Ethics of professional poker

Ninety nine percent of poker players don't deserve respect for a number of reasons:

- They exploit weaknesses of weaker players to take their money.

- They have no empathy for players in trouble and no qualms about taking even the last of their money.

- They are usually not generous and do not participate in any charitable causes.

- They are selfish and not making a positive impact on the world.

- They are gambling addicts and when they lose they are ready to go to extremes to keep playing.

- They have low dopamine, low testosterone, low moral, no empathy and don't act masculine in society. None of them are remembered by mankind for their good deeds. They would not save any human or animal.

- Some have poor hygiene and behave inappropriately in social situations. They don't look good in general.

It is wrong to generalize in combination with the fact that everything is relative. However, excuses and rationalizations abound, but truth is not a matter of perspective. Wish you all the best!

You generalize about 99% of poker players then say it is wrong to generalize. OK.

BTW, truth IS a matter of perspective. Is killing another person wrong? Depends upon the perspective. Most people think killing another person is generally true. But a large percentage of them think it is true that it is OK to kill another person in self defense or in defense of another innocent person. However, to a person who is a 100% pacifist who thinks doing violence upon another reflects more upon the attacker than the defender regardless of the circumstances. That pacifist believes it is true that killing another is always wrong.

What is the truth?

Ninety nine is slang.

I don't feel competent enough to argue with a poker player (pro?) about philosophy.

Since everything is relative, you should not be affected by my post. Nobody should. This is just a personal opinion.

Maybe frame what you're saying as personal opinion before, not after, saying it. Probably best not to use numbers like "Ninety nine" when stating personal opinion, either, or use factual language such as "they are" or "they have". And since when is acting "masculine in society" a prerequisite for acting ethically? Please go and troll somewhere else.

There are ofc people in poker who have problems but it is a minority of players who have issues.

Bringing attention to a problem is action. If I yell 'fire' without actively putting the fire out am I virtue signaling?

Unless you have personal insight to the intend and conflict of the person 'signaling' (which, if you read this thread thoroughly, are genuine), accusing others of virtue signaling is simply questioning the motives of the person to dismiss their claims. Really an ad hominem rebuttal.

I don't see how that's hypocritical. 100% white employees in a area that's diverse would be, but 90%?

Really fascinating thread with many good (and some not so good) insights. In a way, it heartens me to see so many players with moral principles contrary to stereotype.

Here's my suggestion - why can't one have two sets of ethical standards? One for the poker table, one off it. You can be a ethical and kind person IRL, but a shark at the poker table - because the social contracts for both are different. One has to participate in life no matter, while playing in a poker game is entirely optional and discretionary (admittedly harder for addicts).

Also, poker do provide social value. It's a form of entertainment and social outlets for many with disposable income, like retirees. There's are rooms where most of the table knew each other, greet each other by name, and are actually friends outside of poker. This is lower stakes, often limit, though.

Just curious, do you just happen to be in the 1% of poker players of whom none of that is true?

This is obviously correct. While there are some actions taken at a poker table that I would consider unethical (cheating, angle shooting, etc), making a bet within the rules of the game, in order to win the money of other players, is never unethical.

To say it is unethical to try to win at the poker table makes as little sense as to say it's unethical for a runner in a marathon to try to win the race.

Personally I go even further than most and believe that, at least in some circumstances, it is unethical to not try to win other's money at the poker table, similarly to how deliberately throwing a race or other sporting contest would be.

Because if a employer cared about diversity they would hire a few diverse employees. Personally I think a private business should be able to hire who they want,but when you scream about diversity yet hire a staff that's pretty much all one race your actions don't match your words

How in the world did you shoe-horn that argument into this thread?

Any further posts discussing that "issue" will be deleted and the poster will be temp-banned.

Did a poker player steal your wife ?

No. It was a generalization.

Who said anything about being affected? Also, that is a gross misstatement of what I said. I understand that you aren't looking to be better and instead are looking for reinforcement. Sorry can't help you there. Good luck though.

Excellent. Really excellent.

I got lucky in life. Growing up I would often play card games with my grandmother. If we played a new game, she would show me the rules and we might play a bunch of sample hands, but once we started playing she would play for keeps. She might give some advice on how I played something, but it was only after the fact. She played to win. That was the best thing she could do for me because it made me a better card player. I had to play better if I wanted to win. When we played a new game I probably lost 90+% of the time, but I got better much quicker than I would have otherwise. I appreciate that because I was competitive. Getting better was more important than being gifted wins.

I don't have kids, but someone once told me that the best thing you can ever do for your kids is to never lie to them. To me, softplaying a child is lying to them about their skill in a game.

Similarly, I have a couple of friends who I occasionally play very low stakes poker with. They are all very smart, highly educated people. None of them are very good poker players. A few of them could be excellent but that has never been a priority for them. When I play with them, I try my hardest to win their money. Well, I should qualify that. I probably play too loose because I like to challenge myself, but given each hand, I will never take it easy on them. I have a saying. "You know what is better than winning a pot at poker? Winning a pot at poker against a friend." Winning my friends money is the best. My friends expect me to play them hard. When I played golf with them (and they were better than me) I fully expected them to try hard to beat me.

Poker is a game. Ultimately I am going to try my hardest to win games. I know that for some, it isn't a game. It might be a living, or it might be the rent. Those are their problems though. They are trying to make a living off of a game or are betting the rent on a game.

That said, I am always sympathetic to others between hands. I cannot count the number of times where I have suggested to other players that they should leave the table because they were drunk, on tilt, or playing over their heads with the money. I am empathetic to others woes.

That said, once the cards are dealt, I am trying to win. I have had players (who were playing with money they shouldn't have) hit big wins against me and that winning money goes towards things it shouldn't. I can try and help them not play a game, but once they choose to play, it is not my problem.

Exactly. To go "easy" on someone cause they're a gambling addict or broke but made the conscious decision to sit at the table is ridiculous. Friends or husband/wife that check it down vs each other on the turn/river when flop was multiway pisses me off. When I played more live I used to call them out on that BS but it happens so often I don't even bother anymore (they're usually fish anyways).

You incorrectly define truth. Truth is not a matter of perspective. A moral position can be but a moral position is not a truth.

Beliefs can sometimes be shown to be perspective but they are not truths.

Note that even in your claim, you conditioned the position. You said people GENERALLY consider killing is wrong.

Slang for what? More correct would be to call it hyperbole.

But still to make a post all about generalizing only to finish by saying don’t generalize is hilarious. Until you attempted to defend it I thought you were either trolling or trying to be ironic or sarcastic.

By the way no one said everything is relative.

If you really don’t have any competetence to support your claims, maybe spend time developing competence before making claims.

First, you need to enrich your general culture and educate yourself before making such loud statements about things you don't understand. Children in the 4th grade have also heard about the theory of relativity.

You are slurring my words. I didn't tell anyone what to do. Do you differentiate between "don't generalize" and "generalization is wrong"? I hope so, but I'm not sure, you know.

My post is not entirely serious and I have already clarified this, but you clearly recognized yourself in it when you reacted so rudely and inappropriately.

The fact that I have chosen not to respond to almost anyone does not mean that I lack the competence to defend my theses. You're the second one I'm answering, so take it easy.

I don't think that means what you think it means. Maybe you should go back to 4th grade.

They also might help you learn what 'slang' means.

Since english is not my first language, I don't take your superficial remarks seriously. Slang or hyperbole, the message is clear.

Oh, wait, aren't you the guy who compare and thinks taking money from another player in poker is the same as racing in sports? If that's you, then maybe stop feeling obligated to reply to my comments. Thanks in advance!

Agree with JimL. He pretty much nailed and how I grew up and was brought up. I think a lot of us are the same that way.

Most my family and friends played cards and/or board games. I learned from a young age no one was gonna take it easy on me once the cards/dice or whatever started flying(game started). They would first teach you and made sure you understood the rules, how it worked and gave one a bit of strategy to get started and would answer questions as we went. But basically once you got and had the basics down the training wheels came off and no one was gonna take it easy on you or spoon feed you. They were gonna do their best within the rules to win. Can't count how many times I lost to my Dad playing Monopoly before I finally managed to beat him the first time. Still remember how great it felt to finally get the win. I worked hard and put a lot of effort in for that first win. I would have been pretty disappointed, sad had my Dad played soft, gave away or threw that game for my first win.

So while I have morals, ethics and empathy for other people/players once you sit, decided to play and the cards are in the air yes I'm coming after the win and in process your money/chips. On the bright side I'm not gonna cheat you outta anything I'll earn it fair and square and like JimL if you're too drunk and otherwise messed up to play I'll give you fair warning. You decide to stay and the floor doesn't step in well you made your bed.

Rec/hobby player who plays for entertainment and fun. Money is secondary.

Cheers!!!

If English isn't your first language, and you have trouble understanding things like slang, exaggeration, and what the theory of relativity is, maybe you shouldn't come into this forum and try to pick at others' arguments which you don't understand.

You especially shouldn't come onto a poker forum insulting poker players. But if you foolishly do that, you shouldn't expect to not get hit back.