Actually I don't think trying your best to win money at a poker table violates the golden rule. I want others to try to win my money at the poker table. In fact, I find it unethical for them not to do so.

What jobs do you find to not be exploitative? Doctors make far more money than me by exploiting the fact that others have injuries and illnesses and making money from their misery! Wow, it sounds way worse than poker when you put it that way, doesn't it?

Taking money from people when you don’t want your money taken does violate the golden rule imo. Yes it’s not that bad comparatively and people are willing to gamble. Poker certainly isn’t the worst offense. In a lot of ways it’s less bad than other professions,

And yes doctors and big pharma have ethical dilemmas way worse than poker.

People get mad at Doug Polk for shilling btc… but these dr all shill big pharma and push prescriptions.

Ozempic or whatever is the new fad… this drug has no long term studies on it so good luck w that!

I wonder how many of those unidentified problem gamblers you've played against have sought some kind of help from a psychologist, a trusted friend or GA and overcome their addiction? I'd say there would "probably" be some, although it'd likely be a relatively small proportion of the player pool. Doesn't that mean that you can in a "million years" help somebody, if not directly, but via a hint, implication, a kind gesture or some such thing? While I understand your skepticism, which is reasonable, it too often drifts into cynicism, as is often the case on 2+2, a shrugging state of it being "not my problem" that often masks a genuine dilemma.

In respect of players getting pummelled and then playing higher and getting pummelled in a more efficient and insidious way at a higher stake, yes I've seen this happen many times, although I haven't seen the subsequent trainwreck in the pit, but assume it often happens, as a sad end to the tale. Sometimes I've encouraged players --- who may be relatively wealthy and suffering from shame more than financial stress --- to stay in a low-mid stakes game, where they'll have more fun. But I wonder am I doing this for selfish reasons, because they're good for the game? Or isn't it better that someone in a downward spiral, if they're not going to leave the casino, remains seated at the low stakes poker table where they're less likely to do substantial damage to their lives?

Depends. You can do good things with the money you win from poker to help people.

Sure in it if itself poker doesn't really provide value besides entertainment and the jobs it creates. If that bothers you don't play. Seems easy enough.

Regarding the first paragraph, I think you're playing too much online and not enough live, to be so apparently sheltered from/ignorant of the existence of gambling addicts in the poker world. You said in a prior post that you'd played 'thousands and thousands of hours live' and 3m+ hands online. I'm just going to keep the math real easy for myself here, given that I'm on my 5th IPA and posting from my local sportsbook...let's just estimate you at 10,000 hours of online play (the magic number! Right, Malcolm Gladwell?), and I have no idea how many hours 'thousands and thousands' of live hours actually equates to. But let's assume your play skews a bit more online than live; the exact numbers are rather meaningless. I play 100% live. That has been entirely true since the start of the pandemic, and has been nearly true since Black Friday in 2011. I live in the Buffalo area, home to a somewhat small player pool of regulars. That player pool skews massively degen/addict, even among the good players. In fact, the plurality of the player pool might be both 'good' and 'addicted'.

Whether you live in Seattle or elsewhere (given your earlier reference to a Seahawk employee-whale with whom you've played), you're living a charmed existence if you can earnestly ask whether bona fide gambling addicts exist in the poker world. I've got some specific examples I could cite in my little corner of the world, but I'd rather not, because I've learned from experience that Buffalo people eventually end up encountering my posts on this forum

Even from a self-interested POV, long-run considerations could easily compel a person to not 'go for the kill' on a given night, if one is reasonably certain that doing so will drain a person's bankroll and keep them out of the game for X amount of time (X can be forever, rare though that may be...a guy named InfiniteLand should respect the possibility of 'time spent out of action' being potentially infinite). That's just when considering self-interest. Imagine if you actually like the people you play with, or have basic ethical concerns for unknown others. Is it insane to be empathetic? That's what your argument reduces to, and most would argue that psychopathy, the clinical lack of empathy, is what falls more into the terrain of being considered insane.

I'm a moral nihilist, ultimately. I believe in no God, and I believe that the universe/multiverse is morally neutral. Which is to say, amoral. Anything goes. But, there are different ways to approach life upon arriving at said conclusions. They run the gamut from indiscriminately murdering randoms to trying to maximize collective human happiness, however fleeting and ultimately pointless such an endeavor may be. I sympathize with the latter goal(s). And if I'm going to prioritize 'collective' human happiness, then I must necessarily sacrifice my own at times. We all make this calculation/compromise away from the poker table in order to exist in society. To pretend these considerations no longer apply while at the table, well, I don't compartmentalize so skillfully, myself.

If you don't want to try to win as much money as possible from everyone, then you shouldn't be at the poker table, at least at any meaningful stakes. As I stated earlier, doing anything else is collusive and cheating the players you don't softplay. When I play any game, I play by the rules, and that is part of my moral code.

There it is. The word salad justifying folding “winners”.

You sir, are insane.

My apologies to you for living in the Buffalo area. Sometimes live can be cruel.

No, dear God no! You are unreal....just can not believe you are serious....troll right?

Of course I'm serious. Poker isn't supposed to be a team sport. Soft playing anyone is collusion, and can hurt the other players as well.

this thread is unethical

It is unfair to describe what mrcnkwcz is suggesting as soft playing. It is definitely NOT cheating.

If we sense another player has a gambling addiction and suffering financially, it is ethically sound AND within the rules of poker not to take certain aggressive actions (for instance not iso-raising the vulnerable player preflop with the bottom of your 3bet range). There are many situations in the game tree where we choose between different options, sometimes sacrificing a minor, short term EV gain for a longer term benefit. Soft-playing is when "friends" check-hands down etc; it becomes collusive and effectively a form of cheating when friend A raises/squeezes in a spot, causing other players to fold, allowing friend B to call and check it down to the river, with each realising their equity and therefore potentially gaining an unfair share of the pot.

Also, I have to say this: the fact that some of you are resorting to personal insult rather logical argument is perhaps indicative of an unwillingness to acknowledge your own ethical shortcomings. Always better to be smart and kind than snide and angry.

I was very specific about how soft playing (which this is) can hurt other players. I haven't seen you address my argument.

We are the ones using logical argument, those on your side (mrcnkwcz, Numbnutlow) are the ones who have resorted to personal insults.

I think Paisting has a serious gambling addiction, and even more serious mental problems. If I avoid exploiting him to the max, will I objectively make his life better? Or am I just going by subjective things, like a moral code, not wanting to feel bad, not wanting others to think I'm bad etc.

I don't think I'm the best player even in the pools he plays, in getting the maximum possible EV vs every single fish, nor I think all the other better players will stop and abide by moral rules, nor I think he will be financially better even if all regs stopped exploiting him. I know addicts, most of them always find a way to keep their addictions.

So, objectively, I don't think this would help him a single bit, and I don't think any feelings I might have matter, so I would just do the rational thing we're supposed to do if we play to win.

Like I said before. If he doesn't lose it to me, he's losing it to another player or the house. No one put a gun to his head and forced him to play. It's not my or anyone's responsibility to soft play someone to delay the inevitable. Implying that I have ethical shortcomings because I feel this way is textbook self-righteousness.

And it DOES hurt other players to soft play even in this case. Let's say there's two fish in the blinds and the gambling addict opens in the HJ. Let's say the CO was gonna flat a speculative hand to try to play in position with the fish. But he folds cause I'm on the BTN and I've been playing aggressive, 3 betting/squeezing lots. I have a hand that I could either 3 bet or flat, but this time I "feel bad" for the addict and just flat. Both fish also flat in the blinds. Flop comes and the CO would've flopped the nuts in position vs two fish. He could've flatted or even 3 bet himself to iso the addict and as long as I don't cold 4 bet he could've seen that flop. Is that fair to the CO?

Don't soft play. I don't care how you justify it, it's cheating. If you REALLY care enough to help the guy, talk to him away from the table.

Don't really care about the ethics. People are prone to all sorts of vices that have a negative impact on oneself, some worse than others. I think drugs, sex and gambling are probably on the more addictive and corrosive end, but people are free to ruin their lives even as those activities incur a societal cost.

The idea that you are capable of SENSING a player is both a gambling addict and suffering financially is laughable and the justification to then soft-play vs said villain and this is somehow within the rules and NOT cheating is even more laughable. Easily the dumbest thing posted so far in this thread.

You should spend less time pretending to be an even more self-righteous Dr. Phil.

Pretty much agree with all this

Chillrob, this is what you have posted on soft-playing:

To me, you're saying that:

A. If you're not trying to maximise EV at every decision point in a poker hand then you're soft-playing.

B. If you're soft-playing you are colluding.

C. Colluding is cheating.

D. Cheating is unethical.

I agree with C and D but not A and B.

I can see how some might make an argument for A, as Lord River Rat does, but to be honest I think Lord River Rat ties himself in knots by trying to argue that BN is cheating against the CO by not iso-raising preflop with the bottom of his 3bet/squeeze range. If you are calling such a decision a form of soft-playing and therefore cheating, you are really opening a Pandora's Box. Imagine trying to write the rules to regulate this type of cheating. Imagine all these OMGs who would be escorted from the casino because they flatted KK preflop! I mean, to be honest, I kind of like the idea that I would be escorted from the building because I flatted AJo on the BN over two limps --- there is some kind of ironic justice to such a scenario.

I appreciate how you use the adjective "laughable" instead of lol: it is a raison d'etre of which you should be proud. But in the end it is not sufficient:

Personally I think the idea that you or anyone else can tell if someone is a gambling addict by sitting at the table with them for a few minutes is BS. Even if you could you aren't doing them any favors. That's not really the point though is it. You just want to feel like your helping someone so you can feel all warm and fuzzy inside

I never mentioned a "few minutes" --- kind of absurd that you propose that I did. Yes, like feeling warm and fuzzy inside AND helping people (i.e. doing them favours).

You aren't actually helping anyone.