Originally posted by SPeedFANat1c
Im sure there's also bible quotes which say u mustn't gamble.
But poker is not gambling
There is a whole host or responses when you google "what does the bible say about gambling"
This one: http://carm.org/bible-gambling is quite straightforward.
Although we recognize that poker has a large skill component, most other people focus on the "luck of the draw" component.
Peace,
--VS
Notifications
Clear all
Although we recognize that poker has a large skill component, most other people focus on the "luck of the draw" component.
then for them its a sin, not for us ♦
What really ****s me off about poker is how little people understand about it and are being judgemental.
Mentioned to a friend from uni that I play poker for money.
Him: "do you win"
Me: "would not be playing if I wasnt making money"
Him: "you're just playing to scam people"
Me: .............
If we're thinking like that, every single shop owner is a scammer. They give you something that costs pennies for pounds - such as drinks in fast food restaurants etc. Not real value for money, only value is the one people place on it. They all do business for a profit. A lot of fast food places in the UK make big % of their money selling food to drunken people. Surely that is not moral, as they take advantage of the fact drunken people will waste £££ easier???
Step right up!
You pays your money and you takes your chances!
To elaborate, I don't believe poker is immoral. You talk about 'forcing' people to spend their money in better ways. What is a better way? How do you decide what is a better way? You can't judge what people should and shouldn't be spending their money on, you don't know what level of utility they gain from spending that money on poker versus other entertainment. Deciding how others should spend their money.... that's totalitarian nonsense.
It's a form of entertainment for most casual players (including me), it is no different from spending money to go to the cinema, does that mean film makers or cinemas are also immoral?
Originally posted by bennisboy
It's a form of entertainment for most casual players (including me), it is no different from spending money to go to the cinema, does that mean film makers or cinemas are also immoral?
The studios that distribute the films are immoral as shit, but that's another story.
Totally agree with your point though, some rec players at the casino were saying how they consider poker entertainment at x/hour, and largely they seemed to consider it good value (they compared it to movies also), although one guy lost a pot at an NL400 live game I was at and complained he could have "blown his load in a hooker instead". So largely I would not worry that this money is gonna be spent better elsewhere because its most likely not.
You talk about poker being immoral, instead you should had started the conversation about boxing, K1, MMA and any sort of sport that involves alot of violence.
Where I want to get with this ? What's worse, getting someone's money or beating the shit out of someone ? All the persons in each game agreed to participate and knew the consequences of their actions.
Originally posted by ninuu
You talk about poker being immoral, instead you should had started the conversation about boxing, K1, MMA and any sort of sport that involves alot of violence.Where I want to get with this ? What's worse, getting someone's money or beating the shit out of someone ? All the persons in each game agreed to participate and knew the consequences of their actions.
Good point.
I wonder if perhaps take a step back and look at what aspects of an action make it right or wrong:
♦ Is it fair (all participants treated equally)
♦ No harm
♦ All participants are willing -- not coered into participating, and not compelled to participate
♦ All participants are equally well-informed
Can anyone think of other criteria to use?
I can see that with poker, some of even that short list raise questions.
Some poker rooms have been caught cheating in the past -- one assumes that some more will in the future
Harm could be claimed if a player fails to practice sound BRM
Some players may have compulsions that lead to excess or improper play
Some player may fail to adequately inform themselves.
So IF none of the above apply, then there is nothing wrong with a number of willing well-informed players playing poker.
Is Playing Poker for a Living Moral?
Yes it is. You are providing liquidity to the industry (this is the way traders think to sleep better at night) - you help fish have someone to play with (you also entertain them) and regs have an easier job at multitabling because of you. Because of your services you expect long term $$$.
Now all you have to to is hope you can think this way 
Ok, hypothetical situation.
You're playing at your local casino at a short handed table and early on in the evening a player sits down whom you recognize as a confirmed problem gambler who has absolutely no poker skills. You've seen him open shove before with 100% range. The stakes are high, at least NL10000. You've heard about this chap and know for a fact that he's on the verge of losing his home, and he's already lost his children's university savings fund and his wife is divorcing him because of his gambling problem.
It's 4 handed, you're BB he's SB and everyone folds to him and he pushes allin preflop. You've got AA.
Ok, it would be an obvious snap call. But still - on a 1-10 guilt scale, where are you?
So, could you guys name a couple of jobs that are moral?
If you work for any company that creates profit (let alone run such a company) then you are immorally using the consumers of that company.
If you have a grocery store and you buy apples for 1, how much you can sell it before it becomes immoral? 1.05 is okay, 1.06 is already immoral?
What is considered immoral profit? I'm sure you would want a computer from your profit, but most of the world doesn't have money for a computer, so why should you?! So, is it immoral if you make enough profit to buy a computer from it?
If a runner enters a competition, and he has longer legs than the other runner - does he have an unethical advantage, one that is immoral to be used?
Now I'm asking these silly questions because I think the whole original idea is wrong. I don't think the people playing poker should be treated as 5 year old children. They are adults, they have money from somewhere, they have to be able to decide for themselves, about what to do with that money. Now, I know that the "It's not my problem" argument is the lousiest self-justifying argument, but it is correct in this case. Why am I supposed to educate others, or feel responsible for others, who are responsible for their own decisions and their own money?
If someone is stupid enough to open a sand shop in the middle of a desert, should I feel guilty if I don't buy from him and he goes bankrupt?
Poker is not immoral. It is not immoral because it is not unfair. It is not unfair, because everyone on the world who has access to poker has access to - cheap or free - high quality poker education as well. All he needs is the will to learn more about it. He lacks that will? Not my problem - lousy as an argument that is, am I not right?
The problem with the original post is that you only viewed part of the problem. You said that there are winning players, and losing players, and you asked if it is immoral to take the losers' money. The reason why the answer is no, is because it is not pre-determined whether they are winners and losers. If they have dedication, they can became a winner pretty quickly.
Generally, in life, certain areas of life are absolutely unfair. For example, a really short guy has a disadvantage over a guy with really long legs when it comes to running a marathon. But then again, the really short guy has the option not to become a marathon runner in the first place.
I know that not everyone has the chance to do stuff he is good at, more precisely: some people have initial disadvantages (family background, birthplace, etc). Now this is exactly what does not apply to poker.
There are no "initial disadvantages" in poker. Maybe there are some who instinctively feel how to play, but that's not gonna mean anything without learning. And everything in poker can be learned. And everyone who plays online poker has the chance to learn poker.
Disclaimer: Gambling addiction is a serious issue, and poker rooms and governments should put a serious effort into combating it! I don't want my post taken wrongly with this relatively harsh "not my problem" line.
Originally posted by Ejeckt
Ok, hypothetical situation.You're playing at your local casino at a short handed table and early on in the evening a player sits down whom you recognize as a confirmed problem gambler who has absolutely no poker skills. You've seen him open shove before with 100% range. The stakes are high, at least NL10000. You've heard about this chap and know for a fact that he's on the verge of losing his home, and he's already lost his children's university savings fund and his wife is divorcing him because of his gambling problem.
It's 4 handed, you're BB he's SB and everyone folds to him and he pushes allin preflop. You've got AA.
Ok, it would be an obvious snap call. But still - on a 1-10 guilt scale, where are you?
Probably 2 or 3/10. I would empathize a lot with his situation of course, but guilt, no because I personally have not done anything wrong in this scenario. If I don't call, someone else at the table is just going to win his money. Plus he still has a chance to win and will not think twice of you if he bad beats you for 10k.
When he sits down at that table he knows what he is doing, nobody is putting a gun to his head and making him do otherwise. I believe that people are ultimately in control of their own thoughts and actions. When someone feels like they aren't it is only because they have willingly let go of this control and if they do so then the consequences are on them.
Gambling addiction is not an excuse imo, it is just mental weakness. It is not the same as drug addiction in that there is no direct chemical dependence, and if any chemical dependence exists it is on the chemical release that is linked to the gambling. But if this can be applied to gambling why not everything else. If someone sits on the couch all day and does nothing, they will be condemned as lazy, not 'inertia addicted'. They "can't help it, its just how they are", you never hear people talking like this about lazy people. Or obese people. Because people realize it is fully in the lazy or obese person's control how they behave and because people are capable of change.
It is obviously very sad when people gamble away everything they have, but I find it ridiculous when it's treated like some sort of disease rather than a failure to realize the consequences of ones actions and take responsibility for your behaviour.
Ok let me expand on that situation in my previous post a bit.
You heard from a friend who works at the casino that this problem gambler just arrived and sat at the table and is loaded with cash. There are only three other players at the table with him. You were watching TV in bed and thinking of taking it easy for the evening. You live only 5 mins away from the casino if you rush.
Does this information make you jump out of bed and get there asap?
What I'm alluding to, is that I think poker can be immoral if you consciously take advantage of other people's failings such as gambling addiction or stupidity.
Making a profit in a free-market is great. But selling water at a premium while having a monopoly in the desert where people are hurting because they can't afford your prices - that's something else entirely.
My previous posts were intentionally trying to be confrontational - mostly because none of winning poker players would publicly admit they occasionally consider poker as something close to hustle.
I basically wanted to say that every business in a capitalistic society is borderline im/moral.
Definitely we cannot say it's amoral or beyond morality (btw: i prefer word ethics over morality due to religious crap connected to latter).
As everybody here says: people over 18 are considered to be responsible for their own activities and so on. So we prey on fish's stupidity or - in more politically correct language - they at least pay "tax" for having fun.
On the other hand, nobody is EV+ machine and even lots of best poker players play roulette, slots, etc...
As emphasized in a poker community and what I don't have any dilemma is that (oversized) rake is unethical - 5 % or even more which is legalized theft imo.
That's why I oppose having casinos where local people (not tourists!) "throw away" their money.
Originally posted by Ejeckt
Ok, hypothetical situation.You're playing at your local casino at a short handed table and early on in the evening a player sits down whom you recognize as a confirmed problem gambler who has absolutely no poker skills. You've seen him open shove before with 100% range. The stakes are high, at least NL10000. You've heard about this chap and know for a fact that he's on the verge of losing his home, and he's already lost his children's university savings fund and his wife is divorcing him because of his gambling problem.
It's 4 handed, you're BB he's SB and everyone folds to him and he pushes allin preflop. You've got AA.
Ok, it would be an obvious snap call. But still - on a 1-10 guilt scale, where are you?
a solid 1. If I wouldn't call, he'd go bust 5 minutes later. The guys EV in that game regardless of who the competition is, is 0. The casino is (according to Dutch law at least), supposed to protect the player, if they allow him in, who am I to not take advantage within the rules?
Originally posted by Rogier
Originally posted by Ejeckt
Ok, hypothetical situation.You're playing at your local casino at a short handed table and early on in the evening a player sits down whom you recognize as a confirmed problem gambler who has absolutely no poker skills. You've seen him open shove before with 100% range. The stakes are high, at least NL10000. You've heard about this chap and know for a fact that he's on the verge of losing his home, and he's already lost his children's university savings fund and his wife is divorcing him because of his gambling problem.
It's 4 handed, you're BB he's SB and everyone folds to him and he pushes allin preflop. You've got AA.
Ok, it would be an obvious snap call. But still - on a 1-10 guilt scale, where are you?
a solid 1. If I wouldn't call, he'd go bust 5 minutes later. The guys EV in that game regardless of who the competition is, is 0. The casino is (according to Dutch law at least), supposed to protect the player, if they allow him in, who am I to not take advantage within the rules?
I will have to agree with this. If he has a gambling addiction, that's his problem, not mine. If he chooses to play, that's his problem. If he loses his money, that's his problem. If someone is allowed to play, regardless of their financial circumstances, I want their money. That's simply how the game works.
Like Rogier said, he will go broke later anyway (at least, most likely). So when there's a profit here for me, why would I pass up this wonderful spot? If he doesn't want to lose his house, he shouldn't be gambling. Not my problem, his problem.
I believe this has been said above, but something is only immoral if there is no agreement between parties. In the case of a company selling their products to a specific audience, this audience wants that specific product (whether they really need it or just want it through marketing is irrelevant). The company provides this product, so the consumer willingly gives their money to the company, which willingly provides their product to the consumer.
Poker is the same. Both players agree to take a certain amount of money to the tables, so it's essentially anyone's for the taking. He agrees to risk his money, and the other player(s) in the pot agrees to risk his money. That's just the way it is. Perhaps I'll feel a bit sorry for the guy, but it's still not my problem. There's an opportunity for me to make money, so I'll take it.
Now if I would put a gun to his head demanding him to give me money, that would be immoral (not to mention criminal).
Originally posted by Rogier
Originally posted by Ejeckt
Ok, hypothetical situation.You're playing at your local casino at a short handed table and early on in the evening a player sits down whom you recognize as a confirmed problem gambler who has absolutely no poker skills. You've seen him open shove before with 100% range. The stakes are high, at least NL10000. You've heard about this chap and know for a fact that he's on the verge of losing his home, and he's already lost his children's university savings fund and his wife is divorcing him because of his gambling problem.
It's 4 handed, you're BB he's SB and everyone folds to him and he pushes allin preflop. You've got AA.
Ok, it would be an obvious snap call. But still - on a 1-10 guilt scale, where are you?
a solid 1. If I wouldn't call, he'd go bust 5 minutes later. The guys EV in that game regardless of who the competition is, is 0. The casino is (according to Dutch law at least), supposed to protect the player, if they allow him in, who am I to not take advantage within the rules?
This. 1.
This example really isn't any different from an alcoholic in a bar. Does the bar tender refuse to serve him because he's an alcoholic who spends to much money on booze? No. Why? Because it'd be bad business practice. The bar tender may find a way of suggesting he seeks help or avoids buying more, but as long as he isn't drunk as a skunk he will still be able to buy drinks.
If there was someone as tragic as that in a casino i may consider finding a way to encourage him to get help that isn't confrontational or demeaning, but unless he makes that decision to get help himself theres nothing anyone can do. I might feel sorry for the guy nut i'm not, not going to call in that spot, it's bad business practice (as i would be there to make money), just like the bar is there to make money. We as poker players are just one of many pieces. If we are there or are absent, fold or call, it doesn't change the end result. Anyway, he will win the hand a small percentage of the time and the money will end up in someone elses pocket... I think if you would fold in this scenario you should probably find a new interest. People make there own decisions, some make good ones, some make bad ones, that's just the way the world works, that's life.
I actually feel bad about them when people complain when they loose their money, so I am bit moral at least ♦ But thats an issue, like tilt. I should forget feeling bad about someone loosing.
This thing can be compared to war. Let say one side has guns and another side has guns. You could not shoot because you dont want to kill people and be moral. But if you will not kill, they will kill you and you loose war and be dead. Same is poker.
The question makes no sense before you define what's moral. (And don't use the bible for that..). Once we've established what's moral we can see if poker is. By most definitions it isn't, but who cares?