I've always viewed playing poker as a perfectly moral career choice, but I recently was overcome by a wave of emotions and I would just like to get some input. I want to be a professional online poker player. I love everything about poker. I like to push my limits, expand my knowledge, and watch the results in action. All of that aside, what am I contributing to society?

I don't want to change the world. I don't even want to have a minor impact on the world. I merely want to know what I contribute to the people I come in contact with every day. When I grind poker online, I come in contact with 75 new people a day. As a pro player, my goal is to steal their money because they are too ignorant to protect it.

If I spend all day playing against people who are worse than me, I am literally printing money. The people I am playing against don't know that, otherwise they wouldn't be playing. The only way for me to benefit as a professional poker player is by making other people lose.

Take just about any other self-discipline in the world (playing guitar, for example) and invest the time you have put into poker into this new discipline. Are you not providing infinitely more enjoyment and happiness to the people around you? The more I think about poker as profession, the more it feels to me like a career of desperation. In a perfect world, would anyone really rather play poker for a living where your entire goal is to crush the people around you as opposed to help those around you?

Not literally printing money.

People like to play poker, they like the chance to win your money, you're providing them entertainment with the chance you give them to win your money, everything is square. Pretty sure I would rather have a chance of winning some money off you rather than pay to hear you play guitar.

You make a fair point. Maybe I'm drawing too much from personal experiences. Do fish actually enjoy losing money? I remember when I started playing that I was devastated when I kept losing my deposits to what I thought was "bad luck." Also, don't you think the mindset of "I would rather have a chance to win some money off of you rather than hear you play guitar" is a prime example of taking advantage of the ignorance of all of the bad players in this game? After all, I (the pro) know that I will eventually wipe you clean if we play long enough.

When I think about the game as reg vs. reg, I truly have no problem with it. I just have a problem with the idea of grinding a living off of the absolute fish.

They don't enjoy losing money but they enjoy playing for money, it's one of those human contradiction things people often muse about.

It's not an example of that, I literally mean that I would find playing you for money more entertaining than paying to hear you play guitar; obviously if you're so good you crush me it might stop being as entertaining, or if you're the next Gary Moore, then maybe I will drop a few dollars in your jar, but my point is they're closer together than playing guitar is to curing cancer. If earning a living entertaining people is generally moral, one would have to make an argument why poker does not fit into that. Poker is a game, games are more fun when you play for something, qed, what's the problem? You can go out of your way and explain to people that if they are bad they will lose in the long run, and they will play on anyway.

Good point OP. Maybe you should find another profession. I will always be a recreational player because I can't be the real predator, finding who's weak and benefit from it. I don't table select for that reason. I'm drawn to poker because of the competition and the math anyway, like to play regs for seeing "who's who"

Interesting thread. There's nothing immoral about playing poker for a living since it is - in principle - a level playing field. I don't really see any difference between this and running a business. If you run a business you hope to be more skilful than your competitors and thus earn money. Your business doesn't have to contribute to society. Many don't - obviously, e.g. marketing, PR, advertising etc.

Those three things(are all kinda the same) produce ideas and/or messages that aid the client.

Just because there is competition in poker doesn't mean poker is the equivalent to business. Sure, cellphone manufacturers compete but their primary activity is to produce and sell cellphones. The public wants cellphones and the company sells to them.

Poker players like to say they are producing entertainment for the loser but the loser doesn't want to lose . It's ridiculous to claim that he is buying what he doesn't want. We are selling him the opportunity to win. No, because a bunch of bad losing poker players can get together and be more likely to win without the good winning player present. The activities of the good winning player are not really appreciated or desired. Some like to gamble but that doesn't mean they want to lose so this idea of poker being a productive activity is false but neither is it destructive.

Consider a guy who has a log which is pretty much useless, he applies his labor and skill and tools to the log and turns it into finished lumber that can be used for building a house, he sells the lumber and makes a profit whereas poker is a zero sum game.

I would say that there is a moral defense for poker which is that it's voluntary. I guess you could make an argument that losing at poker is immoral but you aren't losing.

This is obviously a loaded statement.

Your goal is to win their money, not steal it. You achieve this when they are less skillful than you.

You playing poker only benefits you and only to the extent that it harms others. You can take solace that it's voluntary or you can find something to do that actually helps others and yourself.

There is nothing to say that you can't do both.

FWIW - playing poker and making money by using your skill to take money from unskilled players is no less moral that opening a diner and driving your competition out of business by offering better food and better service.

You know what's immoral. Working for a capitalist whose sole objective is to make as much profit as possible and pay his workers as little as his can possible get away with. Where your hard work often goes under appreciated.

Also, your are not stealing money from anyone playing poker. Poker is fair game, and you win their money fairly. Those same people would take your money in a heartbeat.

Also, most people aren't fools when it comes to money. They don't gamble with what they can't afford to lose. They are fully aware they could get stacked with the money they bring to the table.

Concerning, what good does playing poker for society, you're right there, not much. But you can make up for that in other ways, donate some winning to charity etc.

Except that in opening a diner you are filling a desire of others for a price they are willing to pay. That you put another diner out of business is secondary to the whole thing. Often two diners can exist in close proximity to one another by offering different dining experiences, both filling a niche, supplying a service to the public at a price they are willing to pay which is *mutually* beneficial and nothing like poker at all.

Employee or employer; the self interested will always try to get the best deal possible. Because of the unequal power of the employer and employee the public has, through government, decided to give the employee special rights and protections. If there should be more rights and protections or something else altogether is, I think, a question for politics but not because it isn't also a philosophical or moral question.

I was comparing the competitive nature of poker with the competitive nature of business.

Are you suggesting that there's a moral obligation in how one earns a living to "supply a service to the public"?

The only thing I owe "the public" or "society" is to not initiate force or fraud and not demand they support me without contribution on my part.

Plying poker is a voluntary action on the part of the participants. Poker is a competitive game that requires skill. There is nothing at all "immoral" about playing a competitive game with other people who enter that game voluntarily.

I agree with this. I also agree with everything else in maceleven's post except the first paragraph.

Employers and employees by nature, want to maximize economic value. The employer wants the most labor for the least money, the employee wants the most money for the least labor.

That's how rational self-interest works. Rational self-interest should be, by definition, moral.

Of course not but I suspect that humans are happier when their economic activity increases the overall wealth of the society in which they live. Poker only transfers wealth from one to another.

Poker (or anything else) can be immoral only if you are 'religious' and believe that there are certain rules set by your 'god' which must be followed to the letter, and that one of those rules is that taking money from someone else under those circumstances is wrong.

Otherwise all rules which we tend to adhere to (not killing, not stealing, not driving under the influence of alcohol etc etc) are rules made simply to allow humans to exist as a society rather than having an 'every man for himself' attitude. If this is a scenario you are happy to adhere to then you can argue that if something is lawful it is allowed...otherwise it would be made illegal.

But the existence of law does not preclude people helping others out of the goodness of their heart, or refusing to take advantage of someone else's misfortune or naivety.

As an atheist I do not accept morality or immorality. So my simple answer is that what you are doing is not immoral so far as I am concerned. However, by your own standards it might be undesirable...that's entirely up to you.

You seem to have a different understanding of god, atheism and morality from most and seem to be suggesting some weird nihilism.

We are moral beings, and gods and religions are invented for channelinging that. There are other ways though. Just embrace your natural tendency for caring about others than yourself. Weigh in your tendency for competition, and you are getting some sort of mix.

I agree. Natural tendency governs a lot of what we do. So a career burglar may have absolutely no qualms about stealing from others because he regards life as 'every man for himself.' However most people find this naturally repulsive.

A poker player may genuinely have no care for the circumstances of the person opposite, while another may be worried - possibly because of a religious upbringing - that he might be doing 'wrong.' But as you say, religion has been invented as a way of chanelling ideas into people that help society function.

its a silly topic in the vast majority of the cases the restaurant owner is not doing it to provide a public service they, are doing it because they can make money. if other people are getting happiness out of it is irrelevant. Barring the waiter been a sexual submissive who pleasures himself about the idea of serving people, in vast majority of cases they are doing it because it pays there bills.

when i was selling tv insurance or solar energy in call centers I was not doing it to do people a favor its a rip off, the products are not worth it. However i needed the money, do i care that it makes the owner money not at all only to the extent that it effects my job security or bonus. Maybe a personal target due to self esteem or sense of achievement.

you could argue poker to provide a public service heck when i play at a poker site the rake they take can be used to pay there staff wages. that provides jobs. When there admin assistant goes to work i doubt he is thinking by doing this work I am allowing Luke to make money or enjoy himself no he is thinking I have to pay my mortgage. most people would not do the jobs they do if they had a windfall lottery win inheritance or just lucky break etc.

The ones that would probably because they like the community or colleagues they are working with etc, not because they think they are providing a public service.

maybe there is that policeman out there who joined because he saw his dad be murdered and wants to avoid that happening to other people, or someone became a doctor because of there dad dying of disease X etc.

However most doctors trained because they earn decent money as doctors and have decent status. most police joined the force because it was a job.

I wanted to be a professional basketball player when I was younger, my thought process never went wow think of the entertainment i could give people, no it was imagining the $millions.

now dont get me wrong I dont take a careless attitude, if i knew someone personally who was playing in the games i play online and losing badly and i saw them in debt there house been threatened there children and wife vulnerable screw the money i could take id actively try to reason with them get them to stop etc.

However most players who lose can take the hit choose to go for it and would take my money if they could.

This type of threads pop up every now and then, mostly in psychology forum though but the answer is simple.
Morality is subjective, so follow your own moral compas and don't participate in immoral (according to you) endeavors.
What's there more to discuss, and why?

Unless you know the person you are winning off is a serious gambling addict then there is absolutely no reason to feel immoral about what you are doing

My real world job has to be "pro bono". Like a good fair "non-blood-fight" though. Like poker, without the worst predator stuff.