Well said

Just curious, how do you think this parable applies to poker?

Can you explain a bit more what you mean by "everyone has their own path to God"?

Though I'm an atheist, I think pursuing a living out of playing poker seems anti-Christian. I would seperate that the game itself is not wrong. One can play the game with potato chips as stakes and enjoy it purely as an exercise in gaming.

But let's face it... when people are playing for money they're generally seeking Fish because people know that a fool and his money are soon parted. I'm pretty sure that Jesus would never condone an activity where very smart and talented people look to fleece the less well-equiped of their money.

This one is tougher. I am a christian, so I believe that Jesus is the way the truth and the light. But then does that mean that someone who has never heard of Jesus, can not go to heaven? Of course not.

This is the moral problem I have personally with playing poker. While I enjoy the game, and play for small stakes, in order to play for a living one would
be inclined to seek out the weak donkey players in order to extract as much money as possible from them. For me personally, I couldn't do this.

It is a bit much when the mods lead the trolling but then this forum is run pretty badly tbh.

Online poker is beginning to resemble live poker at the medium stakes and higher ie a group of regulars who know each other well wait for some mug punter recreational type to turn up so they can fleece him. It's not my idea of a very moral way of going about things. I am not a Christian or religious but contrary to what the troll posters on here think it is perfectly possible for an atheist to have a sense of morality.

I see nothing wrong with gambling or making a living on poker. Unless you are coercing others to play, they are voluntarily putting money into the game. They are paying for entertainment and a chance to make some money. I don't see what axiom of morality this breaks.

The issue is that most people have no idea what they're doing... they may be playing for entertainment but if they're playing against a bunch of sharks they have very little chance of making any money. The sharks are looking to extract money from the suckers. The pros don't make their money by targetting people with the same level of skill... they look for suckers.

A problem gambler with no skill but a huge ego about to risk his family's savings on a game of poker is not someone to be pitied... he's an opportunity. I don't think one can say this is something that Jesus would approve.

I'm curious what you would cite in order to support this position. Not that I think you're wrong per se, but the application of it to poker is a little tenuous and I would like to know where you're drawing the inspiration from. Would Jesus object to a contract favoring one person over another because that person was the better negotiator? Or how about a legal system in which the better lawyer wins more than the bad lawyer even when the relevant facts are the same?

Ganstaman's point about coercion is important.

Well I would not condone knowingly playing with someone who can't afford to lose. That person needs help. But otherwise they're adults who can make their own decisions and can leave at any time if they feel the game isn't fair for them.

There's a ton of pertinent advice in the Bible eg

"Like the partridge that gathers a brood that she did not hatch, so is he who gets riches but not by justice; in the midst of his days they will leave him, and at his end he will be a fool."

I'm not talking about buying out the legal system with money. Better lawyers win more, even in civil litigation, and even when the lawyers aren't grossly overpaid.

The contract question is interesting... since Jesus would argue that people should be treating others with kindness and looking out for others I have no doubt he would take issue with a good negotiator if he thought he was taking advantage of another person.

Regarding lawyers, I'm pretty sure Jesus would have an issue with a lot of them. I'm pretty sure the idea of a good lawyer helping his client avoid justice because he's a really good lawyer that can play the system would be appalling to him.

I don't think the coercion argument is necessarily all that relevent. Take homeopathy - lets assume I'm right in my assumption that all the makers of their products are aware that they're selling worthless snake oil - the consumers are willing participants. They are happy to buy the products and fool themselves into believing the products are doing something for them; yet the people who market (I'm convinced) know that its a money making placebo. To me, they're dishonest crooks fleecing the vulnerable. The fact that the vulnerable are oblivious to the fact that they're being played and may be happy to participate doesn't alter the fact that they're being fleeced.

A good poker player is going to manipulate a fish into thinking they're playing well, that they're actually going to win... the game is largely based on deception. Surely at some level the fish may know this, but they have no idea that they are being manipulated. The fish believes he can win and the professional will play in such a way to encourage that belief.

Is it possible for a contract to be mutually beneficial, but one still has an advantage over the other? (I view "has an advantage" as being different from "taking advantage of.")

There's no disagreement from me on that.

Sure. But this is taking an extreme case. There's lots of middle ground where you don't have quite the same black-and-white read on a situation. I brought up civil litigation in the other post.

What sort of view do you take with things like clothing? I can buy a $20 pair of jeans from Walmart, or sometimes even a $5 pair of jeans from the Salvation Army. Or I can also go to <pick a high end clothing company> and pay $80 for a pair of jeans. Is that the same as being "fleeced"?

You don't think that a lot of losing recreational players are just playing "for fun"? Maybe I just disagree with such a low view of poker players in general, but I don't think that this really sounds much like what I think is going on in the poker world. Yes, there are people who think they should be winners and aren't. But a lot of people play because they enjoy it.

How do you think Jesus views a head fake in basketball, or the play action pass in American football?

I don't disagree that you can create scenarios in which people are acting in immoral ways to make profit, and this within almost any industry you can imagine. But the extension of it that you're applying seems to go quite far, as you're basically trying to apply a blanket ruling on the entire industry on the basis of some being able to leverage something unfairly.

This is how I came to terms with poker for myself. Although, it matters how you look at it. If it is a game, then that is fine, if it is an opportunity to enrich yourself at anothers misfortune, thats no good.

So many of these situations, are not black and white.

We can only judge the fruits of mens labors, only Jesus can judge his heart.

Your motivations, expectations, and spirituality all come into play.

Sure. I won't pretend that I can tell you where the line is crossed. Its possibly both parties may even think they've gained the advantage.

But, If we're going to play WWJD I'm pretty sure his concern would be all parties being treated like a brother. I can only imagine his approach would be to counsel the negotiators to think about the other side rather then trying to gain an advantage.

Its so hard to think about this because even though I work with lawyers all the time I can't stop thinking of them all as ambulance chasers. Even in civil litigation usually one person is trying to get out of paying for something the other party thinks they're responsible for. In litigation I don't think both parties are trying to determine the 'truth' of what happened and make sure that justice is served.

Actually, I think we are being fleeced. I'm sure you've heard the quip that advertising is trying to get people to buy things they don't need. Advertising is a horrible corrupting influence that is pretty immoral. It uses some advanced techniques to get people to buy crap... sometimes very damaging crap through manipulation. I think its very effective and I think most people are clueless to its power and influence. As to pants- look, if the high end pants have better quality and even something that makes it more valuable, then there's nothing to shake a finger at. But I would also suggest that the success of stuff like that is largely because the marketers appeal to our vanity and its our vanity that leads to that purchase (sure there are people who buy based on practical considerations but they're probably the ones buying pants at Sears.)

Yes. I think that a lot are for sure. And a lot of people play with their buddies as a social game. But I'm talking about the pros and the people who play for money... their motive is different. And to be clear, I've been on that end of it. While I only played low stakes poker, I had poker tracking mining data so I could find the crazy LAG Fish with big stacks. And my motivation is simple- that person is easy prey. And I think others have commented how regulars/sharks at b&m are like this... they play nicely with each other waiting around for the fish. You have an entire table competing to take this person's money. The Fish really has no chance (I mean, they could hit the lottery but its rare)... and if the table is all regulars they'll leave. Because they're not the easy prey.

Note: This is very different then me sitting down to play with a bunch of friends. We're not targeting each other, its a social occasion. The stakes are really irrelevent... we could play for M&Ms.

Fine. The head fake isn't done by a professional to an amateur where the amateur loses his money when he's tricked by it.

But remember that people who make their money off of poker aren't generally looking to play against their equals in a fun game of chance... they're looking for the people who are having fun to take their money.

You're sort of committing an is-ought type of error here. I don't disagree with a statement like "Jesus would prefer that XXX happened." But I think reducing Jesus to an "idealistic happy Jesus" is an error. I don't think, for example, that Jesus would have concluded the profession of lawyers is evil simply on the basis of their role in mediating disagreements that didn't necessarily have to escalate to that point. (Certainly, other reasons exist... but not based on just the structure of their positions.)

While you can certainly cite examples in which the primary motivation is based on profit, I would think that both parties (in most non-extreme scenarios) would believe that their desired outcome *IS* justice being served.

Fair enough. It's kind a "world going to hell in a handbasket" outlook, but that's fine.

Well, that's collusion, which is a different matter.

This statement seems to suggest that you put a special emphasis on the fact that money is involved in all of these scenarios. Would that be a fair conclusion? So if money were somehow removed from these scenarios, you would not have any problems with deceptive techniques or playing against weaker competition or whatever?

And the people who are looking to have fun generally do. Both sides win, no?

I think the ideal of a lawyer (as taught to us in high school) can be a noble profession. But in practice I think a lot of it is based around allowing people to get away with stuff or profiting from the misfortunes of others. I work closely with lawyers on a daily basis in my profession and their job isn't to do what's right or moral, its to protect their clients within the limits of the law. If that means that they can prevent their clients from paying out through clever lawyering even if their clients wronged someone, that is their job. A lot of lawyering is dull and non controversial. But litigation often involves doing whatever is legally permissable to get someone whose done something wrong off. Even if the lawyer knows their client wronged one, if they have the means they will protect them. (again, I don't want to tar all lawyers in this respect, may lawyers do none controversial stuff and simply inform their clients on whats legal and what's not. But I see enough to know that doing what's 'just' or 'fair' is not their first goal.)

I'm pretty cynical here but I don't agree with you here as a general rule. Sure there may be idealist lawyers out there who aren't chasing a buck but want to find justice... but in general a lawyer's job isn't to determine if their clients are guilty and convince them to pay... their job is to do what they can through working the legal system to tar and feathering the opposition to make their clients win. And I'm too aware of miscarriages in justic (at the criminal end) to common day to day workings (from the business side) to not be mostly jaded. Granted, I can't remove myself from my own filters.

I'm a pretty easy going guy despite the fact that I don't think much of the nature of man. I think our western world is largely at odds with Christianity. Which I find odd because we doubly worship Jesus and Capitalism ("greed is good") which I think are diametrically opposed to each other. I'm definitely a hell in a handbasket kind of guy and don't think much about humanity. Individually I see that we are civil and can largely get along despite the fact that we're greedy hateful little monsters to outsiders.

will finish comments later.

I cant believe this thread derailed!!! lol... if anyone has stories pm me...

Was it ever on the tracks you wanted? I feel this discussion sounds on topic more or less.

what podcast do you contribute to?

And I'd like to apologise for dissolute "Christian" gamblers. I strongly believe that Christianity and serious gambling are incompatible.

This is actually one reason why I like poker. There's no confusion over why everyone is playing: it's to make money (the explicit purpose of the game is to "fleece" your opponents and beat them). No one denies this fact; it's an accepted part of the game, just as in sports. But here's the thing: Most of life involves accumulating wealth at the expense of others, hoarding resources, and pursuing power. Yet most of this wealth is gained implicitly--through deception, indirect methods, and even under rhetoric of "fairness," "cooperation," and "equality." This is why, to me, poker offers some refreshing honestly. It doesn't deny what it is.

Does this make poker (or any competitive game or sport) ok? Of course not. But let's not pretend that the competition and inequality in poker is any different than what we find around us in society, every day. My guess is that, if Jesus has a beef with poker, than he has a much bigger beef with society as a whole.


which begs the question: is poker gambling?

*raises the question

the answer is yes

Gambling is "the wagering of money or something of material value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods. Gambling thus requires three elements be present: consideration, chance and prize"

Poker satisfies all of the elements. The usual counter-argument tries to separate forms of gambling at which it is possible to have an advantage from ones at which it is not, like roulette, but that is not relevant to the definition of gambling, and if it was then phrases like "advantage gambler" wouldn't make sense