This is wrong only because it ignores the fact that people play poker for different reasons.

Some people play to make money. Some people play for entertainment. Some people play for the mental aspect. Some people play for the gambling aspect.

I have played with people who have lost thousands of dollars in a night, but had a blast and considered the night a success because they hit a couple of gut shots and got their gambling fix fed.

Looking at poker ethics through win/loss rates of EV positive players misses most of the point.

This displays a complete lack of understanding of human nature.

I think this is a projection of your own feelings about poker.

I am somewhat successful at poker (I win more than I lose, but I could likely win more), but I am perfectly comfortable with my ethics and think it matches up just fine with my worldview. No cognitive dissonance.

I know that there are players I am playing against who shouldn't be playing because they are playing with the rent or child support. I also know that I am playing against people who are looking to gamble, or looking to match wits, or for some other reason. There are lots of reasons people play poker.

I can guess and suspect why people are playing, but I cannot know for sure. I would never presume to judge someone over why they are playing. That is their business. Win or lose the results are what they are. If I get it all in against a player who then tells me they are playing with the money they were supposed to buy baby formula with the results play. No different than if I get it in against the same person who hits a one outer and then declares they are going to the strip club with their winnings.

You pay your money you get your results.

As long as the rules are being followed by everyone.

I am going to pick nits with this.

Whenever I softplay, I am not softplaying because I am somehow colluding with another player. I will play my grandmother hard if I think I can take money from her.

I softplay other players because I recognize that making marginal (or even semi-marginal) plays against them is increasing variance as much, if not more, that it is increasing profitability.

If I am at a table with another player who is roughly as skilled as me and seven other players who are far worse, it is likely that myself and the other skilled player will reach an unspoken agreement to not push marginal edges against each other. Not because we are genuinely colluding. We are doing it because we both recognize that it is stupid to go broke against the other skilled player in a set over set type of situation when there is lots of money on the table held by inferior players.

That is just acting in my own best interests.

Why do you play poker?

Do you play for money? Do you play for entertainment? Do you play for the gambling "action"?

My answer is that for the most part, I play for intellectual curiosity. I play in one big game mostly for money, but even in that game, the intellectual challenge is always present. For me, the win/loss is secondary. I am more interested in the various ways the hand could be played and why.

As I have shown on the Beats, Brags, and Variance page, it isn't the money, it is the way the hand is played and why.

So for me, other players at a poker table are just things to be figured out. There is no morality involved. No different than figuring out which size package of cookies at the grocery store is the best value.

This.

To alter your play/behavior towards someone at a poker table because you think they are problem gamblers seems to me to be the hight of arrogance and knowing what is better for others than they know what is best for themselves.

I think it is best to treat every other player at a table as a responsible adult who does what they want to. If their goal is to gamble by making mathematically stupid bets/calls that is their adult choice.

I would never insult another by thinking I know what is best for them. I don't know them well enough to do that.

That said, there have been times where I thought a player was either drunk or otherwise playing in a manner that was severely detrimental to their long term best interests. If I thought it was bad enough, rather than alter my play against such a player, I would carefully say something to them outside of the pkay of the hands. I would try and help them. If they were open to the advice, great. If they weren't, that was their choice and I would then go back to treating them like an adult and let their choices play themselves out.

This doesn't meet my definition of soft play, and I can't imagine it fits many others' either. You're not "going easy" on someone, you're avoiding playing big pots with him because he is a skilled player. Of course that is in your interest, but it likely is not in his interest for you to avoid him. (It may still be in his interest to avoid you).

If I hit a set against the best player on the table Im happily trying to get stacks in regardless of the amount of worse players on the table. The equity of a set against any player is much higher than the equity of waiting for spots against worse players.

I get your point but the example is poor.

It's acting in your best interest to go hard at this player bc he's eating in the same place you are.

The more pros or aspiring pros I can stomp out the better.

Now there are reasons to do things like no 3 bet marginal spots to keep in bad players bc you'll make more money that way. But if I'm in a pot against a similarly skilled player I'm playing for stacks if it's the right move. I'm fine embracing variance. Most people handle it poorly.

Turn the variance up and you'll have more pots with bad players and you rather than another skilled player in the hand.

Now that doesn't mean get all in with garbage against them bc they'll tend to have strong ranges but I sure as hell am not looking to play small pots with sets.