and what makes it fail to work when it fails to work.

What makes invisible hand fail to work are the externalities. If I produce something that enriches me by $1,000, but in the process I inflict $2,000 worth of damage to the environment, then I'm not being productive. I'm actually being destructive, I'm leaving society $1,000 poorer by my activities, and yet the invisible hand doesn't stop me. I get my profit, and I don't care that other people have to pony up $2,000 to clean up after me. That $2,000 is the externality.

Invisible hand works only when there are no externalities. Poker players are obviously inflicting an externality during the course of their work, their win comes directly from somebody else's loss. Therefore, invisible hand doesn't work, and you can stop invoking it in a belief that it magically proves your point with no effort required on your part.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are laws against polluting and damaging the environment. Can you cite a case of a company causing more damge to the environment then they produce? Their are many cases of companies being forced to spend milions to clean up spills of hazerdous material or waste.

The Invisible hand works quite well. Don't you ever marvel at the nearly infinite amount of goods and services readily available to you day or night? How do you think that happens?

[Adebisi]

[ QUOTE ]
you could argue that because trading improves the efficiency and liquidity of markets, everyone benefits. it reduces the likelihood of market crashes and stabilizes the economy overall. i'd say traders contribute more than your average poker player, but that's not to say they contribute a whole lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can make a similar argument for poker. Because of inefficiencies in the system, sometimes dumb people wind up with much more money than they're supposed to have. We try to set things right again. We help reduce the variance in the game of life.

[gisb0rne]

[ QUOTE ]
What do actors or actresses contribute?

When Demi Moore got paid $20,000,000 to pretend she would spread her legs for $1,000,000 who did that really help?

Poker pros offer the public entertainment just like casinos, artists, etc.

Does Kobe Bryant really contribute anything to society? How does the Lakers losing a basketball game help anybody?

You could make the case all professions are market dictated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Demi Moore provides entertainment, the proof of which is the tickets sold to see her movies and hence why she is paid a lot of money. There are poker players who do the same, some of the ones who are on TV and/or write books. Playing professionally on the internet or in a casino does not provide entertainment because the entertainment is provided by the existence of the game itself, not by what the pro brings to it. If all the poker pros vanished the poker games would still be running. In fact, the games would be better entertainment because the fish would win more often and lose less (over a given time period). The vast majority of pro poker players actually have a negative value and I can't think of any other occupation with that quality.

[supafrey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By and large, "society" is composed of idiots, a-holes, and douchebags. Why would I want to give anything to these people?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I think poker helps bring all the idiots, a-holes, and douchebags in to casinos or in front of their computer so more productive people can be left alone to "contribute" to society.

[/ QUOTE ]

bingo, bango boomo. I contribute to society by babysitting special ed kids for 3-4 hours at a time at Niagara.

[Abbaddabba]

[ QUOTE ]
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.



[/ QUOTE ]


Online, many (if not most) midstakes limit games would not run without props on all but the largest sites.

And i dont think it's a fair statement to say that people prefer to play against bad players. You're framing their preferences how you want, in the context that they arent rational decision makers.

I think that the best analogy is credit card debt. People are vaguely aware of the price they are being charged; they can usually find a better price if they shop around, but the convenience of the product coupled with the perceived value of it stops them from caring.


I wouldnt say that someone who carries debt on a credit card when they would qualify for a line of credit at 6% annually is being screwed. Credit card companies are offering them a service for a price, and they are choosing to pay for it. They are better off than if the credit card company did not exist.

[Jack Ruby]

Gisborne,

There will always be skill differences between the players. Take away the top 10 players, and now the next 10 are the "Top 10". Making all the pro's vanish will just reduce the overall # of players. There will always be more skilled players.

You don't have to be on TV to provide entertainment. The competition is entertainment in itself.

Clearly the masses of losing players are choosing how to spend their time. You argue the are not being entertained. Pretty clear to me they could do something else if that is what they preferred.

The poker pro's are able to make a living because losing players choose to compete with them.

Just because people don't "need" competition, well they don't need a lot of things. Movies, ice cream, basketball games, silicone... scrath that about silicone but you should get the drift.

There clearly is a demand for competition at poker.

If you get down to it, 90% of all jobs provide bs unneeded services. Anything other than scientific research, food and shelter production are kind of unnecessary.

I would argue a poker player has a much more honest job than an actor. Someone plunks down $20 for movie tickets, $15 for concessions and watches someone pretending to be something...
vs matching wits vs a tough poker opponent.

Don't know how you can say one is entertainment and the other is not.