Ethics of professional poker
Idk if this is where I should post those but wtf. This is an issue that's been getting to me more and more over years, and it's getting the point where I'm starting to question whether or not I can keep doing what I do and be ok with myself.
I've been playing for a living for a little over a decade now. For most of that time I didn't have any ethical problems with the predatory attitude necessary to maintain to ecosystem. This was largely because most of the fish id encounter were rec gamblers with disposable income who didn't mind losing. Over the past few years, though, I've been encountering a different type of fish more and more often. I'm talking about a gambling addict who's very possibly risking his kids college tuition. Obviously I can't be sure about anyones circumstances, but over time I've come to notice a level of desperation in certain players that's definitely not indicative of a hobbyist with disposable income.
I feel like I'm playing a part in ruining people's lives. Has anyone else struggled with this at all? It's no secret that gambling addiction is a serious thing. Of course there's the rationalizations like 'they would be losing to somebody no matter what, it may as well be me. ' that rationalization worked for me for a time, but face it - it's the same rationalization everyone who exploits others for personal gain uses. I'm wondering, how much is too much? If anyone else struggled with this, I'd like to know - how do you handle it? It's getting to a point where I'm considering a career change despite the fact that I'm doing perfectly well at the moment and have no other complaints so to speak.
In case nobody has said it (by this age of the thread, it should be largely "all things already said" or functionally dead/hijacked):
The nature of the game is corrupt, relative to the nature of "a life well-lived" ethically: if you play well, then you know the game is not gambling, but a form of exploiting others' weakness with your strength. An ethical "life well lived" would demand that you use your strengths to protect the weak, not exploit them.
The weakness a person exhibits in poker is an expression of a weakness in them as a person, whether a lack of cognitive (problem solving intelligence) or emotional intelligence (the ability read social and material situations among other humans accurately).
If you see a selfish/exploitative opportunity in the weakness of others, you're not a good person. Every good person knows this. Every corrupt person denies the obviousness of it.
You can play poker with the full knowledge of what you're doing, and just not engage in the kinds of over-the-top corrupt activities other pro's feel obligated to engage in (coddling the people losing regularly in their games, so they will keep playing, etc.), and recognize that the activity itself is something whose "meta-effects" (becoming more corrupt, emotionally) you have to monitor in yourself, or just find other ways to spend your time and make money.
Is it the same to participate in a game you know is inherently corrupting, as to participate in it without that knowledge? That's yet a more complicated question. That the nature of the game is corrupt (your object in the game is to confuse other players and cause them to exercise poor judgment, the opposite of what it should be ethically in life) is not in question.
David, I'm not sure if I agree with your assessment. You could have a point.
On the other hand, not all losing players are weak and being exploited. There are plenty of successful people with disposable income who enjoy gambling and/or the challenge of trying to match wits with professional card players.
I think there's also a competitive aspect, especially at the highest levels. Many of the players in higher stake games are net winners competing for big money with other net winners.
But I do get your point. I've noticed that poker has improved my thinking in some ways (risk assessment for example), but in other ways it's made me cynical and suspicious of others' motives. Then again maybe poker's just a microcosm of life? As humans we do literally eat other living things in order to survive.
I'm wary of the poker/life analogy. We know poker is a game and that life is not. Furthermore poker is a zero-sum game in which the objective is to exploit other players. I would never take an equivalent zero-sum/exploitative strategy to life, even though I do nearly every time I sit at the poker table. Of course, there are some who take such an exploitative strategy to life and generally I would argue they are morally corrupt in doing so.
In case nobody has said it (by this age of the thread, it should be largely "all things already said" or functionally dead/hijacked):
The nature of the game is corrupt, relative to the nature of "a life well-lived" ethically: if you play well, then you know the game is not gambling, but a form of exploiting others' weakness with your strength. An ethical "life well lived" would demand that you use your strengths to protect the weak, not exploit them.
The weakness a person exhibits in poker is an
So are you a non-poker player who just hangs out on poker forums, or an evil person who plays poker despite your evolved understanding of how terrible it is?
Based on David’s logic, every sport is unethical.
Nothing wrong with admitting to oneself that they engage in unethical or non-altruistic endeavors. Would be nice if more people had such intellectual honesty. Not everyone needs to be the self-righteous type.
To David above -
What about other careers that exploit people? Like anyone who works in advertising or marketing? Or those who work for fast food companies?
Any companies that make alcohol or cigarettes?
Seems to me that there are a lot of other jobs that don't add value to anyone's lives.
I'm wary of the poker/life analogy. We know poker is a game and that life is not. Furthermore poker is a zero-sum game in which the objective is to exploit other players. I would never take an equivalent zero-sum/exploitative strategy to life, even though I do nearly every time I sit at the poker table. Of course, there are some who take such an exploitative strategy to life and generally I would argue they are morally corrupt in doing so.
We know that life is not a game?
Great contributions to the Albini thread, by the way.
This is bullshit. There are a lot of businesses and careers that offer value to their customers and communities. Trying to equate poker to every other career because “lol capitalism” is ridiculously lazy.
You don't understand how big business and corporations work. Their primary goal is to maximize shareholder value. Any socitial benefits secondary
I won't play with obvious gambling addicts and you shouldn't either because it IS unethical and YOU ARE taking part in ruining their lives.
No they ruin their own lives. I wouldn't knowing sit with an addict or at least I wouldn't bum hunt one but if they sit at my table. I don't think I wouldn't just stand up and leave.
If a gambling addict doesn't have a poker game to play in, he's going to go lose it to a casino instead. Makes much more sense to lose it to me and he might not even lose.
That's what a lot of these posters don't understand. You are saving a addict by not playing with them. They're gonna go play pitt games or whatever.
Every poker player hates casinos and thinks they are 'unethical' for offering -EV games.
Every winning poker player represents a -EV game for their average opponent.
Cognitive dissonance mandates a resolution to this situation, usually in the most comfortable way for winning poker players: ignore, minimize, and blame the victim as well. Like chemical companies deal with what's called 'externalities', even though it really should be called 'immediate consequences' by now.
If you would have moral qualms running a casino, you should not be a +EV player in poker. Plenty of people don't have moral qualms running casinos, which is why - to some people's astonishment - the realization that it is at least slightly immoral will not change the behavior of 99% of players who either are unwilling to realize this, or don't care.
The weakness a person exhibits in poker is an expression of a weakness in them as a person, whether a lack of cognitive (problem solving intelligence) or emotional intelligence (the ability read social and material situations among other humans accurately)
.
what led you to this conclusion??
Every poker player hates casinos and thinks they are 'unethical' for offering -EV games.
Every winning poker player represents a -EV game for their average opponent.
Cognitive dissonance mandates a resolution to this situation, usually in the most comfortable way for winning poker players: ignore, minimize, and blame the victim as well. Like chemical companies deal with what's called 'externalities', even though it really should be called 'immediate consequences' by now.
If you would have moral qua
I agree w all this..
However I can’t help rationalize my own play by knowing that in other fields that I’ve worked in I’ve had even worse experiences of having to sue partners for stealing and colluding against me.
Trading is very similar to poker as well and I’ve often rationalized arbitrage as part of poker.
But these are cop outs of “whataboutism” and the truth is I know the right thing to do is devout my life to being a vegan munk living off the land and off grid and giving all my time to helping others by coming up with free renewable hydrogen energy and curing world hunger by turning it vegan and using all the food that feeds livestock to feed humans instead. Creating a utopian world of barter system w no late stage capitalism winning out.
Sometimes it’s just easier if I just shut up and play the pokes.
In case nobody has said it (by this age of the thread, it should be largely "all things already said" or functionally dead/hijacked):
The nature of the game is corrupt, relative to the nature of "a life well-lived" ethically: if you play well, then you know the game is not gambling, but a form of exploiting others' weakness with your strength. An ethical "life well lived" would demand that you use your strengths to protect the weak, not exploit them.
The weakness a person exhibits in poker is an
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.
You don't understand how big business and corporations work. Their primary goal is to maximize shareholder value. Any socitial benefits secondary
You do not understand how they actually work. See those large executive salaries and benefits; they decrease shareholder value by transferring company money into to the executives pockets. In real life companies make no decisions or have goals at all; people at the companies make the decisions and have goals but find they can handle the suckers better by pretending it is the company doing something not them deciding to have the company do something.
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.
Not all people, but most poker players, if not all are shitty people.
You do not understand how they actually work. See those large executive salaries and benefits; they decrease shareholder value by transferring company money into to the executives pockets. In real life companies make no decisions or have goals at all; people at the companies make the decisions and have goals but find they can handle the suckers better by pretending it is the company doing something not them deciding to have the company do something.
Yes let's talk about those large executive salaries. Since 1978 the average CEO salary has increased by over 1000 percent. While the salaries of their non executive employees have barely moved at all. For that matter the salary of the average customer hasn't changed much either
Every poker player hates casinos and thinks they are 'unethical' for offering -EV games.
Every winning poker player represents a -EV game for their average opponent.
Cognitive dissonance mandates a resolution to this situation, usually in the most comfortable way for winning poker players: ignore, minimize, and blame the victim as well. Like chemical companies deal with what's called 'externalities', even though it really should be called 'immediate consequences' by now.
If you would have moral qua
The difference is that at low stakes you can choose to win by actually studying and putting in the effort.
There is nothing you can do in games of chance to make that happen.
If you are losing at low stakes in poker it is 100% a choice.
