the kid did a great job representing those of us that make a living doing this. bravo.

ugh just watched it and though I loved all of the kids comments and thought it was cool the overall article reminds me of Chris busting perverts, seemed very biased towards online poker being bad

fwiw I'm kinda disapointed because I enjoyed watching dateline in the past but this was just so obviously biased against online poker it was gross. The kid in the video answered every question really well and the interviewer was blatantly being a douche.

New link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUn7MYZy9Zk#t=9m30s

+a million.

I guess compared to the typical person who considers themselves a "pro" he did a pretty alright job - but if I had that kind of an opportunity, I'd absolutely destroy it. For the love of god, someone interview me.

This is offensively wrong and ultimately irrelevant.

1. Taxes
2. "**** you and the horse you came in on, why do I have to contribute to society? This is a free country and I can do as I please, get the hell out of my way."
3. List of professions that harm society far more than I ever could (too long to list)

That's a bad analogy. Most poker games would be there even without the pros, while gambling wouldn't be there without casinos. The poker games without the pros would also be more entertaining for the fish, assuming that the fish like losing less money, so the whole "we provide entertainment" line is nonsense as well. There is no good answer to that question, as long as poker remains a zero-sum game.

Of course there is an answer to that question, zero sum game or not.

First, let me say I agree that this is a "trap" question. It assumes an activity must have some social utility to be allowed or approved.... I thought communism was dead?

But even if you demand an answer there is one: people ENJOYING themselves has social utility. Is it some kind of revelation that the vast majority of players (who are not regular winners by any means) play because they ENJOY the game?

In this respect poker is just like other activities previously mentioned ITT: movies, television, video games, sports, etc.

And while some pros are naturally entertaining, most of the enjoyment is not from entertainment, but from the challenge. Enjoyment players understand that pros want to take their money. But the chance of either besting a pro this one time or running good this one time is more than enough to make playing the game against a pro enjoyable (so long as its within your means).

Think how many folks would love to pay $1000 or more to be able to play 9 holes of golf with Tiger Woods. Think how many more would pay if the $1000 was a wager and so there is the possibility they could get lucky and win!

At 3 players x $1000 x twice a day x (say) 200 days a year that's a potential of $1.2 million a year if Tiger beats everyone (which he should do if golf is all skill ). Say he loses to a staggering 20% of his opponents, that is still a gross of over $700,000 a year for 200 days work.

Of course Tiger makes far more money from prizes paid for by advertising and endorsements (now less than it used to be, though). But if he didn't, a career similar in structure to that of a professional poker player is not hard to imagine, is it? If it happened, would someone ask Tiger what he is "adding" to society?

Skallagrim

the 'we provide entertainment' line is disingenuous, but there's a kernel of truth to it.

when you're dealing with high-ish stakes (or as low as midstake online), the games would just not run if not for there being a large number of professional players looking to start games with the recreational players.

you can see that effect amplified on smaller networks, where sites end up having to hand out prop accounts as an added incentive to attract professional players in order to keep games running efficiently.



But I think the point to be made is that people dont take jobs to help 'society' - they do it to help themselves. And in most cases, they only are helping themselves.

Consider what it means to 'contribute'. The basic premise should be that society would be worse off in your absence. Then consider the typical job, where there's a robust supply of labour and an unemployment rate at around 10%. In your absence, there would be another nearly identically qualified employee to perform the exact same task for an identical wage, pay identical taxes and you havent really contributed anything by taking the job. Not even that - but the guy who replaced you would actually be better off in your absence, since it presents to him a job opportunity he wouldn't otherwise have. The fact that these people are performing the tasks isn't evidence of any net contribution - just that they're seeking out gainful employment to improve their own lives.

In industries with labour shortages, there is a net contribution - but that really isnt a criteria that people use to decide what they want to do with their lives. It isn't for the benevolence of the butcher that you expect your dinner, nor the compassion of the news reporter that we expect poorly written, cliched interviews. If you want to contribute to society, there are a lot of ways to do it besides your job - and the idea that poker players need to come up with some rationalization for why their job "contributes" to society is to arbitrarily hold them up to a standard that is met by only a small minority of the population.

lol, before I'd gotten to that part of your post I'd already decided to reply with the Adam Smith quote. Here's the actual line, for people that are unfamiliar with it:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
- Smith, Adam, The Wealth of Nations, 1776

B.B.--It's a fun game, you know, but I also treat it as a business...I treat it as a real job.

ABC--Is it a real job?

BB--Yeah, absolutely. I'm not gambling to see what's gonna happen, I'm trying to make a profit. I pay my rent, I pay my bills playing poker. it absolutely can be a real job.

BB--(talking about his mom)...She gave me a hundred dollars, you know. she trusted me right away. And she was wrong in some respects.


ABC--(laughing) and you lost it?

BB--so she said "try again" and she helped me put some more money online. I eventually paid her back for that. That was when I was 18 and I haven't deposited since, you know. I've just been taking money out.

ABC--(blah blah, gambling is bad) Blaine seems to be aware of the pitfalls and is determined to navigate around them and to take some of the chance
out of the game he plays.

ABC--Are you a gambler, are you gambling?

BB--No I wouldn't say that

ABC--Why? Poker is gambling, it's a gamblers game.

BB--There are elements of chance in poker, absolutely, and in the short run it's hard to see the skill overcome. when we're playing thousands of
hands per month, Eventually you see that the more skilled players and talented players are winning.

ABC--The less gambling there actually is?

BB--Right, exactly

ABC--Let me ask you this: If you are a baker, you bake a loaf of bread, you take their money and they get the loaf of bread
and if you build houses you take the money and they get the house. In poker, when you take their money, they got nothing.
Poker is about making the other guy lose, if you are any good.

BB--Yes.

ABC--It's a zero sum, really

BB--yeah, you could say that. Um, you know, it's...that's an interesting question to answer. I don't think that nothing comes out of it. You know, the other guy is trying to take your money too. It's not a mean thing.

ABC--Blaine sees what he's doing as giving him a safety net in a financially risky world.
If you hadn't discovered poker, what do you think at this point in your life you'd be planning to do?

BB--I'd certainly be a lot more scared.

ABC--Why scared?

BB--Because I wouldn't really have a fall back. Poker allows my life to be more flexable. I could study something else in school that may not make me as much money. It lets me try some different things and maybe take some risks.

ABC--How much do you need to win to walk away?

BB--How much do I need to win?

ABC--What's your target number, when do you have enough?

BB--You know, I might not want to play this same game for 30, 40 years. If I win a million dollars tomorrow, I'm not going to stop playing?

ABC--But if you won 20 million, if you won 20 million dollars tomorrow, you would stop?

BB--Yeah, maybe. I certainly think that's a long ways off.

ABC--well, sure. when you're 19 years old everything seems a long way off...

thx for the transcript, was having trouble loading the vid

agree he sounds very good considering what id expect to come from a random x-section of the 19yo online gambling demographic (not that he was random choice; but still)

That's a load of bull****. It's only liberalism if you equate liberalism with communism, which TBH I'm sure you do. In America though the only people who would ask that question are conservatives. Kind of like how conservatives in this country hate poker because it goes against traditional family values or because the bible says its bad.

If you want proof just go look at the congressmen who support the UIGEA. The majority are republican.

I thought this was the best possible response he could have given to this question. Very succinct and logical. Wasn't so impressed with the contribution to society answer, but that's a tough question. Would have been sick if he busted out the Adam Smith line though, haha.

If you remove all current pros or current winning players, then the best remaining players become the winning players. There are always going to be people who profit from poker no matter who you remove from the environment. For the entertainment (existence of poker games) to be available at all, there are going to have to be "pros" who are making money from the games. So I might not say that the pros uniquely provide the entertainment, but their existence is a necessary consequence of the entertainment.

As mentionned several times, I think he did an excellent job replying to the interviewer - who was biased, and put out some tough questions. The zero sum question was silly, with the baker and house builder analogies being completely unrelated.

They're very much related, and it's a tough question for a reason. Both bakers and house builders, in the process of earning money, apply their skills to turn raw materials worth $x into a finished product worth $y, with y>x. By merely trying to earn a living, they're making the world y-x dollars richer, regardless of how transfer payments for the services are figured out. Same goes for Adam's Smith's butcher.

On the other hand, poker players do not contribute anything while earning money. In their case, the invisible hand doesn't work to better the society. They're economically, if not morally, similar to thieves that way.

Not if you assign entertainment value to the act of playing poker. None of the parties involved in a poker game are forced into it. What do you have to show after you have watched a movie that you paid $8 for? Just the entertainment you received. Poker gives people an experience they were looking for -- either the enjoyment from playing the itself, or the chance to win money.

By playing, you are giving others the opportunity to entertain themselves by playing with you. It's mutually beneficial.

Watching a movie is consumption, just like converting the bread that the baker made into feces. Consumption is the ultimate goal of the economy, and "contributing to society" means that overall consumption (or quality of life) of society is increased with your contribution.

As for giving others the opportunity to entertain themselves, then again, it's only valid in very limited cases, where you need the pros to keep the game alive. In most cases, the opportunity for entertainment is there even without the sharks preying on the fishes. The fish would be playing poker whether you're there or not.

Gains from trade are practically zero in perfectly competetive markets.

Most 'labour markets' have so many people selling their labour (or however you want to look at it) that nobody benefits from them participating.

The same is true for the poker economy.
The fewer people there are playing, the greater the mutual benefit in having an additional player. In the extreme case, you'll be the one providing the recreational player with the opportunity to play the game they want at the stakes they want, that they otherwise would not be able to. As more and more players enter the economy, the marginal benefit approaches zero.


Those arent limited cases.
For the majority of stakes where people play professionally, the games would not run with nearly the same efficiency as they do now. Even at stakes as low as $100nl, I would guess close to 75% of the seats are occupied by people who are profitable (after benefits) and/or at least derive some of their income from poker. When people sit down at the table, they've accepted the premise that it's a predatory game where people are trying to win everyone elses money. That's the point.

I would say the actual playing of the game of poker is consumption also. I agree that you don't need pros necessarily, but you do need other players, and some are going to be better than others. The others still willingly choose to participate, so I can't see it as equivalent to stealing even from the economic viewpoint (and definitely not morally).

This really is an interesting question imo. I would like to conclude that poker pros are not a leech on society, and I haven't yet proven that to myself yet. The entertainment analogy is all I have come up with so far.

You guys are completely missing the point. If someone asks you this question, your answer should involve how the question is offensive and irrelevant.

Irrelevant because there is no requirement that an activity "contribute to society" to be legal.

Offensive because of all the legal businesses and industries that actually do harm to society.

Also, this isn't about liberalism vs. conservatism, it's about liberty vs. statist authoritarianism.

To me, whether it contributes to society or not has nothing to do with whether it should be legal. I'm pretty much a libertarian that believes in Ayn Rand's philosophy that everyone acting in their own self interest is also what's best for society as a whole. So it makes me question whether a pro poker player, who is obviously acting in his own self interest, is also contributing to the betterment of society. I personally think so because people obviously enjoy poker, and poker players enable the game of poker to continue.

I obviously lean libertarian, but I think people that buy into Ayn Rand are unfortunately mistaken. Libertarians and don't-tread-on-me types are drawn in by the language, but the concepts behind them are wrong and somewhat disturbing imo.

I'd like to see a series that isn't just focused on young guys making money.

I'd really like them to interview someone who is supporting a family etc and has been doing it for years. Someone like JohnnyBax or Samoleous come to mind as being very good representatives and their stories inspirational enough to people who are unemployed in this economy and in the pits. Could really help the growth of the game.

I think the flaw with all these young guns is the fact that lots of people see it as college kids who could gamble because they don't have financial responsibilities. They have all the time in the day to spend studying/working on their game and could afford to not withdraw/etc.