Is Playing Poker for a Living Moral?
If so many of the jobs in those industries are -EV, why do the employers continue to employ those people?
Other than arguments from economic principles, you could just look at http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0619.pdf. However, since I can't find any sources with more granular data about jobs, you're probably just going to say something like "of the 9.1M employed in construction, only 5M of them are +EV," though I don't see why those people would continue having a job.
So would I. However I claim they would mostly (probably all) be far more beneficial if they employed less people (on a pro rate basis as I expect some of these would be far bigger if they employed less people per unit output) and not just because they would be cheaper.
I dont disagree. Same for the entertainment market.
Mostly its because of government. Directly in the case of the public sector and indirectly because of regulation etc
Sometimes it just pure exploitation like selling extremely bad value insurance or education like its apples. Just because people think they are getting value it doesn't mean they aren't being taken to the cleaners by pros.
I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make.
Even if you argue that insurance salespeople or financial analysts or whatever are parasitic, it's hard to argue that insurance and financial markets aren't +EV for society.
If so many of the jobs in those industries are -EV, why do the employers continue to employ those people?
Sometimes it just pure exploitation like selling extremely bad value insurance or education like its apples. Just because people think they are getting value it doesn't mean they aren't being taken to the cleaners by pros.
Other than arguments from economic principles, you could just look at http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0619.pdf. However, since I can't find any sources with more granular data about jobs, you're probably just going to say something like "of the 9.1M employed in construction, only 5M of them are +EV," though I don't see why those people would continue having a job.
There was no cherrypicking, how long would you like me to make the list before you would stop saying that? The list of jobs with non -ve value might well be far more of a cherrypick
It would be an interesting exercise to consider what jobs we would keep if we only had once that didn't destroy value.
It would be an interesting exercise to consider what jobs we would keep if we only had once that didn't destroy value.
The fish need a huge number of pros to go away for your desired impact but then the games might well be in trouble.
How are we producing so much if so many jobs have negative value?
Are there just a handful of people producing the vast majority of value to the world?
Its probably going to get a lot 'worse'. Humanity is probably going to get a lot wealthier while doing far less work. Remind me why that's a bad thing?
The fish wouldnt be better off unless the pro is replaced by a fish, the table with the fish would still be full of pros.
The mean player in any given game is a loser to the rake. A proper pro must be sufficiently above average to beat the rake. So if a pro quits, his replacement would on average be weaker than him.
Its a bit of a silly argument though. Next you're be saying its the rake that's immoral.
Poker is 1000x more moral than being an investment banker.
In poker it is established that you will try to take each others money. Regardless of who wins, we have that agreement and concent to play.
Many people go to investment bankers, and invest their pension or savings THINKING, the investment banker will try their best and make the best decisions to make the client money, when many times these guys are being paid by the very companies they are telling the clients to buy, and lying and saying its a good investment.
And they dont go to jail for this and they get paid a commission whether the client wins or loses everything. What a joke.
In poker it is established that you will try to take each others money. Regardless of who wins, we have that agreement and concent to play.
Many people go to investment bankers, and invest their pension or savings THINKING, the investment banker will try their best and make the best decisions to make the client money, when many times these guys are being paid by the very companies they are telling the clients to buy, and lying and saying its a good investment.
And they dont go to jail for this and they get paid a commission whether the client wins or loses everything. What a joke.
Sounds like the fish would be worse off as you replace a toss-up in the seat with a non toss-up.
see above, the ones you persuade are likely to have their seat taken by a better pro.
Its a bit of a silly argument though. Next you're be saying its the rake that's immoral.
see above, the ones you persuade are likely to have their seat taken by a better pro.
Its a bit of a silly argument though. Next you're be saying its the rake that's immoral.
In any case, it's not how marginal their decision to play poker is, it's the monetary effect. Anyone who takes money out of the games is making all the other parties involved (the fish, the pros and the site) collectively worse off even if some are winners. Now the pro makes money so the total monetary effect is a wash, however the pro spends a lot of time in "work" so the total benefit on society is negative.
It's actually quite plausible that higher rakes could increase social efficiency. If the games are too tough to beat long-term, the pros quit, but the fish can still have fun especially as the pros leaving would counteract the higher rake making them lose money faster.
People have different points at whether they toss-up continuing to play poker. Someone making $50k playing poker may be tossing up between quitting and getting a "real job". Someone losing $50k a year playing poker may have no intention of quitting because they're playing for fun.
In any case, it's not how marginal their decision to play poker is, it's the monetary effect. Anyone who takes money out of the games is making all the other parties involved (the fish, the pros and the site) collectively worse off even if some are winners.
Now the pro makes money so the total monetary effect is a wash, however the pro spends a lot of time in "work" so the total benefit on society is negative.
It's actually quite plausible that higher rakes could increase social efficiency. If the games are too tough to beat long-term, the pros quit, but the fish can still have fun especially as the pros leaving would counteract the higher rake making them lose money faster.
Lets have some silly arguments the other way.
poker players in poor countries earn much utility from players in rich countries so poker is highly moral.
poker players in poor countries earn much utility from players in rich countries so poker is highly moral.
I've pointed out this isn't true but there's nothing immoral about people paying to play. They're worse off when they chose to go to the cinema is well
Bizarre argument. Why do you want to take a decent job away from people who want them to give them to people who dont want them?
poker players in poor countries earn much utility from players in rich countries so poker is highly moral.
That could well be a factor in the utilitarian analysis of poker. But on an individual level it doesn't change the analysis. A poor person tossing up between microstakes online poker and something else should consider that the "something else" is more likely to do good.
Do you have some weird view that however much good our job does its immoral if there might be a job that does more good?
----
Second silly reason on the moral side:
Technology advances are good and gambling is a driver of that advance. Hence online gambling is good and people who can afford to push the technology furtherst such as those making a living are really good.
If the pro is taking money from the games and isn't making anyone happier for his presence, someone has to be worse off more than others are being made better off.
hang on before you werew sayoing its immoral because it didn't do Redistributing wealth from rich to poor areas is pretty good. Except for some apparant prejudice why should they consider that something else is better.
Do you have some weird view that however much good our job does its immoral if there might be a job that does more good?
----
Second silly reason on the moral side:
Technology advances are good and gambling is a driver of that advance. Hence online gambling is good and people who can afford to push the technology furtherst such as those making a living are really good.
Second silly reason on the moral side:
Technology advances are good and gambling is a driver of that advance. Hence online gambling is good and people who can afford to push the technology furtherst such as those making a living are really good.
I'm not sure what the point of these arguments are, it's not as if they're making a good parody of any of mine.
Here's another one for you. game integrity requires honest pros and game integrity really matterts to the fish, hence honest pros provide a benefit to the fish.
At the very least, if you have so certianly deduced that pros are a net -ve you must have taken all these three (so far) things into account. Can we see you're work please?
But it isn't clearly a net -ve, at least no more so than most other jobs. I've given you two reasons why, I shall give you more.
Thy're true but silly. Just like yours woudl be if they were true.
Here's another one for you. game integrity requires honest pros and game integrity really matterts to the fish, hence honest pros provide a benefit to the fish.
At the very least, if you have so certianly deduced that pros are a net -ve you must have taken all these three (so far) things into account. Can we see you're work please?
Thy're true but silly. Just like yours woudl be if they were true.
Here's another one for you. game integrity requires honest pros and game integrity really matterts to the fish, hence honest pros provide a benefit to the fish.
At the very least, if you have so certianly deduced that pros are a net -ve you must have taken all these three (so far) things into account. Can we see you're work please?
Second silly reason on the moral side:
Technology advances are good and gambling is a driver of that advance. Hence online gambling is good and people who can afford to push the technology furtherst such as those making a living are really good.
Technology advances are good and gambling is a driver of that advance. Hence online gambling is good and people who can afford to push the technology furtherst such as those making a living are really good.
Because they have most idea what is going on.
That's like asking how a random ****er helped with the development of the internet
Advances dont happen without demand, we add demand. The pros demand the better stuff and have the money to buy it, that's how things advance and become better for all.
Normally its too unspecific to pick out the be nefits but if you want some rare specifics then:
personally I did a decent bit of good for internet use as I really needed the unreliable service to be reliable. Even once organised the repair of a fault that had brought the whole of SW London down which the cable company thought they had fixed (the engineer who did the work was a bit perplexed to find out I didn't work there). I also once visited a street amplifier that the company insisted was underwater to prove it wasn't as support claimed. I have an email from very high up in the chairmens office explaining all the mistakes made in the delayed resolution (and in their stunningly poor support) of another fault causing problems for huge number of users that was only brought to light by my persistance. Plus loads more that's harder to be specific about. Maybe they should build me a statue.
This is a complete non-sequitur. How does a random grinder drive technological advances?
Advances dont happen without demand, we add demand. The pros demand the better stuff and have the money to buy it, that's how things advance and become better for all.
Normally its too unspecific to pick out the be nefits but if you want some rare specifics then:
personally I did a decent bit of good for internet use as I really needed the unreliable service to be reliable. Even once organised the repair of a fault that had brought the whole of SW London down which the cable company thought they had fixed (the engineer who did the work was a bit perplexed to find out I didn't work there). I also once visited a street amplifier that the company insisted was underwater to prove it wasn't as support claimed. I have an email from very high up in the chairmens office explaining all the mistakes made in the delayed resolution (and in their stunningly poor support) of another fault causing problems for huge number of users that was only brought to light by my persistance. Plus loads more that's harder to be specific about. Maybe they should build me a statue.
Actually, the game host does, and they typically are involved with (and are judged by) the vast majority of game security. How on earth does a random online pro improve game security? Maaaaybe they're slightly more likely to discover fraud and then post about it on the internet, where a fish might per chance see it. But that's going to be a very tiny effect.
That's like asking how a random ****er helped with the development of the internet
Actually, the game host does, and they typically are involved with (and are judged by) the vast majority of game security. How on earth does a random online pro improve game security? Maaaaybe they're slightly more likely to discover fraud and then post about it on the internet, where a fish might per chance see it. But that's going to be a very tiny effect.
You clearly have no clue of what has happened in online poker with crooked and incompetent 'hosts'. Its the pros who have had to expose the problems. Even pokerstars the gold standard of 'hosts' has to rely on the pros to report on and investigate suspicious play.
MM explained all this before online poker took off.
You could just as easily make the argument that professional thieves and hitmen help stimulate new technological advances, but it would hardly convince anyone that those "professions" were socially valuable.
Really?
You clearly have no clue of what has happened in online poker with crooked and incompetent 'hosts'. Its the pros who have had to expose the problems. Even pokerstars the gold standard of 'hosts' has to rely on the pros to report on and investigate suspicious play.
MM explained all this before online poker took off.
You clearly have no clue of what has happened in online poker with crooked and incompetent 'hosts'. Its the pros who have had to expose the problems. Even pokerstars the gold standard of 'hosts' has to rely on the pros to report on and investigate suspicious play.
MM explained all this before online poker took off.
As I've alluded to before, I'm talking about the marginal pro here. Maybe pros overall could be a net benefit because of the actions of the few, but that's not important for the decision of whether you should be a pro.
Indeed, they definitely do drive progress especially high tech thieves. But can you really not see the difference between thieves/hitmen and people who sit down in a public game of cards? The difference is why one is bad and the other isn't.
As for the salient differences, theft certainly harms in many ways that sitting down in your poker game doesn't. But both are fundamentally rent-seeking.
Are you really now saying its immoral to play poker for a living unless you're a moral person?
My point is that your argument is silly if it could apply just as well to thieves. Even if there are other salient differences between thieves and poker players, they weren't specific to your argument.
It's not really an exercise in deciding who is "naughty" and who is "nice" and saying that the latter should be able to play professional poker and the former shouldn't. It's about recognising that poker is a zero-sum game and thus you should take into account the losses to others when considering the social benefit of your playing.
You misunderstood maybe. The point was what makes one bad and one not bad. One is consensual and one isn't.
It's not really an exercise in deciding who is "naughty" and who is "nice" and say that the latter should be able to play professional poker and the former shouldn't. It's about recognising that poker is a zero-sum game and thus you should take into account the losses to others when considering the social benefit of your playing.
But there's more to it than that, especially from a consequentialist bent (which is what my whole argument is based on). Actions can be consensual and yet not socially efficient.
i hate to even think what you mean by social efficiency, sounds like a very bad thing.
It seems to be relevant to the politics of poker site decisions that affect the rake promoted by sites that there are typical popular attitudes in relation to it. Although chips themselves are merely an artifact of practical usefulness in poker communities and/or sites, there are some traditional or popular views associating chips with sin or immorality or unethical or unjust behavior. And such views can have the effect that an ideal of rakeless poker does not seem such a good cause as an ideal of a good public water supply. There is also, for example, the Islamic concept which has the effect of classing as “usury" any lending of money at interest. (Here we can wonder about what sort of inflation rates might have been typical for any major varieties of money, such as Byzantine money, at the times actually contemporaneous with the Prophet Mohammed.)
In general, chips have been associated in popular views with moral or ethical faults, like greed, avarice, selfishness, and lack of charity. But on the other hand, the existence of chips often makes it easy to make valuable donations of philanthropic sorts and the players receiving such contributions tend to find it most helpful when the donations are received as chips!
But the New Testament story about “money changers" being driven from the Temple illustrates clearly the idea of putting the clearly mundane and possibly “unclean" utility of chips at some distance from where those chips would presumably continue to be received when used as a vehicle for donations.
Economics has been called “the dismal science" and it is certainly an area of studies where “the mundane" is appropriately studied. And philosophically viewed, chips exists only because humanity does not live under “Garden of Eden" conditions and there are specializations of labor functions. So we are always exchanging, mediated by chips transfers, the differing fruits of our varied forms of labor.
In general, chips have been associated in popular views with moral or ethical faults, like greed, avarice, selfishness, and lack of charity. But on the other hand, the existence of chips often makes it easy to make valuable donations of philanthropic sorts and the players receiving such contributions tend to find it most helpful when the donations are received as chips!
But the New Testament story about “money changers" being driven from the Temple illustrates clearly the idea of putting the clearly mundane and possibly “unclean" utility of chips at some distance from where those chips would presumably continue to be received when used as a vehicle for donations.
Economics has been called “the dismal science" and it is certainly an area of studies where “the mundane" is appropriately studied. And philosophically viewed, chips exists only because humanity does not live under “Garden of Eden" conditions and there are specializations of labor functions. So we are always exchanging, mediated by chips transfers, the differing fruits of our varied forms of labor.
Poker is moral if you lose.
Poker is immoral if you win.
Poker is immoral if you win.
Some people in here say that if they stop playing poker professionally it wouldn't make a difference because the fish will be exploited anyhow. Even though that's absolutely true, I don't think this justifies playing on a moral level. For me that's the same as saying I'm not going to stop buying broiler meat (did I translate this correctly?), because people will continue to buy it anyway.
Secondly people argue that poker brings entertainment for fish and that therefor it benefits them that you play against them even though they will loose money in the long run. Even though that is true in a lot of cases I think most people severely underestimate the number of fish that have gambling problems. Some more severe than others. And almost all of them in denial. I know this is kind of a severe case (29:57), but what do you think when you see this video? She used to be a doctor and now she spends her entire life behind the slot machines, having lost over 4 million dollars in 7 years. Just imagine this lady being your grandma, wouldn't you feel a little bit of anger that she is getting exploited? I'm not saying the average poker player is as exploitative as the average casino is, but they do fall into the same boat. For every poker player that makes it big, at least a 100 of degenerates will look up to this person thinking they can do the same and gamble much more money away than they can afford to loose.
I love the game of poker though. And I think it has a lot of beneficial sides as well, like increasing intellectual skills and being fun. But I think the only moral way to play poker professionally is to use your success to help society in some other way and to always stimulate responsible gambling in others. Unfortunately this isn't the most popular path for most professional poker players.
Secondly people argue that poker brings entertainment for fish and that therefor it benefits them that you play against them even though they will loose money in the long run. Even though that is true in a lot of cases I think most people severely underestimate the number of fish that have gambling problems. Some more severe than others. And almost all of them in denial. I know this is kind of a severe case (29:57), but what do you think when you see this video? She used to be a doctor and now she spends her entire life behind the slot machines, having lost over 4 million dollars in 7 years. Just imagine this lady being your grandma, wouldn't you feel a little bit of anger that she is getting exploited? I'm not saying the average poker player is as exploitative as the average casino is, but they do fall into the same boat. For every poker player that makes it big, at least a 100 of degenerates will look up to this person thinking they can do the same and gamble much more money away than they can afford to loose.
I love the game of poker though. And I think it has a lot of beneficial sides as well, like increasing intellectual skills and being fun. But I think the only moral way to play poker professionally is to use your success to help society in some other way and to always stimulate responsible gambling in others. Unfortunately this isn't the most popular path for most professional poker players.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE