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

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Someone once compared a professional poker player to a drug dealer and to be honest, I don't think he was that far off. It went something like poker players sell a certain rush, some sort of dream of a better place for the losing player for a while, and then finally the 'pro' ends up with most of his money and the loser leaves feeling empty, discouraged and not feeling good about his losses. Sort of what you feel after doing some extacy, coke or another drug. Obviously not the same feeling but you get the point.


[/ QUOTE ]

its not at all the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, I think it's a really bad comparison, totally unfair on the drug dealers. Drugs actually provide real value to the user. Playing poker is far more predatory.

[Daddys_Visa]

Poker pros are not really providing any net benefit to society by paying taxes, since that money lost by the fish would have been spent/lost in other areas of the economy and the taxes would have been paid by whoever else received that money.

Most poker games would run regularly, and would be more fun to the average Joe if pros weren't at the table. The rare bird may enjoy playing the best players to challenge themselves, but I am quite sure most recreational players would rather have a sporting chance playing other fish than an expensive lesson from a pro.

I agree that celebrity poker players contribute by providing entertainment, but the other 99% of poker pros can't use this excuse, especially internet nits (and please don't try to include entertaining degenerate fanboi railbirds, that's a weak argument).

I agree that the other 99% of poker players are not unlike the other 99% of any sport who never make the big leagues. None of them really provide anything susbstantial to society.

Poker pros are not unique IMO as far as being generally useless to society, there are certainly other professions like this, but that does not make the poker pro position any more tenable. There have been dozens of arguments in this thread using this as justification for acquitting the poker pro, but they all amount to "Well, X and Y jobs are also useless, so that makes it OK for me to be useless too." Sorry, but you can't get off that easy.

As an aside, I think a large number of poker pros have done a great disservice to society. Highly college educated, intelligent people are overrepresented in the poker pro community. While there are a few notable exceptions, these pros are completely wasting the intellectual and financial investment that society has put in them. They have taken spots in competitive programs that may have gone to people who would use that education for something society needs. They have the skills and intellect to have huge positive impacts on society, but instead choose to grind money in a zero-sum game that wouldn't change the world if it was wiped from existence tomorrow. Most of the poker pros I personally know make pretty good money from what I concede is an honest living, but I truly believe that they could make just as much if not more if they put the same effort into their respective fields as they put into poker, with winners all around.

That being said, I don't hate poker. I respect the game for being one of the purest, fairest forms of competition out there. But I simply take exception with the poker pros who continue to contend that they are making a real difference to society.

Daddys_Visa

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
As an aside, I think a large number of poker pros have done a great disservice to society. Highly college educated, intelligent people are overrepresented in the poker pro community. While there are a few notable exceptions, these pros are completely wasting the intellectual and financial investment that society has put in them. They have taken spots in competitive programs that may have gone to people who would use that education for something society needs. They have the skills and intellect to have huge positive impacts on society, but instead choose to grind money in a zero-sum game that wouldn't change the world if it was wiped from existence tomorrow. Most of the poker pros I personally know make pretty good money from what I concede is an honest living, but I truly believe that they could make just as much if not more if they put the same effort into their respective fields as they put into poker, with winners all around.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a very good point. there are a lot of very intelligent people in poker who would likely be extremely successful/productive in whatever they choose to do. and it's not like the occupations they would have filled otherwise will now just be filled by other people. there's a shortage of extremely smart people in the world. it's a bunch of top minds essentially gone to waste.

[HobbyHorse]

[ QUOTE ]
society is the people of the world as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

And your definition of "contribute" is...

[ QUOTE ]
barry g's contribution is spreading wealth. there isn't really added value. it's possible, maybe even likely, that he spreads the money out more efficiently and society benefits as a whole, but that's a more complicated discussion than i'm going to get into.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this make Barry G any different than any other celebrity, i.e., Angelina Jolie, Bono, etc., that support charitable causes? They too merely "spread the wealth around" [and also attract publicity and attention to their causes]. Why do you not consider this to be a sufficient contribution to society? What else should - or even could - they be doing, according to you? Again, what is your defintion of "contribute"?

[ QUOTE ]

good intent is not equal to productivity. paying taxes is hardly acting in good faith. it's simply abiding by the law.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who said good intent was equal to productivity - that was not an implication of my argument. You claim that people pay taxes because it is the law - so people merely give money to the government without any expectation of a return? Next, you'll be arguing that America is not a capitalist society, I suppose...

[ QUOTE ]
or you could make the same contribution by simply not existing. that has the added benefit that you wouldn't be consuming any valuable resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet even if I didn't exist, poker would still contribute to society by teaching some other poor slob the value of patience.

[Tien]

Just to make a little side comment, when a fish deposits money in an online poker site, that money is essentially lost for a long time.

There are only 2 ways that money can exit the poker site:

1) Poker pro withdraws - Poker player pays taxes and consumes.
2) Rake eats it up - Diksit takes it and puts it into his already fat bank account.



It's not like the fish would have spent the money somewhere else if the poker pro didn't take it.

It's either poker pro gets it or pokersite owner gets it.

[southerndog]

I agree with the statement. Who cares though. The fact that people are grasping at straws in this thread only further proves the point. Being a poker player is something you have to come to grips with.

"Just to make a little side comment, when a fish deposits money in an online poker site, that money is essentially lost for a long time.

There are only 2 ways that money can exit the poker site:

1) Poker pro withdraws - Poker player pays taxes and consumes.
2) Rake eats it up - Diksit takes it and puts it into his already fat bank account.



It's not like the fish would have spent the money somewhere else if the poker pro didn't take it.

It's either poker pro gets it or pokersite owner gets it. "

I agree with this 100%, and this is one of the things that makes me feel ok about it... Is there a problem that some players were able to beat Black Jack,, and some aren't? The money is just cycled differently.

[fslexcduck]

haven't read the thread but...

they're right. similar thing is trading. anything 0 sum, basically by definition, does not contribute anything to society. hence zero sum. that's pretty much my main problem with it in general

(and why i spend a good chunk of my time doing other things that do contribute. and why i don't plan to make a career out of this and am going to law school next year).

[AKA Squared]

[ 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 ]

I don't think anyone has ever believed in an "invisible hand theory" in the sense you're trying to refute here. Certainly Adam Smith didn't believe the market was or contained a genie whose job it was to make everything perfect. All he actually said is that most people make their money by selling something that other people want.

[AKA Squared]

[ QUOTE ]
I, for one, am not proud when saying I'm a professional poker player. But I just can't see a way out of it as long as I'm making the kind of money I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

And that makes you a whore.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
haven't read the thread but...

they're right. similar thing is trading. anything 0 sum, basically by definition, does not contribute anything to society. hence zero sum. that's pretty much my main problem with it in general.

[/ 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.