Morally wrong, no. No one is having their rights or well being infringed upon. Although it is of course negatively affecting many peoples lives, this alone does not make something unethical if it is their decision and their decision alone.

There is a cost to freedom.

Example: Is a 7-11 clerk selling beer to any customer with an ID morally wrong? Definitely not.

However, it is an empty profession. You provide, and more importantly, CREATE nothing. Depending where your convictions lie, this could be arguably worse.

Edit:

This thread took an interesting turn re:utilitarianism. "is poker making the most people happy etc." But people need to remember that utilitarianism breaks down in extreme or even lightly charged scenarios. It is an incomplete philosophy. There is some level of absolute moral compass you have to take into account. In a situation like this, people have the right to do what they want as long as it does not force undue and unwanted unhappiness on others.

Wow there's a disgusting amount of socialism and collectivist philosophy being expoused here. And freedom IS free. Anyone telling you different is trying to sell you something that you already have. (This particular lie made popular by those making billions of the wars that will never end, Bc peace would cut into HaliBurton and other's bottom lines).

The same reasons that some have given here that make poker wrong: taking money from others while giving nothing in return. Sounds like most public sector jobs.

At least poker is completely voluntarily. While the government is a blood sucking leech on anyone that is productive in society.

Very interesting discussion!

I used to be a semi-professional poker player (playing for side income; but I was a student; around 20-30 hours a week). I was mainly a tournament regular. I view poker as a kind of "intellectual competition" (similar to sports, but intellectually).

My questions are:
1) Do you think there are less pathological gamblers in tournaments than in cash game? There are LESS "chasing losses" behavior in tournaments compared to cash game.
Tournament - fixed buyin (I understand that there are rebuy tournaments, I refer SPECIFICALLY to NON-REBUY tournaments) - there are still pathological gamblers who buyin with their entire wealth..
Cash game - some degens may keep rebuying, or double/trible their buyin (particularly true in live cash game) - going busto...

2) Do you think tournament poker is a more "healthy" (or less "unhealthy") form of poker for most players (who are losing players) than cash game, since they are less "chasing losses" behavior?

I do perceive poker quite negatively now - that's why I quit poker. Sometimes I feel quite guilty for "taking money from others" or "exploiting weaknesses of weaker players". But I believe there are positive aspects of poker, most notably cognitive training and mental training.

For those who experience guilt or any kind of "moral pain" due to "taking money from losing players", how do you resolve such issues?

I am planning to go to graduate school to work on decision making research, in a way that benefits society (instead of "exploiting weaker players"). But apart from that, how would you resolve such "moral pain"?

Can't disagree with that.

"The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master." - Ayn Rand

As for 1) I think it is actually the opposite. I just came back from the WSOP, believe me there are a lot of pathological gamblers in tournament poker, and this is probably the majority of your income. But regardless you should not feel guilty, everyone is free to make their own choices and you never know what is going on. I remember that shabby looking guy who lost his last money on some funny river bluff to me once at 6am and then asked for some taxi money to get back home. I was tempted to give it to him, but he disappeared before I could do so. A couple minutes later the other players at the table told me that he owned a mining company and was a millionaire.
Quite a few activities are designed to take the money of the less cognisant, whether it is poker playing, stock trading, selling insurances etc. You are right that this is maybe not a fulfilling career choice that benefits society

Thank you for your comments.

I believe that there are pathological gamblers in both cash game and MTTs. I haven't heard of any research study (please let me know if there is) that compares the prevalence rate of "pathological gambling" in cash game and MTTs. There was one study that found that loss chasing behaviour is more prevalent in cash game than MTTs. But "loss chasing behaviour" is only one of the many components of pathological gambling. I am NOT certain about this issue, so I'm open to different opinions.

I have never been to wsop, perhaps you are right on that issue, in the context of big live poker mtt series.

I also discussed with other former pros. A guy pointed out that many pathological gamblers / addictive gamblers wanna "chase that score" (or fame) in MTTs. Chasing a big score or "fame or glory" is generally NOT a significant issue in cash game. This kind of attraction keeps them addicted to the game. Despite that, in cash game, pathological gamblers keep rebuying / adding on -> busto. Cash game gamblers lose faster than mtt gamblers. It is true that there are rebuy / add on MTTs (allowing rebuy/add on) within the first hour), but most MTTs do NOT allow rebuy and add on.

Yes, I agree that there are some other activities that "take advantage of the weaknesses of people". The world consists of many diff forms of exploitation. Poker is just one of them. I do prefer a fulfilling career choice.

delete

Presidents/prime minsters speech causes unhappiness and happiness in a range of different people. There's people out there trying to stop them do what they are doing and there's others who are supporting them for doing what they are doing.

I agree everyone has the right to do what they want to do but there's consequences for doing what they want to do. whether that's punishment in their eyes or a blessing they will just have to find out.

"Do No Harm" is a moral principle that I feel the need to uphold and follow. But I think I have harmed some people in the past through playing poker.

It is true that political figures' speech may harm some people. In reality, it's rly rly difficult/ close to impossible to "do absolutely zero harm <harm refers to undue and unwanted unhappiness>" in one's entire life.

Too vague a reading of "do no harm" is absurd. "Harm" defined as physical harm through violence against another or fraud against an unwilling person fits the maxim, of course.

But by a wide/vague definition, all competitive action (sports, board games, etc.) that may cause those who lose psychic pain should be avoided/banned. That is patently absurd.

Life and nature are competitive, and voluntary participants in such games/sports (hell, even the business world) cannot claim you have violated the Non-Aggression Principle by out-competing them.

You're conflating the results of voluntary participation with action against an unwilling person.

I'm fairly sure that the non-aggression principle is only a principle for idiots who think that Ayn Rand counts as a philosopher.

I specifically refered to "do no harm" principle in psychology. Sorry for the lack of clarity. I am not familiar with "do no harm" in other aspects.

I do NOT imply competitive games should be banned. I do think competition has its functions, and games such as chess and board games have educational values. Some athletes contribute to the society by encouraging people to engage in physical activities, or by motivating people.

I do agree most stuffs in life consist of competition.

As mentioned, it is close to impossible to "do zero harm" in life. I understand the practical impossibility of "do no harm". I just wanna "minimise" (key word!) harm. Perhaps I'm being too idealistic and unrealistic.

Good point regarding the voluntary nature of games or sports. Thanks!

Maybe I'm an idiot because I think some of rand's ideas (not all) make sense.

As far as I'm concerned, non-aggression means individuals should be free to live their lives as they choose as long as they don't initiate physical violence or financial fraud against others.

As for Rand vs me. I'm a libertarian, and Rand hated libertarians, calling them "the hippies of the right."

Rand was also an atheist, which makes her light years less an idiot than most humans.

It is pretty rare for someone to have no ideas that make sense.

So, you are good with people stealing, so long as they aren't deceitful about it? I'm taking your bike now. Don't plan on returning it, and I trust that you won't use violence to stop me. Also, going to have to cut the electrical lines to your house. They aren't your property, and I will use the utmost of care in ensuring that I don't hit anyone with the wires.

How about people non-violently bothering others with no financial incentive? Pooping on the sidewalk outside of your home isn't even remotely violent.

As you noted above, some of her ideas make sense. Libertarianism would be excellent if it was even remotely related to actual humans. It isn't quite as good as my philosophy*

There are plenty of atheists who are literally** ******ed.

*Brianism. Its only fault is that it only applies to humans who can fly by flapping their arms, which consequently makes it slightly more relevant to actual humanity than Rand or libertarianism.

**I mean "literally" in the old sense, where it meant "literally."

Reductio ad absurdum and not so thinly veiled ad hominem in the same post. I'm impressed.

I'm as subtle as a hurricane.

Just turn the question back at yourself. If a better player than you wins your money, would you think that they have acted immorally? You both chose to play a game. And the game has rules. You do not have to play, but if you do, you at least should know them.

Whether you do it for fun or for a living is entirely irrelevant. Or totally relevant in another sense if one was to argue that no poker player can be more guilty than another one.

boring people w money have monopoly on morals.

see, grinders spoil the fun, qed.