Ethics
Poker is a predatory undertaking. The object of the game, specifically, is to take as much of other people's money as you possibly can while abiding by strictly defined rules (and also, one hopes both for the good of the game and general civility, within the bounds of poker etiquette as well).
It is to be assumed that people sit down at the table voluntarily, and are equally free to stand up and walk away when they please. No one is forced to play or forced to quit (unless they run out of money, and then it's not that they are "forced" to quit but that they no longer have the requisite wherewithal to play).
But the reality of it is, in fact, otherwise. You cannot play poker as intensively as I do and not know this.
I see the compulsive gamblers. I see the people so desperate for social interaction that they essentially 'pay' for company by losing at the table. I see the people who ~ despite all ongoing and mounting evidence to the contrary ~ believe they can score big in the game and thereby dig themselves out of a financial hole. I see the people whose emotional state is so precarious that I'm convinced that one more bad choice or bad bit of luck will tip them right over the edge into some sort of abyss, with potentially disastrous consequences for them and/or the people around them.
I don't want to play with those people, but they are everywhere. And they are not always easy to spot right away. Sometimes you only realize how bad things are three or four hours into the game. And maybe only after you or others have relieved them of a buy-in or two. I hope that the empathy which helps make me a good poker player never deserts me. I do not wish to be blind or indifferent to the suffering of others.
Tonight, for the second time in a week, I found myself feeling uncomfortable about some of the other players in the game. I no longer wanted to participate in what looked like a trainwreck in progress. In both cases, I could have stayed and undoubtedly continued to prosper in monetary terms. Instead, I bowed out, while suggesting to the individuals still there that it might be wise to stop. In one case, last Saturday, they agreed and the game came to an end. This evening, however, I left the game still roaring, and the various conflagrations were actively being stoked. It didn't look good to me, and I departed ~ once again taking a friend aside (Mr. Actuary) and telling him I had a bad feeling about the situation. But he had dollar signs in his eyes and didn't want to quit; his greed was impairing his judgment, in my view, as badly as compulsion was twisting the behavior of some of the other players.
I do not want to be on either side of that equation. This is why I like tournaments: defined buy-ins essentially mean a built-in stop-loss. Nobody with the merest modicum of common sense is going broke playing in a tournament.
Cash games are another matter, and this is why, when all is said and done, I prefer to play cash in a casino. Casino play has overhead associated with it. You have to deliberately GO to a casino. You have to be prepared to pay a rake. You probably are paying for food and drink and lodging. You are actively going there to engage in gambling activity, and you know it's going to cost you something. The vast majority of people playing poker in a casino know what they are there for, and they can afford it. Yes, you'll run into the degenerates, the people who are desperate or mentally ill, but they are easier to spot and they are very distinctly a small minority. If I find myself at a table with such a person, I will generally seek to move.
I am well aware that avoiding the problem doesn't solve it; just because I'm not contributing to it directly doesn't mean it isn't still there. Those folks are, to some extent, seeking out their own destruction. I can't fix them, but I can at least do my best not to exacerbate their troubles.
I am okay (more than okay) with not profiting as much as I might otherwise, as a result.
Is any of this a reason to condemn poker playing, or gambling in general, to the point where it should be anathema to an ethical person?
I don't think so, in much the same way that I don't think that most things consenting adults do which are fine and fun in moderation but dangerous in excess should be banned, prohibited, or shunned. Properly handled regulation, licensing, and even taxation could be good ways to fund necessary health or rehabilitation measures for those who, for one reason or another, devolve into a bad state as a result of their gambling. I believe it is possible to play responsibly and, by example and by advocacy, to help others to play responsibly. Driving it underground through legal sanctions only, ultimately, makes things worse for people who are already troubled. The libertarian in me also believes that people shouldn't be entirely sheltered from the consequences of their own choices and actions.
Is it the best and most ethical way to spend one's life?
Definitely not. Aside from the minor benefit of facilitating the redistribution of wealth from less to more intelligent (for several different definitions of that term) people, poker-playing has no redeeming social value whatsoever. Its entertainment value is, at best, morally neutral. For those who play a lot ~ like me ~ I believe it's imperative to participate in some kind of really morally constructive activity to bring balance to our lives. I am on the lookout to add something like that to my life in a deliberate, well-organized way.
Labels: poker, reflection