Moral Poker
I've often thought about the overall economic perspective of poker as well as a poker "pros" function in the overall economics of our society. This is just one perspective we could take. I'd be intersted in any comments towards this perspective as well as any different perspectives on other player types etc...
In the discussion of poker as a moral question, we can divide our utility for playing into two fundamental categories, entertainment and income. There are many different ways to view the game, but we have chosen this specific division for reasons to be explained and understood later in this writing. We might see this either as a sliding scale in which a player is either more to the entertainment side or to the income wanting side, or instead we might see each player type as a function of their want of entertainment (E) + want of income (I).
This division allows us two distinct player archetypes the ‘rec’ and the ‘pro’. It can be argued there are many different types of player some overlapping and some not, but first we deal with the two most basic, the rec player who (by our definition) exchanges dollars for a form of entertainment, and the pro that (by our definition) receives these dollars for providing this entertainment.
We might note there are other types of players to be examined such as the breakeven player that doesn’t make money nor lose it, and gets just enough entertainment to keep playing (average E and I). There are ‘forever wanna-be pros’ that are habitually spewy/losing players that tilt often and can’t fully be said to enjoy the game (both low E and I). There are many types of player to be explored and understood.
It shouldn’t be hard to argue, in ‘today’s’ world (from a players view) the ‘ideal player ‘covets both income and entertainment in the highest forms (high E and I) **later we can look at 2nd level intention in this regard**. This can be contrasted with a type of winning pro that doesn’t enjoy their ‘work’ (very low E, high I).
Nonetheless we want to look at the game in relation to the simple division between ‘recs’ and pros’ as this is the fundamental sustainable environment we are all used to as our model.
We also need to introduce another aspect of the game, ‘integrity’, and set forth its definition. Integrity of the game can be split into two sub divisions, the first being the fairness or equality of the game in regards to the rules and boundaries of it (obviously a very gray and debatable subject not to be gone into in this writing but certainly of great concern to all player types). This includes things such as security leaks that result in unfair advantages for certain players. The 2nd subdivision of integrity in poker is the profitability of the game (specifically that the brightest/best players get paid). The author wishes to show that it is poker of the greatest integrity that leads to moral poker (then the goal of course is to show that moral poker leads to ideal poker).
****We should point out the obvious but great caveat that such points only hold true in a world of inequality, and that poker with integrity and its subdivisions are discussed only in relation to a game with irrational agents- that integrity should not be a detriment to ideality.*****
It’s true these two subdivisions of ‘integrity’ are not completely unrelated and are no doubt slightly overlapping, but we didn’t want to prematurely exclude certain aspects relating to the subject. As long as these things are seen and held in their place, poker (and its variants) can be seen as a game in which rec players with excess funds for entertainment pay pros hourly (in linear time perspectives) for such entertainment.
For a rec player, this arrangement is fair, provided they have a decent ‘chance’ at making a score regardless of their lack in skill edge. It is much like playing lotto only more fun, and the rec player likely gets more entertainment value for their dollar. Of course the direct winner is the talented player, and we expect this player to turn around and use their money in a talented way (on average) when spending it in society.
If we look at the flow of money in a poker game of high integrity, money flows from those that have excess funds to those minds that use creativity and intensive study to collect it. Even if we consider the flow of money from a habitual gambling addict, we still watch it flow from someone who tends to spend irresponsibly to someone who is likely to put it to better use.Not all winning players spend their money the wisest, however it shouldn’t take much convincing to show that, in general, economic decision power lies best with the poker players who maximize their ev (with respect to others’ decisions given similar circumstances).
All countries (governments) and all peoples should recognize (not argue with) the importance of the economy of poker, in which irl moneys flows from either the rich or ignorant, into the hands of the creative and gifted minds of the world. It is an exchange of efficiency in which a determined hard working well studied humble students of the game (and of life) might have a shot at real success and contribution in this world starting from the ground up (possibly even rebuilding from prior misfortune and/or failure).
It is true there might be those that poker effects in a negative way, players that are consistent losers with no hope of becoming a winning player, yet their life roll cannot support such an expense. We have already noted that society is happy to funnel such persons’ money to peoples that make better (higher) and more frequent +ev decisions. We can also point out under this model, we as players are not counting on this player type in the economy of poker for either a moral game of high integrity or an ideal game. Players of these types should be discouraged by both the poker community and society (noting the difference between discouragement and shunning). A better approach might even be to teach them to change for the better whether to continue in studying the game of poker or move to studying the art of +ev decision making in irl.
As money in this world shifts from the ignorant to the wise, better economic decisions will result. Better economy obviously follows. Poker is but one of the great vehicles to achieve this result. Both society and governments should readily welcome and facilitate the exchange of money for chips to be redistributed probabilistically to those with the greatest ev/edge. It is good for all concerned (all sentience).
In (quick) regards to taxation of the game, taxes serve to bring down the integrity of the game, specifically in relation to profitability. This lowers the utility of both the rec and the pro as both player types are interested in a game of the highest integrity. As a result economy (both poker and global) does not function at its maximum capacity. In light of this, we might understand poker is really a game of charity and sponsorship in which the lesser of the intellectually motivated part our society funds the greater. It is only by a misunderstanding of the economics of poker, and economics of the world, that one might impede the free flow of chips in any unnatural way.
(All comments welcome BTW)
Comments
I don't agree that the poker pro's add any "value" to society however.
I also do not agree that people who make +ev decisions in poker also necessarily make +ev decisions in life. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand, in fact they may be somewhat mutually exclusive in large part.
tapatalk puts this here to annoy YOU
What exactly are they getting at? Don't tax poker because it makes the game immoral?
I don't think guys pissing on Lambos are adding a lot of value to society.
tapatalk puts this here to annoy YOU
Whats totally ambiguous though, and I did it on purpose, is who gets to decide who fits where and how much. But I meant to leave that completely open so I'm not really saying anything beyond fundamentals. I wonder if we could come up with counter examples. I seem to know a few players that are putting themselves through school from poker. I don't know if we count that indirectness, but I suspect that there are many pros that lead personal/professional lives that are good for society.
But as for the young hot shot that makes a few million or even a few 100k and just travels and parties and plays poker with no thoughts beyond it. I'd agree there is no value to society there. I'd also agree that most "pros" from this era are like that. But I also think its a product of a certain line of thinking that might eventually change or evolve.
I'd be surprised to find them mutually exclusive. I just think for the most part todays players are not a good example (in general only) of those that make +ev decisions on the tables. I just mean that in the future of the game knowing that overall skill will increase as time goes by and the intelligence it will take to win will transfer into real life.
I know of many seemingly intelligent poker players that don't make many "+ev" decisions irl but I suspect upon deeper analysis it will be shown these players didn't really know what they were doing in regards to poker strategy (this isn't at ALL about anyone from here or that we know just more an observation of the general poker stars field etc.)
I can't very readily disagree with you in today's climate but I think with a slight paradigm shift the game stands to grow in this direction of being more 'moral'.
What change do you hope to bring about with this discussion?
tapatalk puts this here to annoy YOU
no change intended, I just think its interesting how different people view and define different player types, as well as the moral-ness of poker in our society (if any at all).
Adding "value" to a Society strikes me as being less mundane than that transaction. Something like the discovery of Insulin adds value to a society, the discovery of Viagra notsomuch (though my views on this may change in a few years).
I will say this before re-reading and commenting further. The people I have met through this Forum have NEVER disappointed me in terms of any relationship that has resulted. In particular, the BAPping experience has been something refreshing, in terms of public interaction.
Example: I have supported multiple BAPs, most recently Reibs adventure in Brantford. I told the wife about the whole thing, as I always do, and she began to ask questions . . . How did I know I could trust the player? Was I sure I would get paid? How likely was there to be a "delay" in payment? I made her read that particular thread, so she could see for herself the manner in which business is transacted I then showed another, more troublesome example. She was impressed by both, in that EVERYTHING was dealt with by the parties involved in as open and frank a manner as possible.
No doubt there WILL be bad faith among certain parties, but they seem to be dealt with quickly and severely by "the community", and I like that aspect of the game.
I have examples but they are generally petty which is kind of what I think you also point out. Yet I think the future of the game might change what it means to be "pro". This i like too, and its something I've spent a lot of time thinking about, contractual agreements (even forumal or verbal etc.), but I don't have anything really written up on it. It also is quite interesting though to think about both irl law and poker law as a moral code and community code/law.
Phil Galfond I think would be a great example of someone that gives back, at least to the poker community. I'm not sure if he does things like that irl, although I suspect he is quite charitable.
Players are always suggesting coaching sites are bad for poker (makes the game too hard), yet he remains on of the top players around, and has made videos all the way through.
Its interesting if poker WAS seen as a negative influence on society, then his time spent teaching coaching and helping players, wouldn't be seen as a positive thing. And I haven't shown it to be a positive thing, but its just interesting depending on both how one looks at the game but ALSO what "state" the game is in.
In that light, it seems it COULD be quite "moral" to me.
I admit though, for many people poker is not a 'healthy' hobby, for instance I know of a lot of players that play "seriously" or "competitively" with little regard for their true skill rate or any growth and education on the game (again no one here but more in the 180 man field), they tilt often and also don't seem to be enjoying themselves. This is something that causes the game to be immoral I think.
But not for people that enjoy the game, do their best and have little care of whether or not they can truly be a "pro". And "pro" isn't a word I particularly care for, but I just mean it as a want to use poker for an income taking the place of a different job.
Players playing too far for their liferoll, or sliding towards deeper gambling games or substance abuse issues etc.
I'm not sure poker NEEDS to remain that way, yet I think that for many years, we have advertised to that type of players, for seemingly very little reason.
I think the game stands to remain quite sustainable if advertised as outlined in the OP where certain players types of the past are not as encouraged to play.
I don't know. If you look at anyone who plays poker for money in the functional view of simply I+E, and base it on those who desire won monies, I doubt anyone falls into the E side.
I believe knowing Comp and most on this forum outside of a few individuals who really invest utils into study, most are on the E side. This includes myself, where I wouldn't have said that when I was less of a rec player 3 years ago.
I think we have to account and assume the fact that 100% of players desire to win money, and take the fact out of the equation.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean about yourself, I think you generally have been a player with High E and a low/medium I (lets say for example), in that you play for the love of the game and entertainment, yet some part of you sees it as a certain 2nd income (although clearly not a primary one and obviously depending on how much you play).
In times you weren't playing much your 'I' was lower in a sense but never gone.
Some people don't at all play for any belief they are a steady exppected winner, but rather for enjoyment knowing that any wins or big wins are just a bonus.
It also might be a function of variance and bankroll management in this sense to I would think.
Its true its not always so easy, however I felt that separating it so fundamentally might help players understand there are different player types that have a different role in the game.
thx wetts.
(edit: ah in the quote of mine you quoted i could have highlighted "skilled monies"
Most people have a want of ROI, and maybe a false expected ROI, but not realistically a true ROI.
The struggle with bucketing people as such and where the morality in the situation come up is that MOST "rec" players have an expectation of ROI (they believe they can beat the game) and most "pro" players fully understand that these people have no clue.
Very few people are that self aware and understanding that:
a) they are playing for fun.
b) they have no realistic expectation of long term profit.
Do you believe you are one of the top 10 players in the room?
Id venture that over 90% of the people surveyed would say yes.
I can see the argument that people who "truly" are great at this game are exploiting almost all the fish (IE don't tap the glass).
I think that people can get bogged down with the term "moral" as it relates to poker. As long as you are playing within the rules, and not misrepresenting anything to your opponent's, how is that immoral?
You may be able argue however that if you show someone a 2-headed coin, and they agree to flip you for $50/per where they want to call tails every time, that there are a few immoral characteristics about allowing it to continue indefinitely - specifically if you know the person has a mental disadvantage.
It doesn't need habitual gamblers that play for no reason but a -roi they believe is +.
The thought gave me have a new respect for all players, as well as taught me to remember to enjoy the game on my ride along it.
I've met many players who get so involved they aren't thinking about it in this logical fashion. I myself have definitely had low E times (and I ha for sure) but also get to remind myself if I don't enjoy the process, then it might be time to move on.
And so aside from that, its clearly moral in that sense.
Yet I also point out if you rake the game or tax it so hard that its not very profitable for ANYONE, then clearly this is not a moral game in the sense of a skilled game.
So the profitability seems important and it also seems to me that the profitability of the game affects the sustainability as the general field gets smarter. If you tax the game so hard that smart people won't play, the game I argue will lose its core.
I'm not claiming I'm saying something complex though (just terrible at explaining), but such a fundamental view seems to put a lot of things into perspective.
I do have an extension to this, but I'm finding the comments interesting for now.
the bonus with poker is, in the future especially, it takes an intellectual mind to make good money, it takes a lot of study in game theory and useful math that applies to many irl things. So we could hope that these kids that struggle for the love of the game and money from it, also turn around and use that theory and application for something worthwhile.
We might point out that isn't so much how it happens today, but I'd argue if you let poker flow freely, in a more and more profitable fashion, that is what the result would be.
It might seem strange to say or point out, but I'm not sure we've considered any other possibility for sustaining a profitable and "fair" game.
I don't think it is a case of "tricking" bad players into playing so much as it is simply not bothering to educate them as to how bad their play actually is.
I don't suggest we educate their skill level, but rather don't fear letting them know that they are playing a skilled game in which they cannot win in the long run (without great study or talent).
I'm not suggesting table talk per se, but rather a fundamental way we view the game, or the way it is advertising.
My opinion is, that its misinformed players that feel this will "dry the game up", and rather the acceptance of this view or return to it, will bring life to the game generally not thought possible.