In the OPs example, Phil Ivey "deserves" to make millions because he finds other people willing to play a game with him where the outcome is them giving him millions. That's all there is to it, and i don't see where "morality" comes into it at all. If no one was willing to pay him that kind of money, he wouldn't have it, but apparently, some people do find value in paying him that much.
It's the same with professional athletes. They make as much as they do because a lot of people are willing to pay a lot of money for the service they provide. $100 game tickets, $250 to watch the season on the internet, $70 jerseys, you name it.
That's the beauty of the system: You get to decide what your own time and money is worth to you. If a majority of people decided not to pay for tickets, watch the Super Bowl, etc., the wages of professional athletes go down. If everyone decides they aren't going to work at mcdonalds for 7 bucks an hour, wages for mcdonalds employees go up.
If you want to argue that it's immoral that people use their money to watch sports instead of help the poor or pay teachers or whoever more money, okay, maybe. But I'm also willing to bet that almost anyone asserting that premise is a hypocrite. The person who spends more time/money contributing to society than they do entertaining themselves is few and far between.
Originally Posted by Akileos
What is the good for society to have money from clueless gamblers be transferred to smart gamblers?
I believe your basic premise (anything which is not done for the good of society is immoral) is flawed.
If you're correct, you're actually quite immoral for spending all this time ITT when you could be doing things to better society. There's nothing you can do on these forums that is going to make society any better.