[Closed] Is Playing Poker for a Living Moral?

Originally posted by GingerKid
So imo, it would be more fair, if casinos would clearly say to each player before making deposit, that in poker there are regular players who are trained to win, and that they are using tools which increases their chance to win. In USA casinos, you have information all over casinos that it is impossible to win in a long run in casino, which is fair (they have to provide this info because of the law).

Well, I think we are now all in agreement that playing poker -- whether for a living or just for the fun of it, is not morally wrong.

But GingerKid makes an interesting point here. It may be that the casinos post the signs because they think it is the right thing to do. I doubt it. It is likely that they would be perfectly willing to deceive their customers to maximize their profits. The society in which the casino exists considers deceit to be morally wrong -- at least I presume so. It seems that deceit is acceptable if you call it "marketing".

Even though something may be morally wrong in a society, unless a law is passed, not everyone will behave in a morally correct way. Furthermore, corporations are not moral entities at all. The individuals that comprise a corporation may each have a conscience, and may each adhere to their society's moral code, however corporations only look at law to define their behaviour.

Since online casinos operate internationally, whose laws do they follow? If something an online casino (or any corporation really) does something that you don't like, the only recourse a person has is to play elsewhere.

Cheers,
VS

Originally posted by GingerKidI dont take it personally, it is just a nice discussion for me where we dont have to agree on everything. What if in average, you destroy 1% of fish life completely, and 99% are just playing for fun. Is that still moral? sounds better than the case is in the reality (% of addicted fish), but still I dont find it moral way of earning money, if you contribute in destroying each 100th persons life.

There is not much of an argument left, is there, when you already admit it would be better than the present day. I cannot understand or accept that you would skip of such a point, because it is exactly my point. I suggest it is only our conditioning and lack of strong/free education that allows us to do this in dialogue. It should be the realization, as soon as you say it is obviously better that only 1% are negatively effected compared to today.

And as for your example, again the present day conditions and overall slide downwards of the health of the games created this. I talked about a game with rich peoples who donate "probabilistically" to creative minds. My perspective does not at all involve these players you speak of, and so you should not continue to believe you disagree with me in any way.

Today's environment is very sick in the way you point out, and this is exactly the issue we need to face, and the cause is NOT inherent immorality, but rather an over-regulated game., but the 3rd party sites in the form of rake and effective rake and overall global government regulations. Some would like to scoff and say that's too big and too conspiracy/connected to bring into a conversation on the morality of the game. But the simple fact is these things are completed connected and poker is simple and extension of our overall economic environment and freedoms, to which is very poor and we have little to none.

I assert, our freedom to play poker is 100% moral, and the restriction of it in any from is 0% moral.

Originally posted by VorpalF2F
Well, I think we are now all in agreement that playing poker -- whether for a living or just for the fun of it, is not morally wrong.

I should think so, but I don't think this is the reality. In reality many are confused about how to resolve it to being moral.

Originally posted by VorpalF2F
But GingerKid makes an interesting point here. It may be that the casinos post the signs because they think it is the right thing to do. I doubt it. It is likely that they would be perfectly willing to deceive their customers to maximize their profits. The society in which the casino exists considers deceit to be morally wrong -- at least I presume so. It seems that deceit is acceptable if you call it "marketing".

Even though something may be morally wrong in a society, unless a law is passed, not everyone will behave in a morally correct way. Furthermore, corporations are not moral entities at all. The individuals that comprise a corporation may each have a conscience, and may each adhere to their society's moral code, however corporations only look at law to define their behavior.

Since online casinos operate internationally, whose laws do they follow? If something an online casino (or any corporation really) does something that you don't like, the only recourse a person has is to play elsewhere.

This is exactly it though. The customer needs the power to vote with their feet, and if governments use regulations to prop up certain businesses, then they take away the peoples freedom to choose.

This is what we face today with online poker, and there is a "status quo". Players are largely blind to the structure of global online gaming and how it has evolved to systematically destroy the game by taking away the players liquidity with respect to which sites they can play and what the cost of transfer from each site to site is (time, cost, payment processors, law etc.). Corporations are not inherently evil, but products of the market, and extensions of the health of those markets. When the costumer can instantly and costless choose between products offered by company's, then there will be no immoral corporations that remain.

Calling for regulation to hold corporations to moral code is calling the very disease to cure the sickness, and calling for regulations to govern the people takes away their ability to govern themselves.

This is way too long for me to read, but I'll just try to answer your question as simply as possible, from my point of view. Nobody made the losing players sit at the table. If they willingly risk that money at the poker table, it means they can afford to lose them. If not, they're idiots for risking them. If they wouldn't lose them to you, they'd eventually lose them to someone else. If there was not a single good on the entire poker room, the fish would eventually lose all of their deposited money to the poker room (through rake). No matter what, weak players will almost always lose their money.

So is it immoral to take a relatively insignificant amount of money from some fish instead of letting him lose all of his money to a financial giant like PokerStars instead of working like a slave for less than $200 a month in a poor country and barely pay your bills? I really don't think so.

Calling for regulation to hold corporations to moral code is calling the very disease to cure the sickness, and calling for regulations to govern the people takes away their ability to govern themselves.

Quoting this as an example of the way you write. My english is not native, but I think I can understand it good, and yours looks very advanced (or native not sure). I have a feeling you are thinking for a long time to make a maximally complex sentencies, and say maximum in that sentence (I am saying this as a compliment). Even though what you wrote looks impressive, and even though it looks as you are saying many smart things, I still find it very complex to understand and realize what you are trying to say. Just wondering, are other people having problems understanding what you are saying (writting) ? Also, all what you wrote are your own words, not some citations? Maybe I am surrounded by computer scientiest mostly, who speak simple language.
You wrote so much interesting text, and I tried reading it all, but I get very tired reading it, have a feeling I am reading exam

This is way too long for me to read, but I'll just try to answer your question as simply as possible, from my point of view. Nobody made the losing players sit at the table. If they willingly risk that money at the poker table, it means they can afford to lose them.

Hi, I am a drug lord (I am not). I am selling drugs to many people, and earn fortune. I was studing for a long time how to make those drugs, and the whole job was not easy at all, I deserve it. It is not my problem, if few % of people who consume my drugs die from it, if most of them have fun?
That would be the role of casino owner (manager). Drug dealers would be a role of poker regulars.
Do you also think it is moral what drug dealers and lords do, since it is not their fault that many people destroy their lifes because of drugs? I think most of people from poker community will completely agree on this, because they are not involved in it, so they have no problem saying it is not moral. But when they are involved in poker machinery, then they start searching excuses, how it is not their fault and they have nothing to do with it, but it is fish fault if their lifes get in big problems.
So nobody made those drug adicted people to consume drugs, it was their will, and also their will to overdose.

Another example would be, war lords making wars in whole world, selling and producing weapons. If it is produced in USA, it is surely not their problem if some unknown people use those weapons and kill each other on the other side of the world, because they would find a way to anyway kill each other, and if USA war lord wouldnt sell them, then somebody else would. So USA war lord is doing moral thing. Nobody forced those people in war to buy weapons from war lord, it is their free will.

As a conclusion, it might be pointless to talk about what is being moral. For me those things are not, probably because I am born in Christian country (even though I am not religios at all), but still my country respects Christian moral, so am I. Well, I dont think it is not moral to win in poker as regular player because of religion says dont gamble, but because I simply see it that way. By playing poker I get a lot of stress (very unheathy), I dont produce anything, I dont contribute anything to the society, I contribute in destroying some % of fish lifes, and some % I make unhappy. Only positive thing is entertainment for me, and money. how selfish is that? So I am completely sure that having an income from poker is not a right thing for me, so I am trying not to play anymore, doing it quite successfully, only playing very rarely. For those who play poker, I dont mind it, good luck.

Damn, this thing is still going on. At least Ginger understands the moral and logical paralells that exist, not to mention that the gambling addicts are mostly adrenaline - dopamine addicts, so technically drug addicts. So by some point of view, we are literally drug dealers.

That's a very hypocritical thing to say, coming from a Black Member. And are you seriously comparing poker players to drug lords? So you are comparing poker with heroine?

Losing money is not addicting (unlike drugs), unless you are a total idiot, in which case you deserve your fate. Think before you write. If you actually did think before writing that crap, then I pity your intellectual capacity.

Originally posted by GingerKid

Quoting this as an example of the way you write. My english is not native, but I think I can understand it good, and yours looks very advanced (or native not sure). I have a feeling you are thinking for a long time to make a maximally complex sentencies, and say maximum in that sentence (I am saying this as a compliment). Even though what you wrote looks impressive, and even though it looks as you are saying many smart things, I still find it very complex to understand and realize what you are trying to say. Just wondering, are other people having problems understanding what you are saying (writting) ? Also, all what you wrote are your own words, not some citations? Maybe I am surrounded by computer scientiest mostly, who speak simple language.
You wrote so much interesting text, and I tried reading it all, but I get very tired reading it, have a feeling I am reading exam
You've nailed it in my opinion, in many ways. I make no apologies for my style, but rather write for the history of the game-that we may go back and look at some of these points I have made that are very very DENSE. I must be allowed to write in this style in order that the most relevant and significant points be "trapped" somehow within the structure (compression?). I am native English but often am accused of the opposite. Yet I have always suspect that often NON native speakers can understand my writing better than native speakers. And people with strong emotional control appreciate my writing more as well. I cannot speak to everyone's level, but if we take some time and ask specific questions, and try to relate (perhaps with SINCERE counter examples/points) then I generally get along and become useful.

There is no doubt people have the same difficulty as you, I only mean to present the most sincere points I can in the most succinct fashion. But most of all I sincerely appreciate you pointing this out, as I think it would likely be helpful for others to understand my posts.

Ah! There it is again. You do NOT have a right to take away my freedom to choose which plants I may smoke or ingest simply because of another person's lack of control!

Please understand the philosophical foundation I present. The drug wars, do not give us freedom my friends, but rather they not only take away our rights to choose but also monopolize prices and medicines that we wouldn't even otherwise ever accept as such. Again it is not poker that we must model after our government's attempts at suppression...but rather we must realize through poker that restricting our ability to choose to gamble makes us dumb and sick..

The same then is true for the markets. Should we truly rely on our governments to tell us what is drug and not drug? And that same government will profit off of that which it labels "medicine"?

There is no example to the contrary that it is the governments restrictions on that which it calls "drugs", that doesn't show such restrictions both impede freedom and our ability to succeed in this world through the value of our own efforts. There is no example to the contrary of my suggestion that complete freedom to choose is exactly what dispels the creation of the "addict".

Regulation of drugs is what creates addicts and destroys lives...it NEVER cures it. We must learn this as poker players first, before we can expect society to realize the pure and simple truth of this.

Probably the best way to answer the question is to ask another question. What is considered 'moral'?

It's absolutely impossible to make an objective rule on what is moral, as we all have different codes of ethics based on our upbringing according to our respective societies, families, schools, individual teachers, and the values that we learn ourselves over the course of our lives.

If being a poker player is immoral, then some could also argue that market investors, bankers, traders, meat-eaters, farmers, chemical companies, tobacco companies, giant retailers/supermarkets, oil companies, the military industrial complex, bureaucrats, politicians, and even used car salesmen (apologies to used car salesmen ;)) are also immoral.

Then you can add industries that add very little value to society like social media, fashion, interior decoration, the wedding industry, marketers, sports player agents, porn industry, human resources (leeches!), real estate agents, etc etc. So in other words, how many people on this planet are truly 100% 'moral' and guilt-free? ♦

If you can make a living from poker, then good on you.

*I am sorry Vorpal i am bored, dont kill me please*

I hate repeating myself.
Look, i already pointed out that on the legal and regulation part i (and almost everyone here) agree with you, But the moral behind the whole thing is a whole different story. I am sorry but when you change topic like that all i hear is "bla bla bla i want to play on PS again bla bla bla".

I try not to skip any logical step this time so you fully understand.

I have given you examples that show that gambling is dangerous, and not just the "weak" people suffer cos of it, for who you could say "they deserve it". But the collateral damage hits their family, their wife/husband/parents/children can be exposed to a huge amount of suffering too. Its a fact, there are way too many examples of it. So please lets stop being ignorant, and look at this statement:

"No activity is morally clear, that directly or indirectly makes innocent children suffer, doesnt matter what % of the time, and how many other people are having fun or make profit thanks to it"

Once we agreed on this, we can debate the rest like:
Who has the most responsibility in allowing that to happen? we would agree that its mostly the government the service provider and the community whos members are affected
Is prohibition the right answer? We would agree that no it isnt, cos it restricts healthy gamblers freedom, and its clearly not the only possible answer.
Do the "healthy" players share part of this responsibility? Here we probably wouldnt agree, but i would say just as drug dealers have some small part in the mess, we also have ours too.

HNroger, the very fact that you cannot understand morality and its relation to law is a perfect symptom and product of growing up in an unhealthy and un-free society. You are not at all well read on these things as you claim. It is not my job to teach you, but yours to go learn your inherent rights and the immoral-ness of 3rd parties taking them away under the guise of socialism.

It is not changing the topic, nor ignorant of me to point this out. You simple have been taught it is immoral to assert your own freedom, and it is your very master who teaches you this.

Edit: btw, don't apologize to Vorp, and/or feel free to continually disagree provided we attempt to add content and seek each others points (but not necessary seek to agree). If I am blunt and assertive it is not just because I am convicted, but because I want others to be able to basically copy and past such convictions (ONLY IF THEY AGREE OF COURSE!!!)

Well, I rather agree with both of you, but not really with either, so it is going to be hard to keep this short.
@JohnSmith5555: I think that we agree more-or-less and we've already discussed the differences enough.

That said, please avoid personal attacks. We're getting dangerously close to the line on that score. I may not have a moral right to close the thread, but this society disapproves of them in forum posts (see our forum principles) and I have a duty to take action if we can't maintain a civil tone.

First,

Originally posted by HNRoger
*I am sorry Vorpal i am bored, dont kill me please*

I hate repeating myself.

I have given you examples that show that gambling is dangerous, and not just the "weak" people suffer cos of it, for who you could say "they deserve it". But the collateral damage hits their family, their wife/husband/parents/children can be exposed to a huge amount of suffering too. Its a fact, there are way too many examples of it. So please lets stop being ignorant, and look at this statement:

"No activity is morally clear, that directly or indirectly makes innocent children suffer, doesnt matter what % of the time, and how many other people are having fun or make profit thanks to it"

Once we agreed on this, we can debate the rest like:
Who has the most responsibility in allowing that to happen? we would agree that its mostly the government the service provider and the community whos members are affected
Is prohibition the right answer? We would agree that no it isnt, cos it restricts healthy gamblers freedom, and its clearly not the only possible answer.
Do the "healthy" players share part of this responsibility? Here we probably wouldnt agree, but i would say just as drug dealers have some small part in the mess, we also have ours too.

No need to apologise!

The black part:
First off, we've established several times in several discussions that poker is a game of skill. The fact that there is a random re-inforcement element doesn't change that. It is not inherently dangerous. The fact that some people do things to excess is not a problem with their particular vice. There are people who over-eat, there are alcoholics, drug addicts, people who drive to fast and so on. This does not mean that food, alcohol, drugs and cars are bad.

What I'm trying to say is that this is not a moral issue at all. A society needs to care for its members and if one has a problem with a particular pastime there is no moral obligation on any other member of that society to cure him.

The green part
There DOES however need to be a support mechanism in place to help that person. All of society benefits from ensuring the stability of its members, and it is reasonable that the cost of providing it comes from the activity in some way.

I offer the British Columbia Lottery Corporation's approach. The funding for this program comes from the proceeds of the various games that they run (including poker).
https://www.playnow.com/gamesense/
It is possible that you may not be able to view the link. It is a comprehensive program educating the players on how gambling games work, the odds and so on. All adds for games on radio and TV have tag lines like "Know your limit -- play within it" or "If you gamble, use your game sense" and similar. When I signed up to the BCLC poker room, I had to set limits on how much I could lose per day, week and month, and the max # of hours I could play by day, week or month.

It makes sense to me. It would be good if poker rooms did similar. All of them have self-exclusion options.

The red part.
Sorry, I don't buy the "it's all for the good of the children" part. If someone's children are going hungry, it is up to that person's social circle to deal with the problem. Perhaps I'm too old now for this modern notion of "the government will do it". I grew up in a town of less than 800 people, and everyone (more or less) looked out for everyone (more or less) else.

I'm going to cut this short here.

Oh except for:
@philhellmutt: Well said!

Peace,
VS

***Moved to Small Talk

I'm gonna chime in here, just in case someone is keeping score. I think this topic (morality) might be the most important debate of all. Sorry if my post is very long, but for the most part this has been a great thread. Also, this is a general post, not aimed at anyone in particular.

My short answer is no. Playing poker, or gambling in general, is not immoral. I don't believe many things in isolation are immoral. Unfortunately, the world simply isn't that black and white.

Take the most extreme example; Murder. Almost every society and civilization in history has scorned murder and made it illegal - those that allow it exist in a state of anarchy and would not survive for very long . But at the same time, almost every society has found ways to make exceptions to even this rule.
We murder on the battlefield, in the temple, and sometimes even in the courtroom - supposedly the domain of justice. Ethnic cleansing and genocide have often been endorsed by church and state. This facts make it clear that in certain states of nature morality is vague at best.

Obviously I am not comparing gambling to murder, that would be foolish. But to consider certain actions in isolation as immoral is stupid and counterproductive (there are things that even I regard as evil - rape and murder spring to mind, but I've wandered off topic enough).

In my opinion (and the opinion of many respected scholars), the root of morality lies in freedom, and the very definition of freedom is a persons ability to pursue a goal or desire without external coercion or constraints. Put simply, if your actions do not harm others, then you should be free to perform such actions

If someone chooses to sit into a game of poker, is not coerced (have you ever heard of somebody forced to play poker?), and gambles with money of his own possession, then who am I to deny him that right? I am not the moral arbiter of the poker community, and neither are you. How many books did you read before playing your first hand? For how long did you play and lose before googling poker strategy? We all started out as losers, and many of us still have no edge in the game.
Have you given up drinking alcohol? Smoking? Consuming salt, sugar, and trans fats? Are you sure none of your clothes were made in sweat shops? Do you drive an electric car, or walk everywhere? I applaud you if you have, sincerely I do, but I hope you do not picket bars and nightclubs, or blog about the evil chocolate factories and how Ford are solely responsibly for global warming. I hope you do not lecture relative strangers on the threat of cancer and diabetes, simply because they enjoy wine and gummy bears.

This is the moral argument against banning poker, or regulating which consenting adult may play and who may not; Who are you to tell them that they can or cannot do with their time and money?

What about prescription medications? A certain percentage of people who are forced to take meds for crippling pain are at risk of becoming addicted, or being led to drugs such as heroin and Oxycontin. Admittedly the percentage is low (but I'm willing to bet the figure is in the same ball park as, or higher than, gambling addiction). Furthermore, addiction to powerful pain killers is extremely hard to beat and very damaging to the human body, and the habit is far more expensive that heroin or meth would cost the average user.

So should we ban paracetamol? If you think I am comparing apples to oranges then think again. OTC pain medication overdose is one of the most common methods used in teenage suicide attempts, and said attempts often lead to death or organ failure.

Cannabis is similar. There is little evidence that marijuana is harmful, aside from the obvious risks of smoking (so why not eat it!!) or doing something stupid like taking it before driving or taking it every day. Anything in excess is dangerous, even clean water. Marijuana is infinitely less harmful than tobacco and alcohol, and is often more effective at treating minor pain and certain medical conditions that prescribed meds. Yet it remains illegal largely due to ill informed traditions and taboo.

Now most fish play very small stakes poker, at NL10 - NL100, where they get some excitement with relatively lower risk. Further, most fish play for a very short time often "trying out" poker, losing a few hundred or thousand over a few months or a year before simply giving up. Almost every player I know has a solid income away from the table, and gambles very little relative to his living costs. Very few of them bet on the table games either, although there is a culture of sports betting in Ireland (I'm Irish) which many believe is very harmful. Put another way, poker, and particularly the micros, are the marijuana of the gambling world, or maybe even the aspirin.

This is the rational/practical argument in favor of poker; We have to trust people to make their own decisions, and trust that the decisions they make are best for them. You may see a guy losing a couple of hundred bucks, but he might just be a new player, finding his feet. He could be wealthy, and doesn't care about the relative pennies he is losing. Or, he might just be blowing off some steam, and doesn't really like roulette, or watch sports.

The gambling industry is a very profitable one, creates many jobs and provides a fortune in taxes and revenue. There are many worse industries out there, such as the tobacco corporations and arms trade. Why waste your energy trying to prevent people from making a harmless mistake (that they might enjoy), that most will make in some form anyway, and will probably learn from along the way. The truth is that most losing gamblers stop before they do any lasting harm to themselves, and the ones who don't will simply find another outlet for their addictive tendencies.

Of course you will have addicts and egoists who cannot accept that they have no chance, and if you believe you are playing with one then fine, pull him aside and express your concerns if that will help you sleep at night. They deserve help, but they are not the worst of humanity, far from it, but poker is not truly the root of their problem, as the object of abuse rarely is. But while you're at it, make sure you show up for the next protest against the conflict in Ukraine, and join the fight against ISIS. Campaign against nuclear arms and the weapons trade. Celebrate Prince Charles' decision not to represent the interests of the British Arms industry, and support the call for heavier taxes on the rich.

And for the love of God, write a strongly worded letter to the Cadburys corporation!!

To ginger and hnroger, who have been having a back and forth about the parallels of gambling and drugs, I offer a quote from a really funny show called Brooklyn 99. In one episode a man is called a "drug pusher", and he responds "Guys, I'm not a drug pusher, I'm a drug DEALER. Seriously, drugs don't need pushing, they sell themselves. PEOPLE REALLY LIKE DRUGS!"

That's a very hypocritical thing to say, coming from a Black Member. And are you seriously comparing poker players to drug lords? So you are comparing poker with heroine?

Why does it matter if it comes from black member or from a guy who never played poker? Black member usually just says that somebody made enough rake, nothing more. And yes I am comparing poker players to drug dealers and casino to drug lord. It is figurative comprison, I am not saying that both are equally bad. Just wanted to point out, that both are similar, but drug dealers and lords are more unmoral because they destroy higher % of lifes.

Losing money is not addicting (unlike drugs), unless you are a total idiot, in which case you deserve your fate. Think before you write. If you actually did think before writing that crap, then I pity your intellectual capacity.

Maybe you should read about gambling addictions before saying definition about addictions? Also it looks as your feelings got heart in some way, since you are insulting me so extreme because of my opinion which is different than yours.

Ah! There it is again. You do NOT have a right to take away my freedom to choose which plants I may smoke or ingest simply because of another person's lack of control!

I think you missed the subject of this thread. We are not discussing here if it is legal to gamble, and if we goverments should make it illegal. We are discussing about if it is moral to play poker. So I am not saying, we should take rights and freedom to somebody, but I am saying producing drugs and selling them is nor moral, similar goes for playing poker and having casino.

Then you can add industries that add very little value to society like social media, fashion, interior decoration, the wedding industry, marketers, sports player agents, porn industry, human resources (leeches!), real estate agents, etc etc. So in other words, how many people on this planet are truly 100% 'moral' and guilt-free? ♦

I think it is a good comparison. Still, for many of those I dont see why is unmoral. E.g who do sports player agents contribute to make unhappy (destroy lifes)? maybe there is a very small %, probably all professions have some probability to destroy somebodies life indirectlly. But the difference is that in poker, very high % of fish get very big problems in life, and some of them got lifes destroyed. So it is not just about bringing something good to sociaty. I dont think that poker is bad just because it doesnt contribute any good to sociaty, but primarly because it makes so many people unhappy and put into big problems.
For example, I am a computer scientiest, so I dont see how my profession is making somebody unhappy in any way, and also I contribute something good to the sociaty.