Online I don't think it matters, but live, Danny is 100% right (about the other quote, not "more rake is better").

In case nobody has said it (by this age of the thread, it should be largely "all things already said" or functionally dead/hijacked):

The nature of the game is corrupt, relative to the nature of "a life well-lived" ethically: if you play well, then you know the game is not gambling, but a form of exploiting others' weakness with your strength. An ethical "life well lived" would demand that you use your strengths to protect the weak, not exploit them.

The weakness a person exhibits in poker is an expression of a weakness in them as a person, whether a lack of cognitive (problem solving intelligence) or emotional intelligence (the ability read social and material situations among other humans accurately).

If you see a selfish/exploitative opportunity in the weakness of others, you're not a good person. Every good person knows this. Every corrupt person denies the obviousness of it.

You can play poker with the full knowledge of what you're doing, and just not engage in the kinds of over-the-top corrupt activities other pro's feel obligated to engage in (coddling the people losing regularly in their games, so they will keep playing, etc.), and recognize that the activity itself is something whose "meta-effects" (becoming more corrupt, emotionally) you have to monitor in yourself, or just find other ways to spend your time and make money.

Is it the same to participate in a game you know is inherently corrupting, as to participate in it without that knowledge? That's yet a more complicated question. That the nature of the game is corrupt (your object in the game is to confuse other players and cause them to exercise poor judgment, the opposite of what it should be ethically in life) is not in question.

David, I'm not sure if I agree with your assessment. You could have a point.

On the other hand, not all losing players are weak and being exploited. There are plenty of successful people with disposable income who enjoy gambling and/or the challenge of trying to match wits with professional card players.

I think there's also a competitive aspect, especially at the highest levels. Many of the players in higher stake games are net winners competing for big money with other net winners.

But I do get your point. I've noticed that poker has improved my thinking in some ways (risk assessment for example), but in other ways it's made me cynical and suspicious of others' motives. Then again maybe poker's just a microcosm of life? As humans we do literally eat other living things in order to survive.

I'm wary of the poker/life analogy. We know poker is a game and that life is not. Furthermore poker is a zero-sum game in which the objective is to exploit other players. I would never take an equivalent zero-sum/exploitative strategy to life, even though I do nearly every time I sit at the poker table. Of course, there are some who take such an exploitative strategy to life and generally I would argue they are morally corrupt in doing so.

So are you a non-poker player who just hangs out on poker forums, or an evil person who plays poker despite your evolved understanding of how terrible it is?

Based on David’s logic, every sport is unethical.

Nothing wrong with admitting to oneself that they engage in unethical or non-altruistic endeavors. Would be nice if more people had such intellectual honesty. Not everyone needs to be the self-righteous type.

To David above -

What about other careers that exploit people? Like anyone who works in advertising or marketing? Or those who work for fast food companies?
Any companies that make alcohol or cigarettes?

Seems to me that there are a lot of other jobs that don't add value to anyone's lives.

We know that life is not a game?

Great contributions to the Albini thread, by the way.

You don't understand how big business and corporations work. Their primary goal is to maximize shareholder value. Any socitial benefits secondary

No they ruin their own lives. I wouldn't knowing sit with an addict or at least I wouldn't bum hunt one but if they sit at my table. I don't think I wouldn't just stand up and leave.

That's what a lot of these posters don't understand. You are saving a addict by not playing with them. They're gonna go play pitt games or whatever.

fyp

People only buy from those companies if they judge it makes them better off than the other possible uses of their money.

Every poker player hates casinos and thinks they are 'unethical' for offering -EV games.

Every winning poker player represents a -EV game for their average opponent.

Cognitive dissonance mandates a resolution to this situation, usually in the most comfortable way for winning poker players: ignore, minimize, and blame the victim as well. Like chemical companies deal with what's called 'externalities', even though it really should be called 'immediate consequences' by now.

If you would have moral qualms running a casino, you should not be a +EV player in poker. Plenty of people don't have moral qualms running casinos, which is why - to some people's astonishment - the realization that it is at least slightly immoral will not change the behavior of 99% of players who either are unwilling to realize this, or don't care.

what led you to this conclusion??

I agree w all this..

However I can’t help rationalize my own play by knowing that in other fields that I’ve worked in I’ve had even worse experiences of having to sue partners for stealing and colluding against me.

Trading is very similar to poker as well and I’ve often rationalized arbitrage as part of poker.

But these are cop outs of “whataboutism” and the truth is I know the right thing to do is devout my life to being a vegan munk living off the land and off grid and giving all my time to helping others by coming up with free renewable hydrogen energy and curing world hunger by turning it vegan and using all the food that feeds livestock to feed humans instead. Creating a utopian world of barter system w no late stage capitalism winning out.

Sometimes it’s just easier if I just shut up and play the pokes.

SBF is calling from prison.

Agree with all btw.

Wat?

I don't think this, and I've never heard any poker player say anything like it.

OK. Should I stop exploiting weak players at the table cause it's "unethical"? Maybe every other session I should just shove every hand until called cause that makes me a "good person". Maybe bars should stop "exploiting" the fact that people turn to alcohol to solve their problems.

Humans are corrupt and selfish by nature. Capitalism is corrupt and selfish by nature. Poker is a form of capitalism. Let's not pretend and virtue signal. That's the governments job.

You do not understand how they actually work. See those large executive salaries and benefits; they decrease shareholder value by transferring company money into to the executives pockets. In real life companies make no decisions or have goals at all; people at the companies make the decisions and have goals but find they can handle the suckers better by pretending it is the company doing something not them deciding to have the company do something.

Not all people, but most poker players, if not all are shitty people.

Yes let's talk about those large executive salaries. Since 1978 the average CEO salary has increased by over 1000 percent. While the salaries of their non executive employees have barely moved at all. For that matter the salary of the average customer hasn't changed much either

Sounds like poker outside of actual gambling addicts

The difference is that at low stakes you can choose to win by actually studying and putting in the effort.

There is nothing you can do in games of chance to make that happen.

If you are losing at low stakes in poker it is 100% a choice.