Exactly this. And as you move up in stakes there are a lot of more them and many of them are interesting people. There are of course are less overall bad players and more regs/pros as you move up.

There are plenty of people who aren't weak or being exploited. Theyre playing for fun and they're not idiots. They know if they played tighter they'd lose less or even win but it's more fun to see a lot of flops.



The thing is there is absolute truth in the fact that even if someone is a pure degenerate playing with rent money they're going to lose gambling. It might feel noble to say "well I'm not gonna be the one taking it" but it will just be another poker player or the casino.

Now if you're trying to get people to play who are trying to quit gambling bc they're terrible that's a completely different thing entirely and beyond scummy.

I am confident in saying poker is not a form of capitalism in its intended design (e.g. minimal rake, no collusion, sharing of bankrolls or player data). Who owns the means of production in a poker game? A casino does to an extent because it has a licence, some tables, chips, dealers, etc., but as we know private games are relatively straightforward to establish.

If I have a 100 BI bankroll and some of my opponents have less than 5 BIs, then I can use it to my advantage in certain exploitative situations, but the structure of the game (i.e., stake and buy-in cap) mitigates this advantage to a large extent. My 100 BI bankroll is not really capital that I can use to generate more capital in the way that corporate assets are.

The idea that humans are corrupt and selfish has been debated for centuries. Anyway sounds like you're a Hobbesian (I favour Rousseau if that counts for anything). Probably not going to change your mind about humans being inherently corrupt or not.

I agree that Capitalism is corrupt in the general sense. I have more faith in poker being relatively free of moral corruption, so long as the rules of the game are not manipulated to favour some, by which I mean greedy game operators as well as players colluding and/or cheating.

In the end, if there are clear signs that someone has a gambling addiction and related financial problems, we have the choice as a fellow player to encourage them to leave the game. If that doesn't work, which is usually the case, then the responsible thing to do is inform the game operator. If that doesn't work, either (even though a casino licence is often dependent on a problem gambling policy) then we have a genuine dilemma.

Personally in these situations I have avoided playing pots against these types of highly vulnerable players. Also, I'm ok with saying a few things to others who are heartlessly exploiting them, which can generate some friction, but so be it; at least by "speaking out" there is greater awareness of the issue. What I'm talking about here relates to those who are clearly addicted and ruining their lives (as well as most likely those of their kin). I'm NOT talking about someone who is on tilt, playing below par, out of their depth at the stake, not handling variance, etc.,. These people generally know the rules of the game, the pitfalls, differing skill levels, the vagaries of luck and so on, and have the opportunity to challenge themselves to play better and be less exploitable.

People seem to think that when the game is fair, it is ethical. It's at most a prerequisite.

So you let them win ? Do you think that does them any good long term?

If someone with a gambling addiction leaves a game/situation in which they’ll likely suffer significant harm, then that’s a win-win, in my mind. Likewise if I encourage others “not to kick someone when they’re down” that’s a double win too. I’m talking about those who are past the point of learning from their mistakes—they need care and protection not some failure-breeds-success, tough-coach philosophy.

Sure they need help but from a psychologist or someone like that . Soft playing them doesn't help them in the least. You're just allowing them to get that dopamine high. You can't save someone from themselves.

This reminds me of a guy who was working for the Seahawks(not a player). Gave us his name, confirmed he was real. Dude was winning at life harder than anyone at that table but was also a huge whale. Didn't feel bad for him once.

Genuine question. I have played thousands and thousands of hours of live and probably 3m+ hands online. I have never not once met the person you're describing. Have you? How did you know?

I agree that someone with a gambling addiction needs help from a psychologist, counsellor and/or GA. The point is that you can save someone from themselves once you identify the problem and help them seek appropriate remedies. I'm not saying it'a an easy task, given the stigma attached to a gambling addiction, not to mention the nature of the addictive behaviour itself. In my experience many players don't like talking about it, maybe because in the back of their minds they believe they may be vulnerable too. Anyway, the issue of "soft playing" is a bit of a distraction --- I'm not suggesting you fold Aces preflop, just show some compassion, tact and try and help someone in need.

There are many times in Poker that I lean 'way' one way away from most others ..

1) I do 'soft play' Players when they've been getting hammered during a session. I say 'Good Fold' to them if I know I have them crushed and they are facing my bet HU.
2) I will offer 'deals' at the table when a Player folds a winner or some other outlier issue pops up during a hand.

While I am sort of disappointed when these gestures aren't reciprocated, I really don't expect them to happen in return. I accept that it's my choice to 'behave' this way for whatever reason .. especially in my Reg heavy world. I don't distinguish from Whale to Rec .. if I see someone on their 4-5th BI (that's from my Player Pool) I will attack them differently, mainly because I know how it feels and I don't want them to feel the same. I think in all the years I've only done this once when I was 'on the road' outside my normal poker grounds.

How idiotic I must be for #1 since this Player ultimately will get felted by someone else at the table within a couple of orbits! Why do I 'allow' those chips to go to someone else? How many Players are able to distinguish between which Players caused them their pain .. it's probably just my own 'faults' that I don't want to be the one who puts the nail in the coffin that day of their session.

I folded a winner 'again' last night .. the Player didn't appear to give a second of consideration that it should've been a chopped pot when I think it was fairly obvious based on how the spot went down. I didn't table my hand .. that's the rule. Can I judge this Player's ethics based on a mistake that I made? GL

You sound like an insane person. We went from is exploiting weak people for money unethical to straight up charity.

I don't believe it is a genuine question (you're essentially saying no poker players have gambling addictions; even by reading through this thread you'll encounter many examples).

I am not a health professional so am not going to fall into the trap of pretending that I am. What I can say is that I've played tens of thousands of hours of poker live, many of those late in the evening/early in the morning.

When a player is playing nearly every hand and clearly making -EV decisions on a regular basis, because they have lost impulse control, they are usually showing signs of addictive behaviour, particularly if they are under financial stress.

I would say most people with a 2+2 handle have seen this before (hence why this thread exists and has some traction).

These forums are splattered with 'It depends' .. it doesn't just apply to Poker. We all have a line for ethics no matter the spot we find ourselves in.

I've posted somewhere on this site comparisons to car/furniture sales when referring to ethics discussions.

What are the ethics of a car salesman when 'my Mom' shows up and he tells her that they're not offering any deals 'today' and that the price of the car is 'sticker'?

Is the (lack of) negotiation by a well versed salesman to the uneducated customer any different than a seasoned Poker Player taking advantage of an obvious spot at the table?

Why does 'no one' have the same cable bill as anyone else?

When I go to many drug stores the clerk at the checkout on numerous occasions has made attention to a coupon in the flier less than 3 feet away. Is this soft play? Why would a clerk take less money than someone is willing to pay?

We are quick to say that poker is a game .. but isn't 'business/commerce' just a game as well?

I always explain a quoting process as everything sells for 1.00. Then you apply 'factors' to determine what you are actually willing to sell it for to specific customers. What are the ethics of selling it for 1.25 to one person and 0.85 to another. it's just good business, right? So why in poker is it possibly unacceptable to 'sell' a hand of poker for a different price than another?

Also, Einstein used to pay 1.00 for bread when it actually cost 0.12. Were those merchants unethical because they knew that the concept of money was too simple for him to understand/comprehend?

I know I'm all over the map here .. but it's nice to spew sometimes .. GL

It is genuine and that's not even close to what I am saying. You mentioned before ''those who are clearly addicted and ruining their lives (as well as most likely those of their kin)'' and I am asking you how many of these have you actually met? I have played an equal amount of hours during all hours of the day and I have yet to meet one who shown me the signs that would make me conclude what you just described.

Are you describing a player on tilt right now? Like we all have been before. Are we now all gambling addicts who are ruining our lives and the lives of those around us?

The thread exists and has traction because it's a very interesting topic and always will be.

While I don’t think every player thinks this way…

I agree w spork that the casino itself is unethical in that they are taking advantage of 40-60% of their clientele being problem gamblers (that number is just what they admit but is probably higher).

You can insert any unethical occupation or action (drugs) and say “they were going to get it elsewhere anyway”… it’s such a cop out.

That’s part of the reason I started this thread.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/3...gs-do-1837352/

Ok poker is unfulfilling so what is fulfilling?

I think debating over the ethics of poker while entertaining it never really goes anywhere… so I’d rather come up with ideas for poker players and gamblers and people in general to do w their life (to replace poker) that provides fulfillment and helps others in an altruistic sense.

This is all well and good buddy but literally giving people money at the poker table because they're down 4 bi's is insanity. No explanation is going to help you here.

The real problem w ethics in ‘professional’ poker is that it would require people who are otherwise successful in the game to take a sort of personal inventory that contradicts their current worldview. The cognitive dissonance would be pretty hard to overcome. The same is true for business.

I can only liken it to the vegan movement. It’s very hard to get people to take stock of their own inventory and admit they may not be ethical. It’s especially hard when people are healthy and see no reason to change. The parallels are uncanny.

You may be able to get an actual friend to eventually get help with something like problem gambling and even then the chances are extremely slim.

You're not getting someone you know from a poker game to do this.
No you're not saving someone from themselves no matter how well intended you might be.

Here's how I'm ethical in poker - if I see someone's cards I tell them. I've had times I see someone's entire hand in plo and tell them. If im in the hand and they fold I'll tell the dealer to expose their hand so I don't know 8 cards while everyone else knows 4. If I see a burn card I tell the dealer. If someone puts too much money in the pot against me I tell them. I don't mis declare my hand or angle shoot in anyway.

Playing someone worse than me ,who may be on monkey tilt or who may be a problem gambler isn't unethical. It's competition. A pitcher is going to attack a hitters weakness. A hitter is going to try and make the pitcher pitch to his strength. A defender is going to try and force a right handed basketball play to go left etc.

Should a good left handed hitter who makes a ton of money let some fringe lefty reliever with one foot in the minors strike him out so he doesn't get sent down? Of course not.

I'm never in a million years going to be able to make someone stop gambling.

While I'm sure I've played with some problem gamblers without knowing it I've seen a few I know for sure can't control themselves. And guess what - when they get sick of getting their teeth kicked in at one table they go to another. They'll go play bigger at a game with 7 pros and get absolutely torched.
I'll be walking out of the poker room and see them firing big in the pit.

Saying "well I won't play with this guy" might make for a pat your self on the back moment but it doesn't change what that person is going to do.

If they won't lose it to you, they'll lose it to someone else or the house. It isn't your job to save anyone from themselves. No one is gonna remind the drunk donk blasting off/reloading every orbit that it might be smart to call it a night. I still remember a story years ago about how there was someone at a NL table who was clearly new to the game and left the table after the dealer suggested he try limit holdem instead. People were pissed. And in my opinion, the dealer should have been be fired.

We live in a dog eat dog world and poker is a prime example of how cutthroat and ruthless modern society is. If you wanna be the hero, you do you. Personally, asides from warning someone that I can see his cards ONCE, and doing something slightly -EV for the "good of the game" like straddling or giving a donk action with a slightly losing call once in a while, I feel that my job at the poker table is to be as merciless as I can be.

I believe soft play is unethical, akin to cheating. While it may not be in many rule books, poker is not supposed to be a team game, and soft play is a form of collusion. You may think it doesn't harm anyone else, but it absolutely can do so. If others rightfully assume you are trying to win everyone's money (as you should be), they will pay future hands with incorrect inferences about your style of play, which will lead them to not playing as effectively against you.

Both of these examples just prove that people have different morals / values. You are assuming that

A) your values are 'correct' for everyone, and

B) everyone else knows your morals are correct, so when they violate those morals, they are knowingly being immoral

What? Where did I say this?

Yes I’m saying it’s universally wrong to exploit anyone in any situation. It violates the golden rule imo. Yes it’s not how the current world operates but that doesn’t make it right ethically.

That’s the paradox of poker. You can claim “whataboutism” for all other occupations and actions.

It may not even be as bad relative to other things but to pretend it’s non existent is what enables people to do whatever they want forever.

I’m even admitting I’m a hypocrite when it comes to this bc let’s face it it’s fun to drag pots in poker.

But yes poker does create an ethical dilemma imo.

what's the dilemma? you act like if you say "hey buddy you clearly have a gambling problem you need help" the degen is gonna say "wow you're right" and you're gonna sing Kumbaya together and he's then going to get help and kick his habit. That's never going to happen so there's no dilemma.

Now if someone is trying to quit gambling and you're trying to get them to go to the casino, play in your app game etc then you're a piece of crap plain and simple. Still no dilemma. Don't do this.

The dilemma is that if you’re trying to be altruistic and help others poker is counterproductive.. especially when you’re taking from the ecosystem.

Nothing good actually comes from poker. That’s a problem within itself.

Everyone says study and work on your game and work on yourself. So that’s where the dilemma arises for me.

I just think if we’re being honest with ourselves there’s an ethical dilemma present. It’s on a scale and yes other things are far worse we could be doing but that doesn’t give poker some sort of pass.

That comment was meant to add onto your point, not contradict it.