Morality of Poker

I am often confronted with questions and comments regarding the morality of poker. I am never lost for words but I often feel as though I disagree with those words. I'd really like to hear how FTR handles these conversations.

I took the following from some article some guy wrote:

The thing is, you see, I had never thought about what it meant to be a winner. I played the game for the pleasure of the game. To be sure, I liked the money. I liked winning. Being a winner is part of what the game is about. But for me to be a winner there have to be losers. And that's a problem. I don't want to make money by hurting people.

A professional poker player plays to make money. The best way to make money is to be a hustler, to exploit compulsive losers, to be a predator without a conscience. Remember my pool hustler friends and how they operated. That's the way you have to be, that's the way you have to do things, that's the way you have to treat people and think of them. It's a bit different for the poker hustler. He has to keep the games going. He has to know who can be stripped and who can be bled over a period of time. He wears a mask of friendship in the game but his fellow players aren't people; they're marks.

The predator and his prey have one thing in common; they both obsess over the game. I've known professional poker players - they mostly are a sad lot. Gambling is their life. They live to take money from compulsive losers.

Originally Posted by BankItDrew

I'd really like to hear how FTR handles these conversations.

I don't have them.

I know d0zer is going to freak over this, but I know exactly where you're coming from. When I encounter a person who is obsessed, loves the game as much as I do, and continues to lose (the people at all our home games lol), I help him/them out by giving him tips, etc, where I can. You teach him/them to not suck so much. By doing that 1 thing, you show yourself, as well as other people, that you can enjoy the game ,the hunt, and prove you're not an addict to tricking 'poor suckers' and taking their money. It's above that. We like to think we're winning money from someone who is properly rolled for it. Nothing feels worse than taking an addicts money. But by spreading the good word on BR and other useful tips, you prevent that... and make the game more challenging.

I struggle a lot with this. I'm a bit of an idealist. My view is that our society is built on amoral systems. Poker to me is a means to financial solvency that doesn't require me to work inside an inherently evil structure. I have plans for the future, but they require money, and this is one of the least hurtful things we are able to do in order to make money. For me it's either this or teaching, and teaching will require a few more years of school...

dev is that your way of saying you're lazy? teasing I hear ya

that, too

Morality in poker is relative. Playing for microstakes, I at least don't feel like I'm taking some addict's rent or food money. Jeez, if they can blow a month's rent on 10nl, they both suck really bad and live in a shit hole.

I don't know what I'll think when (and if) I'm playing 200nl. I'm religious. But politically libertarian. I agree with folks above that I don't want to feel as though my success hinges on the addictions, compulsions and indebtedness of others. Just because it's online and we don't know the victims doesn't mean there aren't any.

Do I love poker? Yes. Do I wanna quit? No. Do I worry about the morality? Yes. Do I have any great answers? No.

gl nh drew

Survival of the fittest.

Gamblers will gamble whether poker exists or not.

True 'players' are essentially the house to gamblers, and I for one am glad to see someone other than the house make some money offa people determined to throw money away for a thrill.

Poker's a great metaphor for this rather harsh world we live in. We so easily forget in this cushy modern world of ours that 'dog eat dog' has been the dominant paradigm for about as far back as anyone can see...

I dont give a damn. If I cared about my opponents everytime I took part in a competition I would have lost most of my 2X/4X-races, I would have entered most first turns 2nd, feared that bumping into my opponent could throw him off and possibly hurt him. If u cant afford to lose, dont sit down. And seriously, noone who sits down with us has to go to bed with an empty stomach after we took his stack.

Feel bad about not donating a small % of your winnings for starving children in the 3rd world or for "Last Wish"-programs for kids who got hit by cancer. Dont worry about guys, who play games where they dont belong, you´re not their babysitter.

Originally Posted by XTR1000

I dont give a damn.

About the morality of poker?

How about the morality of gamblers who help establish rules and norms to ensure fair play? How about game theorists who determine what "fair" means? How about the rules committees of WSOP and other tourney-hosting organizations who establish rules that small casinos follow in setting up their tourneys? How about the morality of dealers and pit bosses who ensure fairness at their poker tables? Or their online equivalent in terms of programmers and security consultants for poker sites?

Without honest and forthright gamblers, poker players and casino owners, we would have no safe place to wager our poker dollars. Now, some of the casino owner's "honesty" is market driven - no one will gamble willingly at your casino if the games are known to be "rigged."

I just think morals matter, even on a Darwinian battlefield like NLH. Thinking about what's right and wrong is a good thing, even if we can't arrive at absolute answers every time.

I think Robb hit on a big point in regards to the morality of poker.

The thing is people try to use a blanket idea of Morality in regards to all aspects of life, and as wonderful a Utopian idea as this is it just doesn't work. There is a moral code in relation to whatever sports you may play, and sure some moral points may cross over but each sport has its own "rules" and ways of being. There are moral codes in relation to peace and war, each one has its own set of incidents which are seen as "ok" but aren't transposable in regards to the other side.

Poker, like pool, is a game which requires two players. A winner and a loser. Just like Boxing. A boxer can't worry about what damage is done in the ring during the fight, he can't afford to. He is focused on winning the match. Outside of the ring he'll be looking after his opponent just as much as anyone else if he feels like he should.

I love poker and I love pool. Both of these sports appeal to my "killing" nature, for the very reasons that I'm looking to take apart my opponent. If someone can't afford to be in the game then they shouldn't be there. Away from the table I'll be looking to keep people who can't deal/afford with the stakes away from the game if I believe they have a problem. Because away from the table is different from at the table, and that's what a lot of people don't consider.

However just because as players we are looking to bankrupt our opponents, we don't need to be doing it in dark backrooms surrounded by people with guns. Everything surrounding the game needs to be as morally "right" as possible, so that the only thing that matters is the game itself. Tournaments, casinos, online rooms all need to be as "straight" as possible. And even at the tables cheating needs to be stamped out (like the issues possibly surrounding Men Ngyuen) but if you can't deal with taking money from someone else then why are you playing?

Originally Posted by Robb

Originally Posted by XTR1000

I dont give a damn.

About the morality of poker?

How about the morality of gamblers who help establish rules and norms to ensure fair play? How about game theorists who determine what "fair" means? How about the rules committees of WSOP and other tourney-hosting organizations who establish rules that small casinos follow in setting up their tourneys? How about the morality of dealers and pit bosses who ensure fairness at their poker tables? Or their online equivalent in terms of programmers and security consultants for poker sites?

Without honest and forthright gamblers, poker players and casino owners, we would have no safe place to wager our poker dollars. Now, some of the casino owner's "honesty" is market driven - no one will gamble willingly at your casino if the games are known to be "rigged."

I just think morals matter, even on a Darwinian battlefield like NLH. Thinking about what's right and wrong is a good thing, even if we can't arrive at absolute answers every time.

I focused on the "Do I care about taking money from other people"-aspect. Other aspects of morality, like those u mentioned are indisputable and I totally agree with u.

Originally Posted by Andrew

if you can't deal with taking money from someone else then why are you playing?

It's a lesser evil.

I'm a very conflicted person. I'd love to spend all my time reading and meditating, but I haven't moved to southeast asia yet. Why? I'd also love to spend all my time playing poker and eating steak. When I'm at the poker table, I'm at my most competitive. It takes over, I can't bring myself to do anything less than my absolute best to win. That includes befriending people I don't like in order to take their money. I'm the nicest guy in the world at a poker table. I'm bluffing before I've been dealt a card.

Then, sometimes, I'm studying Philosophy or Buddhism (is there a difference) and I wonder if there's any way I can keep doing what I thrive on without in some way regretting it. I don't know. It's the major conflict of my life.

Online it's a bit different. I play for much smaller stakes and it's more of a math-geek thing for me.

It's a tough question, there's no simple answer, and it is definitely worth discussion even though we are unlikely to come to any kind of acceptable conclusion. Hell, I'm not quitting any time soon.

As a Christian, I don't believe that there is anything inherently wrong or immoral about playing poker, but if these things become the central focus of your life you have a problem. If it negatively affects your life and the life of those around you, then it becomes sinful/immoral.

As far as taking money from addicts or people who can't afford to lose it, I personally believe that that is completely on them. It is just the same if I give money to a homeless person on the side of the road- they may either buy food or drugs, but that is between them and God. When an old man loses part of his social security to me in Laughlin, he had a choice of whether or not to sit down at the table in a game where he obviously has no idea of what he is doing. Also, I feel it is better that these people lose their money to me or other people instead of a wealthy corporation through other casino games.

Not sure if this made sense or was relevant but I just felt like writing something.

Originally Posted by Elrohir44

When an old man loses part of his social security to me in Laughlin, he had a choice of whether or not to sit down at the table in a game where he obviously has no idea of what he is doing.

For the sake of argument, what's obvious to you may not be obvious to him. If somehow you were playing against retarded people who really didn't understand what was going on, would that be amoral? Do you think people who play roulette understand what they are doing? How about the lottery? What's the difference?

As an aside... when I play blackjack at a casino, I'm counting cards. That's the only house-edge game I'll play, because it's my edge. If gamblers understood the games the way I do, no one would ever play them. That's why I hate the "we're the house" analogy. The house is duping people into throwing their money away. People DO lose their houses, kids college money, etc. at casinos. If that analogy really worked, I'd be ashamed of being a poker player. I don't think it holds.

Honestly this is something that I've thought about a lot...

What does it mean to be a professional gambler? There will always be winners and losers. What seperates the occasional player who wins from the professional?

Basically I don't really care, I take out a miniscule part of the poker economy and if somebody lost his house... well he was going to lose it anyway because he clearly has a problem. If I wasn't taking his money then some big offshore company would be and I'm a poor student so I feel like I need the money more.

Besides that, I try and put the morality to one side because this is my only hope of getting through college without being bankrupt by the end of my 4 years.

Originally Posted by Article

But for me to be a winner there have to be losers. And that's a problem. I don't want to make money by hurting people.

I believe it's an incorrect assumption when the author of this article associates losing with pain/hurt caused by the winner. What a loser feels is not a result of anything the winner does; the feelings that you have after losing are not felt because you lost, but are just a result of how you treat the money, the game, and yourself during these times.

As for the morality around the game of poker, I don't think that the morality of the specific rules of some game are what is really up for discussion here. I think what the author (and many of us) are really concerned with is the morality of purposely putting yourself in +EV spots (or hustling, whichever terminology you prefer).

As for dev -- I completely understand the type of situation you're in. Whatever decision you make will be correct because it will be your own.

I think that when we enter the realm of survival, it's difficult to be sure in some spots as to what is clearly right and what is clearly wrong because we are weighing our own life with the life of something else. A bland example without too many details would be do we kill something else to live, or do we not and essentially kill ourselves in the process? It just comes down to our personal evaluation as to which is more important between our lives and well-being and the lives and well-being of others.

Originally Posted by dev

Originally Posted by Andrew

if you can't deal with taking money from someone else then why are you playing?

It's a lesser evil.

I'm a very conflicted person. I'd love to spend all my time reading and meditating, but I haven't moved to southeast asia yet. Why? I'd also love to spend all my time playing poker and eating steak. When I'm at the poker table, I'm at my most competitive. It takes over, I can't bring myself to do anything less than my absolute best to win. That includes befriending people I don't like in order to take their money. I'm the nicest guy in the world at a poker table. I'm bluffing before I've been dealt a card.

And that's the type of mental attitude I was talking about. Sure there are some people who enjoy the potential of "ruining" people but I think we can ignore those here.

The fact is that at the table you are doing everything you can to win. That's what we're wired to do. In war we do everything we can to survive and defeat/kill the enemy. In the courtroom lawyers would go at it tooth and nail to destroy each other's cases but turn around and share a drink at the end of the case.

I don't think the issue is whether poker players are immoral or bad people because they focus on taking all the money at the table, irregardless of what a loss may do to the other players. I think the moral issues come because people have an issue understanding that our attitudes at the table are completely different from our attitudes away from the table.

Case in point - Barry Greenstein. When he was able to he would give away his tournament winnings and yet be looking to break you at a cash table. There's no moral conundrum because the two things are mutually exclusive. One doesn't negate the other.

Theres an implicit assumption in the counter-argument that all "losers" are playing with money they cant afford to lose. Thats just not true. This is entertainment for some people. Rather than go to a bar, or go to a restaurant, or any other way of spending for their entertainment, they gamble, and their losses are seen as the cost of that entertainment.

To assume sharks are taking advantage of poor helpless gamblers is like assuming bars are taking advantage of poor helpless alcoholics.

survival of the fittest
dog eat dog
whatever
i dont give a shit if im taking your rent money, you shouldnt be in the gene pool if you are this dumb, and
i see it as my duty to help you remove yourself.

The truth is that morality is -EV, cause poker IS immoral

There are so few places in our generally sanitized lives where Darwinian principles are allowed to run so freely.

If it was not poker it would be something else, because if you are predisposed to ruining your life you will find your own way. We are not pushing them there, they are walking on their own two feet. They are also a tiny minority.

I do wonder what the real cost of poker is but if you took it away nothing would actually change because that 'cost' would probably just move elsewhere.

Originally Posted by reDZill4

survival of the fittest
dog eat dog
whatever
i dont give a shit if im taking your rent money, you shouldnt be in the gene pool if you are this dumb, and
i see it as my duty to help you remove yourself.

So cheating at poker is OK? Just dog eat dog? In a live game, using illicit measures to see hole cards? Creating super-user accounts like happened at Absolute?

The "I hate cheats" is a common refrain in many threads on FTR when discussing various cheating methods people suggest. So apparently a certain kind of morality matters to most poker players.

But when the results of our legitimate gambling actions may cause some few people pain and suffering, we seem to divorce the moral implications from our poker actions (me included).

I know they are two very different things. However, I only know of one way to be a moral human being. And that's by trying as best I can with every action and consequence, to not defraud or cause harm to my fellow human beings. So Drew has a point, imo, that must be considered, not just written off. Or morality doesn't matter at all in poker, and cheating is fine if you don't caught, etc., etc.

I don't have all the answers, but I know this. You can't have morality halfway. It either matters, or not.

Originally Posted by Robb

You can't have morality halfway. It either matters, or not.

We can't have fair rules in a game that allow anyone to play and then not want to let them play because it's not fair either.

Originally Posted by Robb

I don't have all the answers, but I know this. You can't have morality halfway. It either matters, or not.

Yes.

That's why what we call 'cheating' (collusion, bots, etc...) Is no more immoral than getting good at the game since they both give you an edge over players.

The net result is the same (robbing others) so why is running a HUD any worse than running a bot? Do you (instead of code that you've written) have to be robbing others for it to be 'moral'?

Competition and Consequences - they're going to happen!

If someone has a moral issue with taking someone's money, they shouldn't be playing poker, period. It's either his rent money or mine, and I'll be damned if it's going to be mine. Compulsive gamblers are going to lose their money to someone so it might as well be me.

Originally Posted by d0zer

The net result is the same (robbing others) so why is running a HUD any worse than running a bot? Do you (instead of code that you've written) have to be robbing others for it to be 'moral'?

I love this point. I think people using HUDs who are against bots/cheating are allowing themselves to hide behind their "moral compass". A HUD gives you an UNFAIR edge.

And that's what I think people are missing here. If we sit down at a table with players who are absolutely horrible then we have an edge in the game. The game is now stacked in our favour long term. But this is a FAIR edge. It's a skill level edge. This happens in all games and there's nothing immoral about it. The game is about winning the other guy's stack and if you have more skills, experience and know-how than he does well then that's great. It's life.

But I think people are confusing that with the immoral kind.

It's the age old question. Would you rather be Mike McD or Worm? Mike McD has a skill edge, he plays the game within the rules. There's nothing immoral about him taking someone's money if it's on the table. But if you're Worm, and you enjoy it, then that's a different thing. If you would be willing to control the deck, see other people's hole cards and/or any other illegal way of gaining an edge then you're the same type of person who takes steroids to win a race or sabotage another guys car so it crashes.

If you stack a game in your favour using anything that isn't completely accessible to everyone else then that's cheating, immoral and I hope to never see you at my table. And if I could get away with it, I'd shot you if you ever tried it on me. But if you've got a far bigger skill edge than me and within the rules of the game take everything I have. Good game Sir, I'll see you when I get better.

Originally Posted by Mezza Morta

If someone has a moral issue with taking someone's money, they shouldn't be playing poker, period. It's either his rent money or mine, and I'll be damned if it's going to be mine. Compulsive gamblers are going to lose their money to someone so it might as well be me.

This!

Not that I pay rent, or anything but gas =)

Originally Posted by Andrew

Originally Posted by d0zer

The net result is the same (robbing others) so why is running a HUD any worse than running a bot? Do you (instead of code that you've written) have to be robbing others for it to be 'moral'?

I love this point. I think people using HUDs who are against bots/cheating are allowing themselves to hide behind their "moral compass". A HUD gives you an UNFAIR edge.

And that's what I think people are missing here. If we sit down at a table with players who are absolutely horrible then we have an edge in the game. The game is now stacked in our favour long term. But this is a FAIR edge. It's a skill level edge. This happens in all games and there's nothing immoral about it. The game is about winning the other guy's stack and if you have more skills, experience and know-how than he does well then that's great. It's life.

Anyone who doesn't use a HUD is giving their opponents the edge. HUDs are available to everyone so, in that sense, the playing field is fair. Regardless, the stats are meaningless unless you know how to interpret them and even then they are only an indication. It's still our skill edge that allows us to exploit them.

thank god warpe has some sense^

I have no regrets taking money off hudbots


poker is impersonal though.
"feelings" are personal.


I do have morals however, in that I play fair.
I'll fairly pwn j00.

Originally Posted by Warpe

Originally Posted by Andrew

Originally Posted by d0zer

The net result is the same (robbing others) so why is running a HUD any worse than running a bot? Do you (instead of code that you've written) have to be robbing others for it to be 'moral'?

I love this point. I think people using HUDs who are against bots/cheating are allowing themselves to hide behind their "moral compass". A HUD gives you an UNFAIR edge.

And that's what I think people are missing here. If we sit down at a table with players who are absolutely horrible then we have an edge in the game. The game is now stacked in our favour long term. But this is a FAIR edge. It's a skill level edge. This happens in all games and there's nothing immoral about it. The game is about winning the other guy's stack and if you have more skills, experience and know-how than he does well then that's great. It's life.

Anyone who doesn't use a HUD is giving their opponents the edge. HUDs are available to everyone so, in that sense, the playing field is fair. Regardless, the stats are meaningless unless you know how to interpret them and even then they are only an indication. It's still our skill edge that allows us to exploit them.

The only way not using a HUD is giving our opponents an edge is if everyone is using them. So in actual fact a HUD doesn't give anyone an edge, it just keeps everyone on a level playing field...

But you hit on something about interpreting the HUD stats. How many people out there really understand what they are seeing in regards to the stats? I understand that a HUD is only as good as the person using it, but it does give you access at a table which is not readily available to every other player. Knowing the exact % a person raises/c-bets or whatever may not actually help you beating someone long term (that's a discussion for another day) but the very fact that we KNOW these stats means we have an unfair edge. Being able to use that edge to its maximum is not the point.

How did we not set an O/U on when huds would make it into this discussion?

In the absence of live reads HUDs are a reasonable accomodation and if the gaming industry thought they were unfair we wouldn't be able to use them in the first place. All they provide is easy access to a historical record of past behaviour, from which we try to make deductions/predictions.

I'd also argue that part of the skillset of an online poker player is knowing what legal tools are available and using them effectively. It's part of our skill 'edge'.

Originally Posted by Warpe

I'd also argue that part of the skillset of an online poker player is knowing what legal tools are available and using them effectively. It's part of our skill 'edge'.

Having skill edges in games of chance is immoral.

That's why the casinos kick out blackjack card counters: to preserve the morality of the industry.

Alright here's my two cents.
A HUD is just you on your computer after the fact tallying what the opponent did. This is a unique aspect of online play. You can have a program do it for you through hand histories or you can do it by hand. You still have to make a decision on what to do.

As to taking peoples money. What do day traders do. Someone has to lose money for people to make it. If you buy a stock after someone sold it at a low price and it went up. The person who sold it lost money. You would not feel guilty about this. If people don't know how to invest in correct stocks or be diversified they will lose money. Poker players are just investing. You can win or lose but if you diversified or bankrolled properly and know how to pick the right stocks or the right spots then you will make money long run. Stock Traders play the field. Poker players play the field also.

If someone wants to enter a golf tournament and they are entering with there rent money then they are idiots. If someone puts there retirement in Enron they are idiots. People do stupid things. Playing poker with rent money or college tuition is one of them. People who go into debt buying a nice car and go bankrupt. That is a stupid thing. Its going to happen we live in an immorral society for the most parts. Poker is the same thing as alcoholism. Degenerates will lose everything playing poker. Alcoholics will spend tons of money on alcohol and ruin there life. You playing are just playing your game by yourself. I think tournaments are more moral than cash games but that is only opinion. By playing poker are we taking advantage of people? Maybee is that moral no. consider it like every sport or game people pay money to play poker is just more expensive for some.

What about playing against people who are drunk is that morral. Absolutely they deserve to lose there money anyway.

Originally Posted by d0zer

Originally Posted by Warpe

I'd also argue that part of the skillset of an online poker player is knowing what legal tools are available and using them effectively. It's part of our skill 'edge'.

Having skill edges in games of chance is immoral.

That's why the casinos kick out blackjack card counters: to preserve the morality of the industry.

ok you don't actually believe that

Originally Posted by d0zer

Having skill edges in games of chance is immoral.

I don't think it's immoral, but rather an oxymoron.

I always feel better after reading threads regarding such difficult issues for me as this. Although the thread is responded to on a very one-sided biased poker forum.

Originally Posted by bigteif

What about playing against people who are drunk is that morral. Absolutely they deserve to lose there money anyway.

'Deserve'?

And I suppose women who dress provocatively 'deserve' to be raped also?

Originally Posted by bigteif

Alright here's my two cents.
A HUD is just you on your computer after the fact tallying what the opponent did. This is a unique aspect of online play. You can have a program do it for you through hand histories or you can do it by hand. You still have to make a decision on what to do.

As to taking peoples money. What do day traders do. Someone has to lose money for people to make it. If you buy a stock after someone sold it at a low price and it went up. The person who sold it lost money. You would not feel guilty about this. If people don't know how to invest in correct stocks or be diversified they will lose money. Poker players are just investing. You can win or lose but if you diversified or bankrolled properly and know how to pick the right stocks or the right spots then you will make money long run. Stock Traders play the field. Poker players play the field also.

If someone wants to enter a golf tournament and they are entering with there rent money then they are idiots. If someone puts there retirement in Enron they are idiots. People do stupid things. Playing poker with rent money or college tuition is one of them. People who go into debt buying a nice car and go bankrupt. That is a stupid thing. Its going to happen we live in an immorral society for the most parts. Poker is the same thing as alcoholism. Degenerates will lose everything playing poker. Alcoholics will spend tons of money on alcohol and ruin there life. You playing are just playing your game by yourself.

I agree with all of this.

Originally Posted by d0zer

Originally Posted by Warpe

I'd also argue that part of the skillset of an online poker player is knowing what legal tools are available and using them effectively. It's part of our skill 'edge'.

Having skill edges in games of chance is immoral.

That's why the casinos kick out blackjack card counters: to preserve the morality of the industry.

Get level.

How many people here would play poker if money wasn't involved. What if we just used the chips and didn't equate them to a certain amount of money? We would be purely moral then, right? With the introduction of money, we've rubbed an eraser on that pencil line that was once so concrete. In order to make up for our sinful, greedy ways, we should help the people who bigteif so eloquently described. We all love poker for the game itself. The money aspect merely feeds a deep greed that we've been very much conditioned to lust after.

Originally Posted by d0zer

Originally Posted by bigteif

What about playing against people who are drunk is that morral. Absolutely they deserve to lose there money anyway.

'Deserve'?

And I suppose women who dress provocatively 'deserve' to be raped also?

I guess you're just being purposefully provocative but this makes no sense. If you make a wager when drunk there is a high chance that you will lose the bet as alcohol impairs your judgement. IT IS ENTIRELY YOUR OWN FAULT, not the person you made the wager with, not the person who provided the software, not the person who sold you the alcohol.

Obviously it is completely different with rape, that was just an absurd thing to say.

Gamblers with ethics helped clean up the "wild west" Texas poker circuit. Guys like Doyle Brunson and Amarillo Slim who were robbed, mugged, and cheated - had problem gamblers welsh on debts. Business men with ethics moved into Las Vegas and developed it (mostly) out of the hands of the mobsters who used to run it.

Today, poker room owners with ethics are struggling with what electronic aids to allow, what things will not corrupt the game. Most rooms allow HUDs but disapprove of equity calculators the display pot odds on the hand in play (which is why PT3/PA HUD steadfastly refuse to add it, despite a continual plea for it in their "request new features" forum).

How can we define a "fair" game, a level playing field, without a moral compass to guide us? There must be some idea of what's right and wrong. And stand-up gamblers who refuse to cheat and who care about the right-and-wrong of the game and industry are essential.

But we have a problem. The stand-up, honest-to-God moralists who still gamble - the good guys - will always struggle with what Spoon and others called the "hustling" aspects of poker, especially when looking at very real statistics about problem gamblers who ruin their lives in the games where we make our profits.

I'm not sure how to resolve all these issues. But it's silly to dismiss them from your thoughts entirely and still hold beliefs like "cheating at poker is wrong."

the question of "morality" isnt an easy one...ever.

i think its all a bunch of choices, and options. life is a river that has MANY forks and branches. you get to choose which path you want to take, but you MUST choose before you know the results. the results may be good, and they may send you over a waterfall, too. you just dont know.

if the Boy Scout helping the lady cross the street gets in front of a speeding car, they both get killed, right? after all, he was just trying to do the "right thing." (you deep thinkers can ponder that one for a bit)

Originally Posted by robb

...stand-up gamblers...

oxymoron?

Originally Posted by badgers

If you make a wager when drunk there is a high chance that you will lose the bet as alcohol impairs your judgement.

You walk around a shady part of town at night dressed like a whore and there's a high chance you'll attract some shit, but that doesn't mean that either the slut or the drunk 'deserved' it.

Originally Posted by Chopper

if the Boy Scout helping the lady cross the street gets in front of a speeding car, they both get killed, right? after all, he was just trying to do the "right thing."

results-oriented thinking

Originally Posted by Chopper

Originally Posted by robb

...stand-up gamblers...

oxymoron?

No. Just like there are moral day traders (who refuse to leverage "insider" status). Just like there are moral attorneys (who refuse to play fast and loose with the rules). Just like the might be (theoretically) a moral politician (though I've not ever seen one in practice ). Just like, in the reverse, there are a few sick Catholic priests who are pedophiles in a career generally filled with honest, ethical and moral individuals.

Lots of careers and jobs are replete with morally and ethically challenged practitioners. And poker probably is, too.

But it's the good guys, the honest guys, the ethical guys that make poker as an industry work well so we can enjoy it and hopefully profit from it.

Originally Posted by d0zer

Originally Posted by badgers

If you make a wager when drunk there is a high chance that you will lose the bet as alcohol impairs your judgement.

You walk around a shady part of town at night dressed like a whore and there's a high chance you'll attract some shit, but that doesn't mean that either the slut or the drunk 'deserved' it.

lmao ban

thanks for ruining a perfectly fine thread for a third time

Originally Posted by d0zer

Originally Posted by badgers

If you make a wager when drunk there is a high chance that you will lose the bet as alcohol impairs your judgement.

You walk around a shady part of town at night dressed like a whore and there's a high chance you'll attract some shit, but that doesn't mean that either the slut or the drunk 'deserved' it.

I was just trying to make the point that people who gamble and get drunk shouldn't. Maybee losing a few hundred or thousand bucks will teach them a lesson. It shouldn't happen but it will. Maybee next time they won't get drunk. Your example the girls shouldn't do that because there is a high chance they will get raped. They shouldn't and they don't deserve it because rape is way worse than losing money. They shouldn't get raped but if they do. Do you think they'll act the same way.

Also here is another question.

Do you guys feel bad about the people who lose all there money and commit suicide. Because of loss from poker.

Do you feel bad about people who commit suicide because they were laid off and had felt hopeless.

Do you feel bad about people who commit suicide because of they were dumped.

It is all a result of human decisions. People who do this are not right. People need to know how to set limits and when to play and when not to. Poker as a game is great. I am not really sure about the morality if playing for money. It is based on greed. Greed is immoral so poker and most peoples quest for money is immoral. If people just want money any way they can get it then spending 70 hours a week working just to have more stuff and totally neglecting your family. That is immoral. When ever money is put as the center of your life. That is what makes it immoral. When you begin to exploit people in any area by cheating them out of there money then it becomes immoral. Poker as a game where people play with in there means is not immoral because it's just a game like chess. You play for the money and for the victory. If I could play just as tough of games with out money would I. I don't know. Am I doing it because of the money. I don't know for me personally. But for all of you who strugle with this. maybe you shouldn't be playing and hustling people and taking the rest of there money. Sure play with people who take shots and are rolled but taking the widows social security I don't know if thats right. We also dont know how much it will phase her if lost. It is an incomplete picture. If it is for entertainment then they expect to lose but figure hey why watch a movie when I can play poker and maybe not lose. The degenerates who gamble everything away. I believe playing with them is wrong. I beleive no one should want to play with them then they will break there addiction. the casino's would also have to be on this and not let them play. It would have to be a perfect world for this not to happen. People who have an edge are like the machine. You give the people hours of entertainment playing poker and they pay you for it.

Originally Posted by Robb

Originally Posted by Chopper

Originally Posted by robb

...stand-up gamblers...

oxymoron?

No. Just like there are moral day traders (who refuse to leverage "insider" status). Just like there are moral attorneys (who refuse to play fast and loose with the rules). Just like the might be (theoretically) a moral politician (though I've not ever seen one in practice ). Just like, in the reverse, there are a few sick Catholic priests who are pedophiles in a career generally filled with honest, ethical and moral individuals.

Lots of careers and jobs are replete with morally and ethically challenged practitioners. And poker probably is, too.

But it's the good guys, the honest guys, the ethical guys that make poker as an industry work well so we can enjoy it and hopefully profit from it.

Just saw this one while I was typing my other. Yes there are moral people and immoral people in every profession. I believe the term politician implies that they are immoral. I think the word statesman best describes what a representitive shoud be. John Adams was one of the finest.

My theory about catholic priest is they are already like that and are trying to escape it so they become a priest to do God's work and they just fall back into there sin of child molesting again.

Was slavery moral even though some slave owners were very kind a gracious to there slaves. Just because there are moral people in every profession does that make it right?

talking about morality in a game in which lying is an essential skill seems somewhat incongruous.

Originally Posted by bigteif

My theory about catholic priest is they are already like that and are trying to escape it so they become a priest to do God's work and they just fall back into there sin of child molesting again.

Originally Posted by d0zer

Originally Posted by badgers

If you make a wager when drunk there is a high chance that you will lose the bet as alcohol impairs your judgement.

You walk around a shady part of town at night dressed like a whore and there's a high chance you'll attract some shit, but that doesn't mean that either the slut or the drunk 'deserved' it.

Different situations and different moral applications.

It's discussions like this that allow the extreme right side of politics to stay in power. The two situations have different moral codes associated with them.

Poker:
You sit down at the table with money. No matter what your mental attitude may be in regards to your perceived "edge" you know that there is a potential for loss. The more you drink, the more mistakes you are going to make. You are going to get to the stage where you can't make an informed decision and will go broke.

Incidentally there was a Darts player I knew who needed to get half-drunk in order to play (much like there was an old Texas Road Gambler who needed to do the same). Once she was nicely inebriated then she could hit any number she wanted. But the moment she was past that point she couldn't hit anything worth a shit.

Rape:
A woman doesn't go out with the potential of being raped. There isn't a "risk-reward" in regards to going out for a night out with the girls. If a woman dresses "like a tart" or just a little bit "sexy" it doesn't really matter if someone decides they are going out to rape her. She's not making decisions knowing she may risk it, she's not taking a gamble for a "rush".

The clothing a woman wears is an excuse for rapists not the reasoning. The alcohol a drunk drinks is the reasoning behind him losing more money than he would normally.

Originally Posted by bigteif

Greed is immoral so poker and most peoples quest for money is immoral.

Now we're talkin'

Originally Posted by bigteif

Just saw this one while I was typing my other.

OMG yer a fuckin' BOT to be able to read posts while responding to others simultaneously. That also explains how many words you typed without really saying anything

I've had this discussion with a couple of people recently and it's important to me because I'm currently making my living playing poker. If I was just playing a few hours here and there for entertainment, I don't think I'd care that I'm making money at the expense of others, but now that I'm playing several hours per day it bothers me a little that my "career" doesn't have a positive impact on society (and has a negative one on some people).

One thing that comes to mind is a thread from a long time ago in which I posted that 75% of the losses at 100nl FR in a 2.8 million hand database came from players that had played fewer than 100 hands. Only 48 out of 16,300 players were losers over 2500+ hands. What this suggests is that most of the money being pumped into the poker economy is coming from recent depositors (or players who have recently moved into this stake/game). There aren't that many long-term losers and they make up a very small percentage of total losses. This jives with my personal experience (I tend to take money from fish I've never seen before and usually don't see again) and suggests that gambling addicts who are constantly losing make up a small part of the poker economy. This makes me feel better.

I'm also considering giving a percentage of my winnings to a charity that treats gambling addicts. -EV?

Originally Posted by zook

I'm also considering giving a percentage of my winnings to a charity that treats gambling addicts. -EV?

LDO



...but highly moral

Originally Posted by Warpe

talking about morality in a game in which lying is an essential skill seems somewhat incongruous.

Only on the surface. Basketball has head fakes. Football defenses disguise their coverages. Most competitions require "deceiving" opponents to gain advantage. As long as all fakes, feints and "lies" are within the rules of the game, it's a fair playing field.

Cheating - which is immoral - is gaining some advantage outside the rules. It's funny that in baseball, if the runner on second can "steal signs" and signal the hitter, it's legit. Station someone in the center field stands to do the same thing, and it's cheating.

The more poker players we have who worry about ethics and morality, the better the game will be for everyone. And worrying about morality can't just be about cheating vs. not cheating. The impact of our actions on others has moral and ethical implications, too.

If I was able to manipulate a deck of cards the way some 'mechanics' can, with false shuffles and shit, I can 100% guarantee that the temptation to use that skill to fleece self-dealt home games would be overwhelming and I would do it, I would get rich off it, and while I would feel bad about it, the money would be too nice to stop.

Even if I had the ability to shuffle a single ace to the bottom of the deck, I would use that information to glean that the guy shoving over my PFR is less likely to have AA.

Fortunately for my conscience, I am unable to do those things.



... Maybe I should learn.

Originally Posted by euphoricism

Fortunately for my conscience, I am unable to do those things.



... Maybe I should learn.

nh eupho :P

this is one of the many ways in which humans can be so smart yet so dumb.

we have gotten where we are because of predation. humans are technically super predators. we are such good predators that the prowess of tigers and sharks and spiders cannot even come close to compare to our accomplishments.

not only are humans by nature super predators, but existence is based upon predation. evolution is survival of the fittest. we survive and are the fittest because we predate on weaknesses of others, no matter their origin and association. every other chemical/organism in the universe does exactly the same. everything from a drop of methane to a walrus, from a proton to a supermassive black hole.

we cannot deny reality, yet we try to and think we do. we think that we're doing wrong when we take money from somebody playing poker, yet we dont realize that they exact same logic should be applied to when a business profits off a customer, when a business profits off the inadequacy of another competing business, when a person profits off the misfortune or inferiority of another.

is MMA wrong? its predatory. are litigators inherently immoral? its predatory. are governments wrong? they're predatory. is sex wrong? its predatory.

Kay tells Michael Corleone that governments dont kill people and he's being naive, Michael asks her who's the one being naive.

when you use logic, apply it across the board. you will then see that every justification and reason for legitimate businesses works perfectly for poker, as it does for pretty much anything.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

we have gotten where we are because of predation. humans are technically super predators. we are such good predators that the prowess of tigers and sharks and spiders cannot even come close to compare to our accomplishments.

I know what you're trying to get at, but I laughed my ass off at this.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

this is one of the many ways in which humans can be so smart yet so dumb.

we have gotten where we are because of predation. humans are technically super predators. we are such good predators that the prowess of tigers and sharks and spiders cannot even come close to compare to our accomplishments.

not only are humans by nature super predators, but existence is based upon predation. evolution is survival of the fittest. we survive and are the fittest because we predate on weaknesses of others, no matter their origin and association. every other chemical/organism in the universe does exactly the same. everything from a drop of methane to a walrus, from a proton to a supermassive black hole.

we cannot deny reality, yet we try to and think we do. we think that we're doing wrong when we take money from somebody playing poker, yet we dont realize that they exact same logic should be applied to when a business profits off a customer, when a business profits off the inadequacy of another competing business, when a person profits off the misfortune or inferiority of another.

is MMA wrong? its predatory. are litigators inherently immoral? its predatory. are governments wrong? they're predatory. is sex wrong? its predatory.

Kay tells Michael Corleone that governments dont kill people and he's being naive, Michael asks her who's the one being naive.

when you use logic, apply it across the board. you will then see that every justification and reason for legitimate businesses works perfectly for poker, as it does for pretty much anything.

Maybe not all of us believe in evolution.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

we think that we're doing wrong when we take money from somebody playing poker, yet we dont realize that they exact same logic should be applied to when a business profits off a customer, when a business profits off the inadequacy of another competing business, when a person profits off the misfortune or inferiority of another.

I think the situations are very different. Most businesses create value with their products or services, making capitalism a positive sum game. Poker is a negative sum game, in which the winners provide little value to the losers, except some entertainment and occasionally education. Poker isn't the only career choice that I have moral qualms about, but it is fundamentally different from almost every other.

Originally Posted by zook

Originally Posted by wufwugy

we think that we're doing wrong when we take money from somebody playing poker, yet we dont realize that they exact same logic should be applied to when a business profits off a customer, when a business profits off the inadequacy of another competing business, when a person profits off the misfortune or inferiority of another.

I think the situations are very different. Most businesses create value with their products or services, making capitalism a positive sum game. Poker is a negative sum game, in which the winners provide little value to the losers, except some entertainment and occasionally education. Poker isn't the only career choice that I have moral qualms about, but it is fundamentally different from almost every other.

how does insurance, or used car, sales strike you? ...because i know a guy...

Originally Posted by bigteif

Originally Posted by wufwugy

this is one of the many ways in which humans can be so smart yet so dumb.

we have gotten where we are because of predation. humans are technically super predators. we are such good predators that the prowess of tigers and sharks and spiders cannot even come close to compare to our accomplishments.

not only are humans by nature super predators, but existence is based upon predation. evolution is survival of the fittest. we survive and are the fittest because we predate on weaknesses of others, no matter their origin and association. every other chemical/organism in the universe does exactly the same. everything from a drop of methane to a walrus, from a proton to a supermassive black hole.

we cannot deny reality, yet we try to and think we do. we think that we're doing wrong when we take money from somebody playing poker, yet we dont realize that they exact same logic should be applied to when a business profits off a customer, when a business profits off the inadequacy of another competing business, when a person profits off the misfortune or inferiority of another.

is MMA wrong? its predatory. are litigators inherently immoral? its predatory. are governments wrong? they're predatory. is sex wrong? its predatory.

Kay tells Michael Corleone that governments dont kill people and he's being naive, Michael asks her who's the one being naive.

when you use logic, apply it across the board. you will then see that every justification and reason for legitimate businesses works perfectly for poker, as it does for pretty much anything.

Maybe not all of us believe in evolution.

do you also not believe in relativity or quantum mechanics or electricity or nuclear fission or any thing else that has been analyzed and understood by science? science is, afterall, nothing but theory.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by wufwugy

we have gotten where we are because of predation. humans are technically super predators. we are such good predators that the prowess of tigers and sharks and spiders cannot even come close to compare to our accomplishments.

I know what you're trying to get at, but I laughed my ass off at this.

because it goes without saying. problem is, it actually doesn't.

humans do not consider themselves predators, yet we are, in actuality, the greatest predators earth has ever known. and i dont mean this in a general sense like we have taken advantage of weaknesses and stuff really well, but we are actually predators just like other mammals we know to be predators.

in fact, if it wasn't for predation, our IQs would be itty bitty. generally, predators are smarter than prey because if they weren't they would starve.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Originally Posted by bigteif

Originally Posted by wufwugy

this is one of the many ways in which humans can be so smart yet so dumb.

we have gotten where we are because of predation. humans are technically super predators. we are such good predators that the prowess of tigers and sharks and spiders cannot even come close to compare to our accomplishments.

not only are humans by nature super predators, but existence is based upon predation. evolution is survival of the fittest. we survive and are the fittest because we predate on weaknesses of others, no matter their origin and association. every other chemical/organism in the universe does exactly the same. everything from a drop of methane to a walrus, from a proton to a supermassive black hole.

we cannot deny reality, yet we try to and think we do. we think that we're doing wrong when we take money from somebody playing poker, yet we dont realize that they exact same logic should be applied to when a business profits off a customer, when a business profits off the inadequacy of another competing business, when a person profits off the misfortune or inferiority of another.

is MMA wrong? its predatory. are litigators inherently immoral? its predatory. are governments wrong? they're predatory. is sex wrong? its predatory.

Kay tells Michael Corleone that governments dont kill people and he's being naive, Michael asks her who's the one being naive.

when you use logic, apply it across the board. you will then see that every justification and reason for legitimate businesses works perfectly for poker, as it does for pretty much anything.

Maybe not all of us believe in evolution.

do you also not believe in relativity or quantum mechanics or electricity or nuclear fission or any thing else that has been analyzed and understood by science? science is, after all, nothing but theory.

I never made the argument that it was a theory. I said maybe not all of us believe in it. There is also out there the theory of intelligent design. Even Richard Dawkins admitted that there is no way that life spontaneously generated. I believe in natural selection but not in evolution between species. The difference between evolution and these theories are the others mentioned are physical in nature.

Originally Posted by zook

Originally Posted by wufwugy

we think that we're doing wrong when we take money from somebody playing poker, yet we dont realize that they exact same logic should be applied to when a business profits off a customer, when a business profits off the inadequacy of another competing business, when a person profits off the misfortune or inferiority of another.

I think the situations are very different. Most businesses create value with their products or services, making capitalism a positive sum game. Poker is a negative sum game, in which the winners provide little value to the losers, except some entertainment and occasionally education. Poker isn't the only career choice that I have moral qualms about, but it is fundamentally different from almost every other.

first off, im pretty sure poker is not a negative sum game, but a zero sum game, and this has to do solely with the game, not the players. i wont purport to understand game theory much, but all teh 2p2ers who say they know say poker is zero sum.

now, the reasons you've provided to differentiate poker and other 'valuable' businesses are exactly what i was getting at when i said what i said. the first mistake is that you're attempting to give an objective qualification to value. you cant do that, value is personal. second, the reason you give here

winners provide little value to the losers, except some entertainment and occasionally education

is not applied across the board. who's to say that entertainment and occasionally education isn't merited? even then, a ton of established professions do exactly that and only that. is Steven Spielberg immoral for making a living off of that exclusively?

lets look at something entirely different. lets look at love, and apply your thinking. lets say you and i are both in love with the same woman. we do our best to win her heart, and i come out on top; you are the loser. was the value and effect of this game we played any different than when we battle for chips/money and one of us wins and one loses?

also, i imagine a thorough understanding of game theory would make this very clear. like i said, my understanding is crap, but i dont think that game theory differentiates between poker and something like getting a degree from school. they're both finite games, and the same fundamental rules apply.

if im wrong about that please set me straight.

Originally Posted by bigteif

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Originally Posted by bigteif

Originally Posted by wufwugy

this is one of the many ways in which humans can be so smart yet so dumb.

we have gotten where we are because of predation. humans are technically super predators. we are such good predators that the prowess of tigers and sharks and spiders cannot even come close to compare to our accomplishments.

not only are humans by nature super predators, but existence is based upon predation. evolution is survival of the fittest. we survive and are the fittest because we predate on weaknesses of others, no matter their origin and association. every other chemical/organism in the universe does exactly the same. everything from a drop of methane to a walrus, from a proton to a supermassive black hole.

we cannot deny reality, yet we try to and think we do. we think that we're doing wrong when we take money from somebody playing poker, yet we dont realize that they exact same logic should be applied to when a business profits off a customer, when a business profits off the inadequacy of another competing business, when a person profits off the misfortune or inferiority of another.

is MMA wrong? its predatory. are litigators inherently immoral? its predatory. are governments wrong? they're predatory. is sex wrong? its predatory.

Kay tells Michael Corleone that governments dont kill people and he's being naive, Michael asks her who's the one being naive.

when you use logic, apply it across the board. you will then see that every justification and reason for legitimate businesses works perfectly for poker, as it does for pretty much anything.

Maybe not all of us believe in evolution.

do you also not believe in relativity or quantum mechanics or electricity or nuclear fission or any thing else that has been analyzed and understood by science? science is, after all, nothing but theory.

I never made the argument that it was a theory. I said maybe not all of us believe in it. There is also out there the theory of intelligent design. Even Richard Dawkins admitted that there is no way that life spontaneously generated. I believe in natural selection but not in evolution between species. The difference between evolution and these theories are the others mentioned are physical in nature.

Oh yeah and the theory of general relativity ended up replacing newtons gravitational laws. He noticed that newtons calculations didn't match up for the planet mercury. That is why he developed the theory of general relativity. It exlpained the odd orbit of mercury and showed that there were errors in newton's theory and calculations because it didn't account for certain measures. Newtons theory was around for how many years. Theories can be disproven.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

when you use logic, apply it across the board. you will then see that every justification and reason for legitimate businesses works perfectly for poker, as it does for pretty much anything.

Personally, this doesn't work. I turn down job interviews for some pretty elite corporations because I couldn't bare to work for them. No one would look down on me for working for a fortune 100 company. I come to my own conclusions about my own choices. I am the judge of my own morality. Just because the arguments are common and accepted doesn't make them right. Slavery was accepted by the mainstream. Wage slavery still is. I'm trying to move forward, but it's not easy to justify gambling for profit.

Originally Posted by bigteif

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Originally Posted by bigteif

Originally Posted by wufwugy

this is one of the many ways in which humans can be so smart yet so dumb.

we have gotten where we are because of predation. humans are technically super predators. we are such good predators that the prowess of tigers and sharks and spiders cannot even come close to compare to our accomplishments.

not only are humans by nature super predators, but existence is based upon predation. evolution is survival of the fittest. we survive and are the fittest because we predate on weaknesses of others, no matter their origin and association. every other chemical/organism in the universe does exactly the same. everything from a drop of methane to a walrus, from a proton to a supermassive black hole.

we cannot deny reality, yet we try to and think we do. we think that we're doing wrong when we take money from somebody playing poker, yet we dont realize that they exact same logic should be applied to when a business profits off a customer, when a business profits off the inadequacy of another competing business, when a person profits off the misfortune or inferiority of another.

is MMA wrong? its predatory. are litigators inherently immoral? its predatory. are governments wrong? they're predatory. is sex wrong? its predatory.

Kay tells Michael Corleone that governments dont kill people and he's being naive, Michael asks her who's the one being naive.

when you use logic, apply it across the board. you will then see that every justification and reason for legitimate businesses works perfectly for poker, as it does for pretty much anything.

Maybe not all of us believe in evolution.

do you also not believe in relativity or quantum mechanics or electricity or nuclear fission or any thing else that has been analyzed and understood by science? science is, after all, nothing but theory.

I never made the argument that it was a theory. I said maybe not all of us believe in it. There is also out there the theory of intelligent design. Even Richard Dawkins admitted that there is no way that life spontaneously generated. I believe in natural selection but not in evolution between species. The difference between evolution and these theories are the others mentioned are physical in nature.

if richard dawkins said that then he is foolish. first, we dont know enough to know that life cannot spontaneously generate, and second, we know enough to know that life/things likely can and do. the quantum vacuum is an amazing thing.

not all theories are created equal, and many theories should not be rightly labeled as theories, yet they are by their proponents. for example check out Hovind Theory. it is a bunch of hogwash that is as disproven as it gets, yet many still believe it has theoretical basis.

also, dont make the mistake of approaching things with the pseudo-science mindset, which you are unknowingly doing when you say you believe natural selection but not in evolution species. not only is your terminology skewed, but you're picking and choosing what facets of the diamond you consider facets. you're picking and choosing what part of the theory you like and what you dont. natural selection is, afterall, an aspect hypothesized and derived from the theory of evolution. it is intertwined with the theory of evolution. this doesn't mean it cannot be extracted from the theory of evolution, but the problem is that the extraction must be qualified with science behind it. non-evolution beliefs have yet to do this.

this is a very standard creationist thing to do. majorly pseudo-science. they misunderstand terminology and purpose like 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' and develop analyses based in that faulty understanding. its like saying oh i believe in the New Testament, but not the Old Testament