Quote:
Originally Posted by madlex
That's certainly true, but there are also a lot of players who were never in for the long run. Why would somebody in 2017 worry about poker in 2020 if they have no interest in playing beyond 2019 anyway?
Whenever somebody complained to me that players like me were bad for the game because we coached and also provided information for free, my answer was: I never claimed to care about the long term health of the game. I am trying to make some money now and don't plan on still playing for a living in 3 years. Do you think a McDonalds cashier cares for the long term future of the fastfood industry?
Fundamentally, providing information for free doesn't necessarily hurt the long term health of the game of poker. Static players (that is, people who don't intend to improve) frequently assume it does because they see poker skill on a scale of 1 to 10 (and almost always they will rank themselves a 9 or 10). The more 5s versus 4s or 8s vs 7s, the smaller their edge and they can't survive. Dynamic players understand that there's no upper limit. They think poker skill runs 1 to 1,000,000, and the best players in the world may be 20 or 30 now but that goes up over time. Two good players can easily start an arms race which decimates the field.
Of course if you are a jerk about it, you can also hurt the table by giving advice (like giving advice at the table).
So your point is a non-sequiteur, that is, even if you had every intention of playing for a living long term, giving out free advice can be totally consistent with it. Specifically, at higher stakes, pros may depend on bringing people up to a certain skill level - it's not the 1s and 2s that are the fish, it's the 9s and 10s who may even beat the lower level games.
I think the cashier analogy is apt, but you've described it wrong - in your example the cashier is trying hard, not a slacker. That is, it'd be like a store manager that is yelling at a cashier for teaching his coworkers how to be better cashiers. Most people would (correctly) perceive the manager to be the one in the wrong, not the cashier.