Just read first 20 or so posts but this guy nailed it.

You misspelled "Philippa Foot's trolley problem."

OP already said he's not interested in the rationalizations used by drug dealers and lots of other criminals.

Those who are comfortable with these can use them, but it's not some great insight.

Lots to unpack. I am a for profit rec when I am putting in the time, but have had a full time job in private equity for the last 20 years and I do often have second thoughts when I take a big pot from someone when I can tell it stings. This week I was playing the 5/5/10 at hustler and watched one young reg get a massive cooler in a double board bomb pot (at dealer change). I could tell by his body language that it mattered to him beyond just the usual pain from a cooler. I felt bad just watching it. I had a full-time job at his age and remember how much that amount of money meant back then. Easy to preach bankroll management and variance, but still sucks when you are on a massive downswing.

I was never going to be a poker pro for a variety of reasons, but understand why OP is asking the question.

Treating any addiction is difficult. I firmly believe genetic predisposition is a big factor and so do not judge others who are battling any form. Even with pharmacological help like bupe (ie Subutex / Suboxone) relapse rates are relatively high. I hear some think ozempec might be effective at treating addictions including gambling, but will need way more data and studies to validate. Often the end of the path for an addict is rock-bottom and that often impacts way more people than the addict.

Btw - I agree that a degen is going to degen and understand why others have no feelings one way or the other when it comes to playing against them as the money will be lost to someone.

Yes, all time and that runs the spectrum from homeless addicts to white-collar addicts.

Pointless statement, there has always been drugs and gambling in this world and there always will be. Also, you are free to not post on this gambling forum and post at some Chicken noodle soup for soul forum instead.

I really don’t know when all these Carrie Nation-type posters invaded the deuce, judging by join dates it is likely due to the rise of poker vlogs but they are really cluttering up 2p2.

Most addicts have underlying issues that cause them to be addicts in the first place, so I think it would be unfair to say that they're fully culpable to realizing what they're doing if they have a chemical imbalance that stops them from regulating their ability to self-control.

However, you don't see liquor stores, casinos, or pharmacies closing just because people have addiction issues. The current state of our economy actually thrives because we have these inequalities, and that's why things like booze and cigarettes are taxed so heavy. Either way, it's going back into the system.

From my POV, I guess it's unethical, but so is a million other things that are pushed onto us in society. Wasting your time thinking about whether you're personally exploiting an at risk individual isn't going to help you get ahead in a world where we all have to compete for scarce resources.

You just have to ignore it and hope you don't end up being the sucker.

Except that rationalization isn't just used by criminals. It's used by society. Cause life's a hustle.

Bartenders pretend to like you, feed you alcohol and hope you give them a fat tip. They don't care if you're an alcoholic and will continue to serve you unless you are intoxicated. Therapists pretend to care about you, but you are just a client to them. A problem to be solved. I will go as far to say that many do not genuinely care about your issues and hope to solve your issues slowly instead of quickly so that you feel like they are worth keeping but still have to keep seeing them. Realtors pretend to care about you, but again, you are just a client to them. Although they are legally obligated to prioritize your best interests over theirs, let's not be naive here. Corporations virtue signal and pretend they care about their community, but won't hesitate to gouge their customers for every penny they can get away with. Don't even get me started on politicians.

So call me a cold hearted bastard. But no I'm not gonna feel bad. People play poker to try to take other people's money. That guy is trying to take my money, and he's more than welcome to try.

Can't publicly reveal credentials without risking outing irl identity, which would likely cause a flur of hypocrisy accusations. That's neither here nor there. If an opinion holds weight on its own, you don't need credentials to back it up. You only need credentials if you're staying 'facts' that you can't back up.

Opinion: the 12 step program hurts more people then it helps. I dont need to provide links. A cursory Google search will show the evidence backing that one up.

As for your your 'MD' question, nobody has either suggested or criticized a medical treatment. CBT as opposed to psychoanalysis are both soft science, and I don't need to prove I have a degree to demonstrate an academic understanding of either of these. Neither of them are medical, so an MD wouldn't make a difference. If you have any arguments advocating or criticizing either of these practices, I'd be happy to see them and you could feel free to check the validity on my knowledge of the subjects from third parties.

But you don't seem to care about specific treatments - you seem to think government regulation is the solution. I've already replied with why I think you're wrong and instead of responding to it, you've continued your crusade of personal attacks. So where are your credentials? Do you have a masters in poly-sci, or even a shred of evidence that lobbying Congress has ever/will ever make a difference regarding any issue, including this one?

Your points pertaining to APAC gambling legislation are not bad, but imo that's an entirely different discussion. I don't see how some other countries legislation helps somebody who plays for a living reconcile our need for an income with the damage we see themselves doing (I say 'we' cause it's evident I'm not alone on this, nor even part of a fringe minority).

Honestly, the only really good point I've seen is 'if you can't handle it, change careers.' I've known people who've done that. I haven't because

a. Ethical issues have yet to affect me to the point where I literally cant handle it anymore. I'm only reflecting on it. And

b. Barriers to exit. That's a whole other discussion, but I don't have anything resembling a resume. I've been playing poker since college (almost 20 years ago) so at the moment quitting isn't even an option.

All in all, what's your problem with simply reflecting and exchanging opinions? It seems like you demand some kind of proof, or some kind of cure-all answer that would make any further discussion unnecessary. Beyond the fact that such a thing simply doesn't exist, it also shows as I've said before that you view this issue on black and white, when it's really not.

You got me. It's still Kantian in every way that matters, though.

I'll specifically target young grinders especially when I'm pretty sure they're taking a shot. Why? Bc i want to stomp them out of my player pools before they get ahold of money and become a problem.This is especially true of guys who play extremely slow, are anti social etc. I'm going to try and put them in uncomfortable spots. I'm going to spend a session just focusing on how they play. I've explained to some other players I'm friendly with why they should only run it once against guys taking shots. Over the years I've seen a lot of young guys who play well trying to move up. And there is a huge survivorship bias amongst them. Most guys who ran well out of the gate stuck around and have done well in poker. The ones who didn't had a much lower rate of success. Sure some kept coming back, maybe got staked or whatever. But a lot just give up.

Yes it hurt when you're playing bigger than you're used to and get wrecked. We've almost all been there. But the grinder kid shot taking and a degenerate gambler aren't close to the same thing. The young smart grinder kid is either gonna make it in poker or he's not but he's gonna figure his life out one way or the other. The degenerate is going to keep gambling and going to keep losing.

Now if I'm watching on TV and see what you saw I'd feel bad for him. But if we're playing in the same game I wouldn't feel bad at all. Now that doesn't mean I want them sleeping under a highway that night but I do want them to flame out from poker if the alternative is taking a lot of money out of the same games I play in.

^^^great post

Appreciate you writing this. I think it’s under discussed and, as you mentioned, usually written off with one of a few tired responses.

I don’t have an answer, but I’ve found two ideas pretty compelling, on opposite sides of the argument:

For: I don’t really take responsibility for so-called predation, as any job involves taking money from somebody, exploiting somebody, hurting the environment, etc, etc. No one comes out clean in terms of getting the money you need to support you and (maybe) your family.

I’ve been in education for 20 years, and more and more come to see how much of the field is dominated by adults finding ways to line their pockets with tax money that’s supposed to help kids. So end of the day, is it better to profit off guys who get drunk and spew off their rent money, or taxpayers and underprivileged kids?

Against: Since I’m not terribly concerned about what I’m “taking” or who I’m taking it from, my issue of conscience with poker as a job is what I’m not giving.

In most fields, while you’re extracting money from somewhere, you’re usually giving something of value in return. Even the worst education companies I worked for were providing some benefit to teachers and students.

In poker, people talk about it like pros are the house and we’re there to show recs a good time. In all honesty, this is just a way of saying “don’t let the fish realize they’re fish. Be nice so they stick around and lose more money.”

I really don’t believe that playing poker for a living contributes anything to society. Maybe an Ivey or a Negreanu adds some marginal entertainment value with their tv appearances, but still nowhere near what they extract from the game. And the rest of us aren’t even providing that.

Maybe if you frame your concerns less about guilt for the harm your causing, and more about a desire to make a positive contribution, you might find more clarity about your next step.

I've honestly never had an issue about my lack of contribution to society. TBH, I think our society is corrupt at its core, and I've never felt any urge or obligation to contribute to it. If I was gonna try and contribute to society, I'd be trying to change it. I'd be an activist of some sort. Maybe I'd join some radical group devoted to direct action. I used to participate in efforts to cause social change, and none of them ever amounted to anything. Social movements with similar goals have ways been ineffectual. Look at Occupy - what did they accomplish? Corporations have more power and influence then ever. Same with the movements to abolish or defund the police. Police impunity is at an all time high.. So xe efforts to radically change our society have historically amounted to almost nothing, I don't feel like participation in such movements would be productive use of time.

Perhaps if I had been born in a different era, I'd feel differently. If id been around at the turn of the century, I'd have joined the IWW and fought for organized labor. They actually did succeed in giving labor a fighting chance against capital. If id been born a little later, I'd have fought in the Spanish Civil War. On the 60s, I'd probably have joined the anti war movement, as they DID make a difference. But aside from that, social activism appears to be beating a dead horse. Obviously, if I can't radically change society for the better, I have no desire to contribute to it. Yeah, I could have taken a different path. Become a doctor and open a free clinic in a third world country. Maybe I could have been a civil rights lawyer. Who knows? Calle selfish, but I prioritize my family over whatever peace of mind I'd have gotten from pursuing social justice.

My daughter recently graduated from college. She's the first member of my family on either side to get a college degree, as my generations of my family have been working class. My daughter now has the opportunity to pursue countless avenues, many of which will give her have the opportunity to make the world a better place. My poker winnings paid her tuition, and as far as I'm concerned, that's my contribution, and I'm happy with it. Not only have I given my daughter an opportunity nobody in my family had ever had, but all the unethical things I've done as a poker player now have as least a level of merit l. I've paid it forward on the only way that makes sense to me.

As for poker itself, even though it doesn't 'contribute' to what I consider a corrupt and morally bereft system, it does exist in a microcosm. The game is a self-contained universe, where whatever happens can be viewed totally independently from whatever social constructs exist outside of it. This to me is better then something like finance and banking, or lost importantly l, hedge fund type stuff - the moving around of capital for the some purpose of naked accumulation. This type of career harms society immensely l. Every dollar a hedge fund makes hurts the working g and lower middle classes either directly, through patent sharking and aggressively absorbing small business (just a few examples), or indirectly by contributing to a capitalist economy with corporate personhood, prioritizing the profit motive and stifling the personal agency of the already exploited working class

I guess what somes it up is that capitalism revolves around exploitation. Parasites such as big business owners and landlords exploit the workers who actually build our infrastructure. Owners and managers take a portion of the value of working class labor, leaving the masses, especially in developing countries, in a state of wage slavery.

Not to fully turn this into a capitalism vs. socialism debate, but my own reasoning as somebody who opposed capitalism at its core is that it's nearly impossible to succeed in our society without contributing to exploitation. In poker, I'm doing it at a much smaller scale then many other professions. This is why my mai issue is the personal damage I do to degenerates . Even investment bankers don't have to look their victims in the eye, wheras I DIRECTLY exploit people who sit across from me. No rationalization will make me feel better about that, although I do consider myself a much lesser evil in the scene of things. So yeah, my ethical issues are personal rather than social, and contributing to society has nothing to with it. As long as I'm not making the world any worse, I can live with myself.

This is the most absurd post…….comical! You do realize that ultimately poker is a game of deception, right? Nobody forced or made these people play the game………or made them show up………or made them buy in………etc etc………..OP acts like he is some big winner in the game? STFU……..quit the game then………why come here spewing some garbage BS…………the wonderful thing about poker is you always have multiple options! Call, fold, raise………you always get to take peek before you put a cent in the middle! Suck it up……..don’t be an idiot! A gulity conscience is not for poker! It is a sick dark game where people do get hurt…….utilize your options! Lmao

It took you 10yrs to figure this out for yourself? Clownass!

Sounds more like you are speaking of yourself! Lol

Wish I had the patience to read all the posts .. Have you considered switching to tournaments? Less of an 'income' impact on the Players and a huge carrot at the end (when you can get there).

The impact of coolers can be two-fold. Yes first, there could be a financial impact on a Player's immediate bankroll situation. But I secondly think there's a larger impact on a Player's mental makeup, which lends it's self to the comments above about crushing 'good' new Players so they don't become Regs.

I take a 'fine line' approach to this in our area when it comes to PLO. You want to maintain/grow a Player Pool and yet you don't want to create a monster or two either.

I've also done the 'unthinkable' by soft playing certain Players that are on their 4-5th BI of the day and just getting crushed. But there are also others that I have no issue taking any amount of chips they want to put on the table.

I think it's called 'entitlement tilt' .. when a Player perhaps studies, stays patient and sets up the perfect spot only to get coolered at the end. I think this has a greater impact on Players than even the money.

We've got one Reg that we openly try to teach them how to play differently (better) and yet they won't, dumping 'plenty' of BI into the game over they years. We want this Player to have more fun and accept the game for what outcomes it produces. But despite plenty of higher education and years of experience at the table there's just an overwhelming amount of entitlement surrounding their approach to each session .. and the shortest fuse every known when a variance spot comes up and the pot goes the other way.

As with everyone's thoughts on RIT, you can have a different mind set for each V you come across. I have no issues playing the way I know to extract the maximum from this Player. I've tried to 'help' them (too much) and so you can attack them knowing they've been warned. Whereas I definitely take a different approach to a new Player who's trying the game out knowing that if we crush them they'll never be back in a lot of cases.

As was indicated very early in this thread .. If you don't take the money, someone else will.

Are we to take the approach to this as a 'drug' dealer? So by sitting down at the table you are providing the fix to the V and you are now feeling bad that you offered it to them? Taking advantage of their need?

How do I get over it? As described above .. If I see a new 'unworthy' opponent I will offer them advice/commentary. Whether they accept it or are capable of processing it is on them, not me. Just that attempt is enough for me to continue to play against them and take chips. Things change once they become a seasoned Reg .. except those days when they are running bad and hit that 4-5th BI. Am I expecting the same treatment? NO. Would I 'accept' that treatment .. of course.

Not sure where all this rambling is going .. but mainly I'm coming back to the Thread master phrase of 'It depends' and IMO you can have a different approach to how you attack certain Player types in order for you to go home more comfortable with how you handled the day's session. GL

This reminds me of the time my wife ran up $30K in credit card debt. I actually filed a complaint with the bank for issuing her credit without my approval, knowing that she was a stay-at-home mom with no income who is clearly suffering from mental-health issues. Unfortunately this didn't constitute a violation of the bank's code of ethics, and our kids are on the hook for the debt.

All this is to say, it's all very well to say "if you don't take their money someone else will." But don't lose sight of the fact that there are other stakeholders involved.

How are your kids on the hook?

Yes there are other stake holders but how does that change anything? I mean let's say someone is a degenerate and they're gambling away food money. Someone else will take it and their kid still might not get the food they need. It's not like me refusing to play them changes that. It's a horrible situation no doubt but that person is going to lose the money.

I remember once I was at commerce. Commerce will allow one short buy in after you bust.

This lady ahead of me at the cashier was playing the 1/2 nl game with had a 40 dollar min max. This woman is buying chips with a bunch of change. She was able to get 7 dollars in chips. It was pretty sad to see.

The guy behind me tells her "why don't you just take that 7 dollars and go home instead of gambling with it?" And she tells him to **** himself.

While most people who gamble don't have gambling problem,if you do have one it's really can take over your life and nothing you say or do to someone in the casino is going to change that.

Poker gambling is one of the least harmful forms of gambling out there as at least you have a chance to win. Furthermore poker can teach you many great life lessons, no such chance exists at basically all other casino games.

How many people that are truly addicted and lose a ton of money at poker are there honestly? I doubt it's some crazy number like any other addiction, smoking, drinking or other forms of gambling.

It's not ideal, but such careers don't really exist, doctors have to operate on bad people/criminals, gyms take money from members who don't use the membership at all, this goes on for basically all careers, yeah you can probably find me some small percentage that are basically "angelic" but they are few and far between.

You're basically concerned about jay walking being anti social when there are murderers and other serious criminals out there.

I think this is a pretty good take. It's at least what I tell myself lol

I would be interested to see any data on the rate of problem gambling among poker players. We certainly have examples of degens, but they are usually degens via the pits rather than playing poker.

Sadly science has progressed such that companies are able to create products that target endorphin release as a means to addict customers. That is true of many platforms (social media, candy crush, etc). Although the impact of gambling is more visible and obvious, the long-term consequences on mental health of those may be equally unfortunate.

Poker does not lend itself to the same type of reward system. Playing blackjack, craps, roulette, slots, etc has constant risk and rewards vs poker where you are an observer the vast majority of the hands.

I've thought about this a lot but ultimately the people you are talking about don't have a poker problem, they have a gambling problem. You playing or not playing is not going to change that, even if every reg on the site left.

Lol yeah …recs are really “entertained” by pros


What a super entertaining interesting fun group of people you are

At the end of the day no one is forcing someone to play poker. Should people force losing players to not play? There wouldn't really be poker then at that point. Does the casino feel bad when I shovel money into a slot machine and walk away dejected? Maybe I could land at that conclusion if I thought their apology was thru the free airfare room alc and food they give me for showing up.

Poker is far and away the least immoral form of gambling from the side of the winner. Maybe if you run private games or are an agent and you're trying to max exploit someone then you're wading into some pretty murky territory. But it still technically would be a fair game that the guy/girl chose to be at so winning was done "honestly".

However if you're cheating the players then for sure youre the bad guy. But dragging a pot against a punter isn't a you problem.