Quote:
Originally Posted by LordRiverRat
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.
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.