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

[Lyric]

[ QUOTE ]
I find these threads so dumb, why do they always go to 20+ pages? No the act of playing poker isn't exactly a great contribution to society. Who cares? Just as it wouldn't be great to watch TV or play video games for 14 hours in a day, you shouldn't play poker 14 hours in a day on a regular basis.

Do you think they have these mindless threads at the World of Warcraft server all the time? Just because you can make money at poker doesn't make it any different. Not every single action that you take has to be some major contribution to society. Just use the rest of your time wisely and you can rest easy that you are a great contributing to the world. Worst case, make lots of money playing poker, donate it. Money and time both have value to society, and often money has more value.

[/ QUOTE ]

WFT

[Abbaddabba]

[ QUOTE ]
Take one line worker out and there may be minimal social impact, I agree. But now try taking out all the line workers. Now how about all the doctors and nurses and police. Your example only works on a micro scale. There are also some job markets that are already short of workers, so each one you remove cannot be replaced easily, and the social impact is much greater.

[/ QUOTE ]


We're individuals, making individual decisions, being judged for individual contributions.


But if you want to go down that route, the whole industry of litigation could be done away with and society would be BETTER off. Remove one lawyer, it makes no difference because it's a drop in the ocean and others can move in to fill the gap. Remove all lawyers though, and cases will be more often decided on merit, while eliminating the burden of paying a [censored] ton to 'keep up with the joneses' just to be given a fair shot in court.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not defining a pro as a winning player. I am defining a pro as someone who has no other occupation aside from playing poker. I am saying that poker would survive without any 9-5 fulltime poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

And im saying that any time there is an opportunity for someone to make enough money to sustain themselves, there will be people who choose to do so.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's not a similar argument

[Daddys_Visa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Take one line worker out and there may be minimal social impact, I agree. But now try taking out all the line workers. Now how about all the doctors and nurses and police. Your example only works on a micro scale. There are also some job markets that are already short of workers, so each one you remove cannot be replaced easily, and the social impact is much greater.

[/ QUOTE ]


We're individuals, making individual decisions, being judged for individual contributions.


But if you want to go down that route, the whole industry of litigation could be done away with and society would be BETTER off. Remove one lawyer, it makes no difference because it's a drop in the ocean and others can move in to fill the gap. Remove all lawyers though, and cases will be more often decided on merit, while eliminating the burden of paying a [censored] ton to 'keep up with the joneses' just to be given a fair shot in court.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not defining a pro as a winning player. I am defining a pro as someone who has no other occupation aside from playing poker. I am saying that poker would survive without any 9-5 fulltime poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

And im saying that any time there is an opportunity for someone to make enough money to sustain themselves, there will be people who choose to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're going off on a tangent here, and I'm not going to debate the value of lawyers because I know little more of the profession than what I see on TV. I imagine there is a lawyer or two in this thread who can explain better than I the areas of our society in which they perform services no one else can do. But if you were accused of a crime you didnt commit, and you weren't educated or intelligent enough to make a coherent argument in your defence, I think you would find real value in lawyers.

And yes, poker is a means to make money and as such people will do it, that is self-evident. The debate is whether society at all benefits significantly from that decision. Is society improved in any way by their vocation? Do they provide a service that would not exist without them?

[Mitch Evans]

What the hell is there to debate? Of course it doesn't contribute to society, but who cares? If you feel the need to contribute, go do volunteer work at a local hospital or something. If not, dont. What you do for a living does not define who you are as a person, nor should you care what others’ perceptions of you are based solely on your means of livelihood.

People who bag on poker players for not contributing to society, by playing for a living, probably have a job they hate and wish they could sit on their ass, collect money, and not contribute, too. People who play for a living that get defensive and rationalize ways their play actually contributes, are only offended because they realize the people bagging on them are correct.

[Abbaddabba]

[ QUOTE ]
But if you were accused of a crime you didnt commit, and you weren't educated or intelligent enough to make a coherent argument in your defence, I think you would find real value in lawyers.

[/ QUOTE ]

The crown is forced to argue vigorously against the defense because they know that you have a specialist who will fight tooth and nail to deceive the courts in your favor.

Even though i was talking about civil cases and not criminal law, it applies to an extent there too. It would just take a few adjustments to the crown/bench to work things out.

You'd have lawyers defending their position because, well, they're lawyers. Im not saying theyre useless as individuals. Im saying as a whole, the system would be better off with reforms so they would be made obsolete.

[ QUOTE ]
The debate is whether society at all benefits significantly from that decision. Is society improved in any way by their vocation? Do they provide a service that would not exist without them?

[/ QUOTE ]

And i explained earlier posts why. In midstakes hold em online for instance, most games in would not run without the presence of props and other professionals - or if they did, they would die off significantly faster. This is more significant in smaller sites, because they represent less efficient markets than larger and more active sites. It is comparable to the labour market comparison - when there are fewer individuals, there is a greater surplus to the other side. When it is perfectly competitive (pros are filling in seats as fast as they come), the benefit approaches zero.

This is why sites give out prop accounts in the first place.

If they dont exist, games on those smaller sites tend to either not start or die quick, offering people fewer options.


Professional players improve the efficiency of meeting a recreational player with his/her need to play the stakes that they want, when they want, on the site that they want.

That is the product/service they are paying a premium price for (on account of playing against better players).


And like i already explained, credit cards are the best analogy. You pay a higher price for a product that is comparable to what a bank offers in the form of a line of credit, but often people choose to carry debt on a cc just because it is convenient. That is what they are being sold. Convenience.

[Fedorfan]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless it is televised, poker is just an isolated event inside some room. Nobody not at that table benefit from the game taking place.

Televised poker could be considered entertainment, in the same way as football games, and has a purpose in society.

The society needs leaders (e.g. The President).
The society needs lawyers.
The society needs doctors.
The society needs bank clerks.

I have problems finding any profession that is comparable to poker players in terms of society uselessness.

Edit: Taxes do contribute to society. I'm looking past that right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could certainly argue that their are jobs that actually have more of a overall negative contribution like lobbyists, who you could argue have corrupted our political process, leading to a climate of corporatism.

Advertising and marketing, what would the country look like without the billions of dollars spent annually marketing junk food and soda, and creating other unnecessary demands and wants... well we'd probably be as a nation less fat overall, and have less credit card debt as a whole.

You could argue that investors can hurt society, when the 90's dot.com bubble burst and millions of regular people lost a lot of money in the stock market because they were the fish.

[mce86]

FINAL ANSWER!
pro poker does not contrinute anything to society. it simply supports you financially. there are other jobs like that.....sort of like the entertainment and sport industry. But, you do still copntribute by paying taxes and ideally raising your children to be prodctive citizens. Ya, it sucks that poker has no status as a contributor...but neither does winning the lotto!! would anyone turn that down..no. Im a teacher, and I think poker playing could get me twice the money...but i dont want to give it up...i guess because alot of us at the end of the day want to look back and say you made the world better....well, you can, just not because of poker, but what you do because of the money you have from poker.

[MarkD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How many jobs actually contribute to society?

[/ QUOTE ]

probably like 99% of jobs. off the top of my head, i can't think of a single "real job" that doesn't contribute. examples?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I haven't read this whole thread but was going to respond without reading more but this quote is a perfect entry point.

Fundamentally I disagree with this. I work in the oil and gas world. I am engineer who helps design control systems that help oil and gas facilities run properly and run safely. I contribute to society, but I contribute in a negative way. I think a lot of our jobs that contribute to society contribute in a negative way.

I know I am going to need to expand on that, so I will. I am not an activist or an environmentalist but regardless of that I fully understand that the culture we live in is raping our planet and for what? Economics. So do I contribute to the economic foundation of society? Yes, I do. Does a poker player? No, he does not. Do I contribute to the environmental foundation of society? Yes, I do - in a negative way. Does a poker player? No, he does not - in anyway. So although poker players do not actively contribute to society they also do nothing to harm society either, so they are somewhat neutral.

As small of a distinction as that is I think it is an important one.

[mce86]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is my take on why there is value in being a professional poker player...it is essentially an elaboration on how pros provide entertainment.

In general, there is value created when human beings choose to cooperate with one another. Cooperation allows us to live longer and healthier lives. Anything that tends to initiate cooperation, regardless of its direct rationality, productivity, etc., is therefore valuable. Poker is a social game that can spark or strengthen relationships among the people playing, which can lead to increased cooperation down the road. The value of this future cooperation is speculative, but it is no doubt very real. Most entertaining activities fall under this heading.

Now, the average citizen may choose one of many things on any particular day to socialize, cooperate, what have you. It is important for a complex society to have many available choices, as the availability of variety strengthens the overall willingness of its citizens to persist as cooperative individuals. Average Joe goes out drinking one night, he sees a movie another night, and he goes to the casino (or plays on the internet) on yet another night. In order to do all of this, Joe shows up to work every day.

Casinos and professional gamblers have struck a symbiotic relationship: those who gamble every day show up so that there is always a game, and in exchange, the casino pays the bills and lets them hang out to make profit. On any given day, perhaps half of the players are taken from that tiny fraction of the overall population that is "pro," but the other half is taken from a much larger sample of recreational players who are enjoying the benefits of the society that they have helped create. Servers/bartenders have a similar relationship with restaurants/bars.

The fact that one can make money playing poker is only a side effect of the fact that it is socially valuable, and is irrelevant, since there are plenty of worthwhile activities that are not monetarily profitable. The tax argument is also irrelevant, as it is a side effect of one being able to make money.

And all of the people spouting crap like "if you can't justify your own profession then it is because there is no justification" need to realize that the failure of one's intellect is not an insight into the nature of reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL......being intelligent, doesnt make you right.
I suppose strip clubs contribute to society because males like to "socilize" and help beautiful women support themselves! It is entertainment, nothing more. Online pros...they dont even contribute that, so they are even more useless....but rich!
If Jesus returned and took ALL professional poker players with him (since most think they are divene anyway), the world wouldnt skip a beat!