Quote:
Originally Posted by 2OutsNoProb
Ask Syncmaster, was his point. The effect isn't the same though. The dealer depends on the money to make a living. The recreational player is often playing with money they don't care about, they don't depend on cashing out $263 instead of $250.
Sorry, didn't mean to attribute something to the wrong person.
I do understand that many people think that a dollar during a recreational activity is different from a dollar while one is earning one's living. Once we've corrected for income effects (in other words, if we are talking about people who have the same amount of money over all), I don't believe that myself nor do I think any rational person does, but I readily concede that most people are not rational.
If a poker player is playing for recreation, this is effectively a leisure activity, and tipping (to the extent he does tip) is part of the cost of that activity. Assuming the dealer is not living hand to mouth and engages in leisure activities himself (which will usually be true), it doesn't matter that he is, at the time the tip happens, earning his living, nor whether the player does or is just playing for fun. We are trading a dollar that the player can spend either at the table or on some other non-necessity, versus a dollar the dealer can spend on some non-necessity.
Note, by the way, that the non-necessary activity in either or both cases may be charitable giving. I resent quite a bit being told (not by you) that I am a cheap bastard who cares only about himself when I do give to charity (and also tip obviously underpaid people pretty well, in some circumstances). Given a choice between whether an average dealer should have the money (an amount that is for the most part fixed) that I'm willing to give away or whether it should go to saving rain forests or feeding starving people, I'm not ashamed at all to say that I think stiffing the dealer is acceptable. I'm not saying it's acceptable nor claiming that's what I'm thinking when I make the decision, but I'm saying that automatically assuming that I'm a selfish bastard just because I don't automatically toss a chip to the dealer even when he's acting like he doesn't want to be there, as he lazily pushes me 20 bucks, is not fair at all.
You can argue about who
needs the dollar more, but that's not clear. Dealers make decent money, but do not get rich. Some poker players are better off than all dealers, and a few are so well off that the value of a marginal dollar to them is almost nil. But I suspect that a fair few players make less than the dealers they're expected to tip, and in those cases the moral argument has some substantial problems. Again, that's not a great reason not to tip, but it's a defense to the argument that failure to do so is evidence of a moral failing.