would be very difficult since people have diff def of moral, tbh i dont see a problem with it. 
Notifications
Clear all
I look at it as providing entertainment and competition value to less skilled players in exchange for their money. The alternative is playing against bots, and they can already do that on their phones...
If you had the chance to play a top level pro for $1000, say Phil Ivey - with one buy in, and that's your entire bankroll, you might just do it for the experience value, even though you know you will likely get crushed. So when you take that recreational player's buy in - you did provide some good competition, possibly some excitement, and the thrill of the chance of beating a better player. A win win.
Of course there are those with gambling problems, and continually taking advantage of people you know are prone to losing lots of money - well, that's a grey area. On one hand you are providing their 'fix' and if you didn't, they would get it somewhere else. In the end they need to hit bottom, and helping them on their way quicker might even open up the opportunity for their salvation. I don't think it's within our ability to exercise fair total moral judgement in such cases.
When good players play against better players and are beaten, what can be immoral about it? If poker were a game of pure luck or everyone played optimally I might find more profitable pursuits for my time.
Great thread! This is one of the reasons why I haven't played much poker since I first joined PS in 2010. There has been one or two times now that I destroyed all my poker possessions and have since reaccrued them. Well some I've lost for good, like my license and copy of Poker Academy Pro and a Pokerstars shirt that I ordered with my VIP points.
I love poker and gambling yet I wonder if it's good. It's not really providing a valuable service to anyone, unless someday I get on TV and entertain people. Taking money from the casino playing a game like BlackJack though, that seems quite moral to me because casinos have no problems taking money from others. But then how do I spend that money after? Just on myself?
I certainly wouldn't support the government limiting gambling in anyway, because that is not the role of government. As soon as a government begins to do things out of "care" for the people, liberties begin to be trampled on as the government becomes increasingly "caring." No. The founders of the USA intended for government to exist only to preserve liberties, not to take them away. We have forgotten this truth in the western world. Now we let our governments take our liberties away to protect us from "terrorists."
The role of government is to preserve liberty, and thereby give freedom of religion. It is the role of religion in a free society to create morality amongst the people. No government is or has ever been capable of legislating morality. They can only succeed at giving people more laws to break, which makes it ever easier for people to become criminals. Guilt leads to more law-breaking and yuck, it just never works!
Originally posted by ihufasportsteams don't pay to participate in leagues, sponsors pay for them. if u believe in god then gambling is for sure immoral, but u can try to rationalize it saying the fish would've lost the money to someone else etc. Im sure there's also bible quotes which say u mustn't gamble.
Actually the Bible doesn't say a word about gambling. The fact that it says nothing speaks volumes, because I'm quite sure gambling existed way back in Moses' day. But the Bible does talk about being responsible with money and of course being kind and helpful to others.
Originally posted by Navrark
Actually the Bible doesn't say a word about gambling. The fact that it says nothing speaks volumes, because I'm quite sure gambling existed way back in Moses' day
It sure did. Gambling was very popular from the very beginning of civilization. I really can't decide whether this is a trolling thread, or a serious case is being made.
I mean if you think gambling's not for you, don't do it. If you think poker's not for you, don't do it. I, for example, don't eat veggies. They are not for me, yet i haven't asked anyone that they shouldn't eat them because i think it's immoral to stop a sallad grow.
But back on point, the only reason the goverments don't like it these days, is because they fear they are loosing taxable $$$ this way.
It's absurd how they want to ban online gambling because "it ruins families". Really? Really? And what prevents the guy who would ruin his family online, to walk in a casino 100m from his home and gamble everything there?
Not to mention that we got dragged into talking about poker like it's gambling, as we all know poker is a game of skill not luck.
I wonder if playing chess is immoral as well 
Maybe you will say that I'm stupid, but I think that playing Cash Game is immoral and playing Tournaments is moral.
If we look at Cash Games, we sit at the table with our money under the form of chips, and the other opponent is doing the same. So we playing trying to outsmart our opponent and take his money. This is not an moral thing to do.
But if we look at Tournaments the situation is a bit different. We and all the other players pay a fee to enter and play the tournament. The money that we give on the fee are not refundable, and we receive in exchange a stack of chips. But in comparison with the chips that we have at a cash table, this chips are just chips, are not money anymore.
So at a tournament we as the other players play with a stack of "normal chips" in front of us, to get on the highest position in tournament and win the most money. Because here we do not play with money anymore and just with chips, makes this form of poker moral. Is like playing High School football with the coaches betting on the side.
Originally posted by User92
Maybe you will say that I'm stupid
yes
actually well, i don't intend to come off as harsh. but you could argue that you are just buying chips when you sit in a cash game (like in actual casinos)...
i don't think anyone can honestly say that certain forms of poker are more "moral" than others. it's pretty obvious that the potential for "degeneration" exists in every single damn poker variant
Originally posted by User92
Maybe you will say that I'm stupid, but I think that playing Cash Game is immoral and playing Tournaments is moral.
If we look at Cash Games, we sit at the table with our money under the form of chips, and the other opponent is doing the same. So we playing trying to outsmart our opponent and take his money. This is not an moral thing to do.
Hi, User92...
If all the players are willing participants where is this wrong?
Whether in a tournament or cash, players put money at risk.
If one player is weaker -- and another player knows it -- is it wrong to take their money?
I don't see how. The weaker player is playing the game by their own choice, and may even be playing the game in order to learn. The weaker player may even think he is better.
Think of boxing. If you are a good boxer, it is morally wrong (and even illegal in some places) to fight someone on the street even if they pick the fight. But if someone gets in the ring with you, it is perfectly fine. Then again, I suppose there are some people who think prize fights are morally wrong.
I guess it comes down to what you think. If you think it is wrong to play cash games, then by all means stick to tournaments.
Peace,
VS
it is never that we are to decide what we can or cannot do that is immoral. It is always immoral for a government or 3rd party to impose restrictions on our freedom. The freedom to gamble with our money is one such restriction. You cannot say, the possibility of loss of money trumps our right to freedom, and therefore it is moral to take away such freedom.
That is not logical, and it is not moral...it is a symptom of a person that does not know their own inherent rights.Moral Poker is very simply something to only consider in the eyes of the individuals' rights to do as they choose, provided they do not force harm upon another. In this case the other person is not being forced and they choose to participate, which again, is THEIR natural right.
This is why, this definition of "moral poker" is important: https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/moral-poker/
Otherwise uneducated peoples, and players will argue against such obvious and tautological reasoning.
Originally posted by JohnSmith5555
it is never that we are to decide what we can or cannot do that is immoral. It is always immoral for a government or 3rd party to impose restrictions on our freedom. The freedom to gamble with our money is one such restriction. You cannot say, the possibility of loss of money trumps our right to freedom, and therefore it is moral to take away such freedom.
Hi, JohnSmith5555,
You make an interesting point here. I think that it is the role of government to impose reasonable restrictions as necessary for the orderly operation of the society that they govern. That said, if two people want to play poker, and both agree beforehand on the rules and conditions of the game, and both are adhering to those rules and conditions, then government has no place in the transaction. Governments are quite right in imposing fines and penalties for players and poker rooms that break the rules.
The role of government in a democracy is to ensure that the society operates in an orderly manner, and to protect the population from the overbearing power of the powerful. Thus we have labour laws, minimum wages and so on. In the past 30 years or so, though we have seen a huge shift toward governments protecting the strong against the weak. The recent bank collapse in the US was entirely because governments had removed restrictions on borrowing that were designed to protect people from getting too far into debt. What the banks did to thousands of Americans was (in my opinion only) totally immoral, yet perfectly legal.
Similarly, the "Black Friday" shutdown of the two largest poker rooms was (again, my opinion only) the result of governments passing laws at the request of US gambling interests who did not like seeing "their" profits going offshore.
There is a saying, "Your freedom to swing your arm stops at the end of my nose". In other words, we should only be free to do what we wish to the extent that no harm comes to others.
When two people play poker, no harm comes to either. You can't count the loss of money as harm. There is a risk/benefit trade-off. They put money at risk to realize a potential benefit, which did not materialize. Later it may.
Great topic!
VS
Ah well said Vorpal, and I definitely intended to mean what you point out, which has been extensively explained throughout the topic of "Ideal Poker" as an extension of Nick Szabo's works (Szabo is well known in the bitcoin community as the man behind the entire bitcoin project) , and specifically under the phrase "principle of least authority".
Poker's Version:
https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2014/10/23/poker-as-a-micro-kernal-dao/
In relation to global "law" and governing powers:
http://szabo.best.vwh.net/delegation.pdf
(btw extremely refreshing to view and read such logic from another poster!)
At a certain degree it will always be immoral, call me a dirty communist , but anyone who isnt doing productive work as a member of a society, is somewhat immoral. Not to mention that professionals take the money of weaker personality people, who have gambling issues, on a daily basis. The morality of this activity is very close to drug dealing, you cant just say that "they deserve it, they shouldnt go and buy drugs", and you also cant say "they are grown up man, it was their choice to sit at my table". Cos people with addiction lose the freedom of choice in time, and their behaviour isnt mature.
But ever since industrialisation we can produce a lot more goods than we could actually consume, the lack of productive work is far from being the worst.
On the other hand, a professional player is part sportsman, and a bigger part worker in the entertainment business.
And while the world would do completely fine without poker pros, they are usually charitable and try to make positive changes to it. So all in all, poker pros are on the better side of people, even if their daily job is somewhat questionable.
Originally posted by amater0001
Some additional reasons:
as said above all poker helps (HM, sharkscope...) are only the additional factor why I don't consider tha game to be fair to recreational players.
In our country there is no tax to poker which is also not fair because working people pay tax to even their minimal wages yet I know people earning 10 or times that paying no tax.
TBH it's their problem that they didn't do anything with their live and now have a minimum wage. Most of the people aren't poor just like that (lets leave undeveloped countries), they fucked up their live at some point.
But we are going a bit off topic here.
Originally posted by HNRoger
At a certain degree it will always be immoral, call me a dirty communist , but anyone who isnt doing productive work as a member of a society, is somewhat immoral. Not to mention that professionals take the money of weaker personality people, who have gambling issues, on a daily basis. The morality of this activity is very close to drug dealing, you cant just say that "they deserve it, they shouldnt go and buy drugs", and you also cant say "they are grown up man, it was their choice to sit at my table". Cos people with addiction lose the freedom of choice in time, and their behaviour isnt mature.But ever since industrialisation we can produce a lot more goods than we could actually consume, the lack of productive work is far from being the worst.
On the other hand, a professional player is part sportsman, and a bigger part worker in the entertainment business.
And while the world would do completely fine without poker pros, they are usually charitable and try to make positive changes to it. So all in all, poker pros are on the better side of people, even if their daily job is somewhat questionable.
This is the mentality we wish to dispel, and although this this might be an observable reality it is not the true nature of the game nor should it remain the reality. Today's game is largely built on this misconception and it can be shown through perfect reason that this is a fundamental error, and also the ramification of a sick or over regulated environment. It is a false view that poker must be built on those that wish to coerce money and value from unsuspecting or "degenerate" players. In an unregulated, and therefore NOT over raked game, poker functions perfectly fine with the foundation based on rich philanthropist types that donate their monies into pots that eventually end up in the hands of intelligent and creative professional players (citizens).
I cannot be said then that those that mistakenly get in the way of this (ie degens) then render the game immoral, because in fact a society ALL individuals within it would fare dramatically more favorably if such peoples (degens) did in fact give their monies to the more intelligent and creative peoples, who will then clearly and obviously use that money in a more favorable and efficient manner.
Our example would be Bill Gates sitting at a table of college students.
Originally posted by amater0001
Some additional reasons:
as said above all poker helps (HM, sharkscope...) are only the additional factor why I don't consider tha game to be fair to recreational players.
In our country there is no tax to poker which is also not fair because working people pay tax to even their minimal wages yet I know people earning 10 or times that paying no tax.
Taxes in which a government takes value from the citizens and wastes it through unnecessary and therefore tyrannical rule is not moral by any definition or means. It is therefore not that taxing income and not taxing poker is unfair and immoral but that taking the individual hard earned value under the disguise of social welfare is what is clearly and truly unfair.
Furthermore, poker is clearly not an income by the legal definition of the word which clearly then implies that poker should NOT be taxed under any constitutional authority, and that doing so would be clearly immoral and detrimental to the health and welfare of society.
thank you.
The thing i was trying to point out, whenever there is gambling, there is serious collateral damage involved, and anyone taking part as player or provider shares part of the responsibility. People with gambling issues arent "degens", the money they waste arent necessary "theirs".
Example time: An old american friend of mine called Shane had serious gambling issues, his wife and three kids suffered enough cos of that too, not just purely financially, but also imagine three kids having to move their home and school frequently. So you are a very intelligent person, you go and explain to his kids that they cant go to college or buy new clothes cos you had to take their "degen" fathers money and put it to some "greater use" thats more important than the well-being of innocent children.
You just watch the part that involves you, put the arguments out that are best for your interest (like poker shouldnt be taxed even), i am sorry sir but you and your 100% darwinist views have nothing to do with morality, we could go back to dog eat dog anarchy by that logic. You will need to get a lot wiser and experienced before you can put anything constructive into a topic involving ethics.
It can't be immoral if it's bloody hard and it is for me.
Maybe this isn't the right place for this but I'm trying to improve my game like most people on here and it's not happening for me this last couple of months, I don't have a lot of money so play small stakes or freerolls but to cut a long story short how do you deal with never being dealt a makeable winning hand? and what are the percentages of getting a flush on the river when the flop only gives you one extra card?
No. None of what you point out shows by any reason or logic whatsoever that such things should lead to the rights of citizens to be taken away. There is no moral justification by any governing body that they should be allowed to take away the citizens freedom of choice in order to protect that citizen from their own faulty choices (provided of course they are not clearly mental insane and deemed as such by law).
It is not freedom, but the complete and perfect definition of the opposite of freedom when a government or 3rd party body does so, whether or not they declare it in the name of "protection". The purpose of law is to protect the individual from unfair and unjust actions of others. Their is no reasonable or logical argument that can suggest that taking away freedom of the individual's choice can prevent harm or suggest a free society.
In other words and to be very clear, you cannot take away another individuals freedoms and rights because a certain other individual makes bad choices. You cannot make laws on all poker players because some peoples make a bad choice with money. It is not logical to suggest others, nor is it moral, and nor has any constitution been based on such lack of reason (nor could it possibly be!).
And it is only by lack of education on our fundamental rights that one would argue such obvious tautological points...and before you raise another word against such obvious reason...I will caution my next point will be to ask you whether or not you are at all read or well read on the subject at hand. Do you know your rights that are natural to you, and do you understand them in relation to your constitution? I will not continue to engage in debate with someone that is not functioning from an educated and reasonable perspective.
I take it quite personally, for all of us, that there are those that would argue AGAINST what is our natural and inherent rights and freedoms as citizens of this world. Such a thing is grossly immoral.
Man
Originally posted by JohnSmith5555
No. None of what you point out shows by any reason or logic whatsoever that such things should lead to the rights of citizens to be taken away. .
So you waste a full page changing topics, we talk about morality here, not about legality. The whole influence of the state on the matter, its right to get involved in private matters and so on, is a completely different topic. Dear god, explaining a bigger picture to you is like herding cats. You hear an argument and go all turtle imagining that black friday is upon us again. I personally belive in the individual freedom, and in that the states role would be to help people who take a wrong path, not to prohibit entire activities. But yet again, that has nothing to do with the morality of the whole topic.
Your whole argument is still basicly "i am the stronger, i can do it, so its moral"
It's relatively easy to answer these questions. Nearly all funds in online poker come from recreational players, also known as fishes, whales or donkeys. I simply don't know why someone is able to invest money into a complex game with no or minimal knowledge about that game. Let's assume they have a vision of easy money or they have so much fun while playing poker that they don't mind gambling their bankroll away.
even worst than this. Most of them are adicted to gambling and cant quit, spending all money they have on it.