We all know that learning poker is good for the 2% of bright, intelligent people that can make something out of that knowledge (at the tables or/and real life), but how do you aproach the subject when it concerns the 98% that only loses money (often much much more than they can afford). Poker is an addictive game that ruins lifes if you can't controll it (and most people can't) and that is the only reason why it has (and still is many places) been illegal to play.

No question that the game is good for us, winning players, succesfull authors, owners of popular websites, affiliates, etc... but that doesn't make it right in the big picture, as we are only a very small fraction of the population and as we struggle for what is best for us, authorities have the duty to struggle for what is best for the majority of the population.

I am looking forward to reading your article as your arguments are almost always well thougt, convincing and realistic but there is not a chance on earth that you are going to convince anyone else than people making money from poker or people that have a gambling problem that poker is good for society.

Regards,

William

*

Edit/MH:

David Sklansky:

Ok.

Mr. Haven, you evil man...you've now given David Sklansky's post the deadly trifecta: Ninja-bumped, stickied, and locked. Now it'll show up as unread forever! Forever meaning until the day it gets unstickied.

This is not backed by facts -- please provide source...

This is not backed by facts -- please provide source...

This 'US' is not backed by facts -- please provide source that you are part of this 2% -- 'cause yer gammer indicates otherwise...

Regards,

Chips

You guys should have told me!

I'll fix it now.

You're a good man, Mr. haven...no matter what Brandi says.

One innocent attempted POB and she can never let me forget it.

Lots of hobbies and games are addictive.
Chess, World of Warcraft, The Sims, Starcraft, Hunting, Magic the Gathering, Stamp Collecting, Steam Railways, Sports Fishing, Quilt-making etc. You will find examples of lots of people in society whose 'addiction' to these may impact on their 9 to 5 jobs, personal finances or personal relationships.

You need to stop assuming that
(a) folks that are 'addicted' to poker all have a 'gambling problem' - a great many enjoy the challenge and cameraderie - there is probably an inverse correlation between being a high volume player and an andrenaline junky and
(b) 'losing' players are all in danger of seriously harming their personal finances.

Approximately 1 in 3 adult males in the UK have tried online poker. Several of the younger guys in my office play. None are long-terms winners. They mostly play MTT's with buy-ins from free to $10 or so maybe once or twice a week. They are in no danger of poker having any significant financial impact on their lives. Their monthly poker spend is probably the cost of a night out per month and they get maybe 10-15 hours of entertainment out of it.

Of course there are gambling addicts out there who just 'take a shot' at a high stakes table with money they can't afford to lose with no regard for skill level or bankroll management and they will often lose. But they would have done the same on a spin of a roulette wheel or slot machines anyway. Their gambling addiction has ruined them, not poker. Poker happened to be the vehicle of their ruin, not it's cause.

The only exception would be a type of person who is already a gambling addict but who is somehow lured into thinking that he is safe to play poker as it's a 'game of skill, not gambling'. It is if you choose to play it as such, but of course he won't. Those sorts of people however are a tiny minority and there isn't utility in banning a hobby that gives pleasure to millions worldwide for the sake of protecting a tiny % from themselves.

You go ahead and keep believing that. In the eye of the authorities, it is better to save 1 person in danger than allow "pleasure" to a thousand sharks.

I want poker to be allowed as much as you do, but I know what it does to people and chose not to ignore it.
Those that play and especially "played" live before online poker know what I am talking about. Playing online allows you not to see the people you are playing against and hides the true face of "reality".

Sklansky's article is well writtena and all you want, but it is written from the point of view of a person that profits from poker and only other winners will agree with what he says.

Telling the world that poker is good for you is just BS. Poker is only good for those that can win.

I'm confused by your position.

If you want poker to be allowed than you must believe that it is ethically/morally persimissble.

The fact that certain puritanical elements in the States believe the opposite is pretty much irrelevant to the continued existence and availability of poker in the rest of the world. There is no way that Europe, S. America and Australasia are going to ban it. It's pick up in Asia is also likely to be tremendous given a few years.

The online world is incredibly different to the old-dinosaur age. It's not just drunk tourists/cynical sharks and hopeless gambling addicts any more.

The vast majority of social players (like myself a 40 yr old lawyer) play for the intellectual challenge and fun - I'd never have gone anywhere as seedy as casino in real life (although I probably have 100+ of them within an hour's drive).

I have won maybe $23,000 over the past 3+ years playing a few hours/week.
I would have stayed at smaller stakes if I'd been losing so would never have lost the same amount, but even if I had let's not pretent that that sort of sum over 3+ years is crippling to a partner in a corporate law firm.

The vast majority of poker players do lose online. It isn't 98% though. Winners are probably 10% and breakeven players maybe another 10-20%. Of the 70% of losers most either blow a few hundred $$$ fairly fast and quit or just keep playing for fun at weekends at a level that they can sustain indefinitely.

I have seen figures that 1/3 of adult males 18-30 in the UK have tried online poker. I don't know how many have now had their lives ruined but given how the press would love to go on about it and the numbers involved it really is a vanishly small %.

Possibly a dumb question, but has the article been reproduced on the internets yet?

Nevermind, it's probably in the 2+2 Internet Magazine.. obv I've never bothered to click the link.

By your argument everything that is harmful to any small percentage of the populations should be disallowed by the authorities.

It is impossible to legislate away risk from the experience of life and if everything in life is reduced to a protection for the lowest common denominator among us then there is no life for any of us.

Some eat so many pork ribs they eventually have a heart attack so I guess ribs are out. Many have trouble with sugar so that leaves out sweets. And what about beer that's gone too and milk for those that can't handle milk.

The biggest thing that people like you would take from the general population is not poker but personal freedom and quality of life.

I have never argued that anything that is harmfull to a small % of the population must be prohibited. What I say it's that I understand the position of the authorities that wish to protect that small % of the population. that is in fact their job.
As for your other examples, pork, cigarettes, alcohol, etc... it is in fact very close to poker. Not prohibited but serious warnings about their consumption are issued regularly.

I do make a living from poker (despite what some other clever-that-have-no-clue posters say) but I am fully aware that my winnings have sometimes serious impacts to other players lives.
I don't wish to change that, but I certainly understand those that do want to change it.

Therefor an article about how good poker is for society, especially written by somebody that has earned so much from poker, is in my humble (well, maybe not so humble...) opinion very close to hypocresy (sorry if mispelled). Certainly Mr. Sklansky knows about the downside (addiction, etc...) of poker but choses nontheless to only write about hypotetical but unrealistic benefits to the large population.

"What I say it's that I understand the position of the authorities that wish to protect that small % of the population. that is in fact their job"

It is absolutely never the states job to protect us from ourselves.This statement almost made me vomit.

Did you actually read the article? The point of it was that the mere act of learning poker and playing it seriously helps teach many useful attributes. (More than other games do by the way.) That would be true even for many of those who are not long run winners.

Hi David,

I did read the article. I just believe (I should say I know) that way too many would get lost in the process of learning and even more in the one of playing. It takes a degree of self-control that very few people can reach.
In other words, the goal is true, but the road that leads to it is impossibble to travel on for the majority of the population.

This is where your entire argument falls apart. Who are you to say what qualities make something good or bad? Poker is good for those who enjoy the game.

You are quite right, your choice of words is much better than mine. You can enjoy the game even if you are not a winner.
I guess I meant that poker is (very) bad for way too many people and it is kind of immoral to just point out the good things that only apply to some persons (and even if there are many of those, the number of persons that are badly affected by poker is too large to be ignored).

but it's moral for the govt to only point out that people are losing their homes and laundering money

Nevermind. Tobacco companies also preach that smoking is healthy....

You wrote: "Therefor an article about how good poker is for society, especially written by somebody that has earned so much from poker, is in my humble (well, maybe not so humble...) opinion very close to hypocresy (sorry if mispelled). Certainly Mr. Sklansky knows about the downside (addiction, etc...) of poker but choses nontheless to only write about hypotetical but unrealistic benefits to the large population."

David, Mason, and I are well aware of the downsides of poker. In fact, Mason published in the Internet Magazine my two part series, "Don't take poker too seriously." Those articles have been slightly revised and are in my most recent book, "Your Worst Poker Enemy."

Let me quote a little.

Ask Yourself: Why Do I Play So Much Poker?

This question is just another way to examine yourself and your life. You may find that your motives are unhealthy. For example, you may be full of anger, and poker lets you express it in socially acceptable ways. Perhaps you rely on poker to build your ego or to fill some sort of gaping hole in yourself. You may think, “I’m not worth much, but I can really play well.” Or you may be using poker as an escape in the same general way that people use alcohol and drugs. Until you understand why you play so much, you have little chance of gaining control over your play or your life.

Ask Yourself: Am I A Compulsive Gambler?

Some of you are compulsive gamblers, and others are in danger of crossing the line. Unfortunately, that line is not clear. A gambling addiction is not like AIDS or leukemia: You can’t just take tests and be sure of the diagnosis.
If you think that you may be an addict, go to www.gamblersanonymous.org and take the test. It is not definitive, but it is suggestive: The higher your score, the greater the probability that you have a severe problem. You should also know that denial is a central characteristic of most addictions. People who are unquestionably addicted to gambling, drugs, or alcohol often insist, “I can handle it.”
If your score is high enough to suggest that you’re a compulsive gambler, consult a professional or attend Gamblers Anonymous meetings to get more information. If you are an addict or close to becoming one, get help before it destroys your life.

Set Rational Priorities.

Only you can say what is important to you, but you should also let your parents, teachers, friends, and others – perhaps even including professionals – help you with this step. They can probably help you to see things more clearly.
“Rational” refers primarily to the long-term consequences of various choices. Some of the actions you take now – including playing too much poker or letting it harm your self-esteem, moods, studies, or important relationships – will have immense long-term effects. For example, if you lose your girlfriend, don’t get your degree, or miss a promotion, you may regret it forever.

End of quoted material

We did not discuss the downsides because they have been endlessly discussed by others. ALL we are trying to do is to let the general public see the upside. Saying that we are hypocrites for not presenting the downsides shows that you don’t understand how the American political and legal systems work.

Our systems are based on the principle that all sides should be presented so that voters, judges, and jurors can make informed decisions. However, individuals are NOT expected to present both sides.
• Political candidates do not present the pros and cons of voting for them. They say, “Vote for me because…” The voters make the decision.
• Lawyers do not present a balanced position. They each present their own position, and the judge and jury make the decision.

Our entire system is based on maximizing the information available to decision-makers whether they are voters, jurors, judges, legislators, police, or even the president. When only one side is presented or is over-emphasized, those people make bad decisions.

The people who will make the ultimate decisions about poker have an unbalanced picture of our game. They have been inundated with information about the downside of poker. We want to correct that imbalance by emphasizing poker’s positive elements.

We would appreciate the help of everyone who is worried about poker’s future. Let’s get the word out about poker’s positive elements.

Regards,

Al

OK I don't want to side with William here because I believe his stance is simply too extreme -- but this statement strikes me as untrue -- at least for me.

I have in fact posted questions as to the morality of poker before. I am a consistently winning player. I do NOT make my living from poker. I do however have serious questions about it's morality. In it's simplest form -- the goal is to prey on the weak. Is that ok?

I'm simply not sure and I have done battle in my mind over this for several years.

So bottom line -- I don't think that simply wanting poker to be 'allowed' equates to someone thinking that it is unequivocally MORAL or ETHICAL -- that is a false assumption since I want it to be 'allowed' and I'm pretty sure I'm letting my greed TILT me in a potentially immoral direction. I don't think I'm alone here, but one never knows...

Mr. Schoonmaker, thank you for your very interesting reply.
I understand now that the article is propaganda for poker from a group of individuals that wish to continue profiting from it. All that is very natural, we all fight for our daily bread.

It changes though nothing to the fact that poker is an extremely dangerous activity as it is addictive as hell but I see now that it was never the intention of the article to start a debate about pros and cons, but only to try to convince people who know little or nothing about it that it would be good for them and their family to learn how to play. Maybe they will find it amusing and even rewarding, maybe it will destroy their lifes, but the most important is that they vote yes to poker so that a small percentage of the population can continue to benefit from it (poker sites, authors, few pros, etc...).

Personnally, I am a big fan of 2+2 books and authors. They help me improve my game, teach me how other players think and so on. Online poker has also been good to me; I can play whenever I want, lots of fishes, I don't need to be aware that I sit in front of some poor bastard that is once again losing his rent money, no wives carrying small babies droping by the cardroom trying to stop the drunken husband before he ruins the family, no stories about when the next bank robbery can take place, etc...

I'm sure you recognize the scenario from the old days and if you don't, or have just heard about such things without ever having to observe them in person, then you (and David and Mason) are both very lucky and so very out of line when trying to convince the "politicians" that poker is good for you, because it's not.

Finally, I know it's a little (a lot?) silly of me to write all this in a poker forum, nobody in here wants to hear this as we all like (love?) poker and wish it to continue growing (though it has grown enough in my humble opinion) but deep, deep inside me, when asked if poker is a good thing, I sincerely cannot answer "yes".
Maybe if one day it is regulated by the governement (in USA and other countries) and I can see that things are different, I will think otherwise, but for the moment...


And now, I am going to take that test at gamblersanonymous. I am not particularly attracted to casino games or any other kind of gambling and am convinced that "I can handle" my poker playing (pretty sure as when I am on holydays, I don't even think about it) but you never know.

Respectfully,

William

I have always had an issue with the Gambers Anonymous test as it applies to poker.

Youcould replace Gambling with Chess/World or Warcarft/Model Traing Collecting/Amateur Dramatics and lots of people would still come out as an 'addicted' to any hobby they spend of a lot of time doing. So what? The more time you put into an activity that requires time and skill to master the larger it will loom in your life. Addicted is just a perjorative term for something that's important to the 'addict' and that he isn't willing to give up.

The reason why gambling 'addiction' is seen as a particularly bad thing is because most gambling has no +ve side (financailly or intellectually) and will lead to serious financial damage to the 'addict'. He/she is then stuck in a cycle of denial and desperation to win the lost money back.

Poker IS different to games played against the house. It is a game of skill played for money between consenting adults. It has all the attributes of a fascinating and challenging game.

The vast majority of players around the world (esp. online players) treat it as they would a game of chess or scrabble with a chance to win a bit of pcoket money thrown in.

The pros and wannabee pros at 2+2 are a tiny % of players worldwide. The gambling addicts who poker ruins are at the other extreme and of those gambling addicts whose lives are made far worse through poker the vast majority would have done exactly the same at another game anyway.

So at what stage should the state intervene to protect adults from themslelves? To stop a small number of lives being damaged by something that gives pleasure to millions? Can the state efectively intervene? see - drugs, alcohol, sex, the free market etc?

Or are you arguing more on moral than utilitarian grounds?

Do you just object to competitive play for money generally?

Or the cynical nature of the professional poker player who seeks the easiest money available no matter the personal cost to the loser?

I think it's the latter - the age-old - 'granny/drunk at the table' problem.

But in an online age where no-one has to play for higher stakes than 1c/2c, why is one player somehow responsible for another sitting at their table?

We haven't invited them, encouraged them or got them drunk; it isn't the only game in town; we aren't peeking at their cards; they can get up at any time at the click of a mouse. We have no personal bond with them and no responsibility for their actions.

Everytime we buy a pair of sneakers or put gas in our tank in the West we are profiting from someone else's misery. Wallow in your own guilt if you like, but don't criticise DS for posting an article outlining the positive aspects or poker or accuse him of hypocrisy.

Poker has been crippled by the religious right in the US, whose own genuine hypocrisy knows no bounds...

No-one else understands or will advocate for poker players except poker players as you must surely understand.

There is a certain smell of troll in your position in this thread I'm sorry to say..

Funny how everybody keeps talking about religious fanatism.
I don't believe in god and religion has nothing to do with my way of thinking.

Funny as well how many keep saying that it is not the role of the gvt. to tell us what we can or cannot. Well, big surprise, but that is exactly their role. Have a look at how things are in countries where they don't (or cant) tell people what to do.

Protecting a few and not allowing millions to have fun? LOL, I'm not saying poker should be forbidden, but let's not be hypocrites and recognize the game for what it is.

I could here throw in a multitude of examples of how we restrain, but though allow, the use of many things, speed, drugs for medical use, alcohol, etc... but I am sure you're aware of all that. It's just easier to ignore it.