Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Poker as Profession

Rate this topic


Nate

Recommended Posts

Maybe women on a "bikini" team should be wearing these? I mean, there's some hot action. Shoot, all they're missing is a bonnet.
LOL!
What about modeling? Doing a nude scene in a movie? Doing a scantily clad scene in a movie? Being on a bikini team?
The difference between a nude scene in a movie and stripping is that the movie hopefully contains intellectual content and the stripping does not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

However even from an Objectivist viewpoint, can i not argue that it is inherently immoral?

Well, your god delusions aside, no you cannot argue that from an Objectivist viewpoint it is inherently immoral. Objectivism rejects the idea that value exists inherently or intrinsically in a thing, a person or an action. Second, even if such a concept of "infinite value" exists, which I doubt, you would have to demonstrate that ALL women valued their bodies infinitely.

You might have your dogma down, but your Objectivist's (devil's??) Advocate needs work. :D

[EDIT - Grammar corrections in last sentence - RC]

Edited by RationalCop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure enough, empirical evidence from other forum members have backed God up on this one, saying that stripping is not done in an atmosphere of respect, and is therefore degrading (to all involved).

I don't remember seeing any empirical evidence on this point yet- mostly opinions, and people have disagreed on these. If I am mistaken, would you please quote the evidence you refer to?

What could be more valuable to a beautiful girl than her body? To sell it for a few dollars indicates that she is making a sacrifice, ie she is trading her body (infinite value) for a few dollars. She comes out with a net loss and therefore stripping is immoral.

She keeps her body; therefore, she is not trading it away, and meanwhile gains (probably more than just) a few dollars; and therefore stripping is at least amoral. And her mind could be more valuable to her- I would be much more opposed to using my mind for something possibly immoral than selling views of my body, and if it came down to a choice between keeping my looks or keeping my mind- well, losing my rationality would mean losing my humanity. I'll lose my looks long before, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

I'm a "professional" player of poker. In that that is how I derive my income. It appears this topic hasn't been responded to for a long while. Possibly because it's turned to strippers. I'm new here, but decided to look up this topic. I haven't read all responses as there were many. Of course I do not think it's immoral. It's as immoral as playing any sport for a living. In that those that pay you derive entertainment or fulfill a desire in doing so, whether through TV or not, those that end up giving you money voluntarily did so. I will admit poker IS a zero-sum game. It is not a creative productive enterprize because it is a game. But one can be very creative around it/ about it. TV, books, learning to understand people and why they act and live as they do, increasing your ability to react better when quick decisions must be made, learning how to get as much value out of a situation (in business this can be very useful) as possible. Of course chess and other games can possibly have the same benefits, but people bet in poker.

Also I will admit that the chance element of poker can give an illusion to people. But this illusion is self delusion. When someone wins and has very little to know why, because they don't know the game they are playing... don't know the odds of winning in a certain situation or odds of winning at all if they are playing a nonpoker game. They are free to believe what they wish. That they are "lucky", that they are "better"/ more skilled, even if they have no reason to believe they are. They can run from reality. In any event, with all of the advertising by many professionals (well the popular and very successful ones) and easily searchable means of looking up how to play "correctly" or "well" according to well respected sources, there is no reason to believe poker is a "cheaters game". (realize that nearly all of my quotation marks aren't quoting anyone directly... but "cheaters game" I believe was one of the first descriptions given to poker when it started out as a riverboat gamblers game)

Ok, that was more than enough for me to say... at least to start and see how you pick any of it apart and have me respond to it

Patrick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, welcome to the forum. I see you've found the search button, so I'll skip that rant.

Ok, that was more than enough for me to say... at least to start and see how you pick any of it apart and have me respond to it

If you insist!

In that those that pay you derive entertainment or fulfill a desire in doing so, whether through TV or not, those that end up giving you money voluntarily did so. I will admit poker IS a zero-sum game.

I've taken to the idea mentioned earlier in the thread that poker players are essentially entertainers.

As far as them "giving" you money voluntarily, I don't think that alone is enough to consider a profession moral, not to imply that that was your intended meaning. I.E. selling nukes to North Korea could be done voluntarily.

learning to understand people and why they act and live as they do, increasing your ability to react better when quick decisions must be made, learning how to get as much value out of a situation (in business this can be very useful) as possible

I agree that I've gotten a lot of added value from the game as well.

As far as people not knowing the odds, I don't think this is necessarily delusional. People playing strictly for entertainment simply might not be interested.

As an aside, I'm no longer playing. When I was it was because my primary source of income was unavailable to me. (gov't bs, long story) Ultimately, I just didn't find poker to be a fulfilling career. The money sort of dried up for me too when the new anti-gaming legislation was passed and many of the deposit bonuses became unavailable to US players. (The gov't strikes again!) I played mostly online and the various deposit bonuses were a large part of my income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad I got a quick response. Heh, and yeah I "insist"ed. I figured there was a chance that many parts of what I said could be "attacked"/responded to and I'd have a lot to work out in response. Anyhow... Entertainment isn't a justification. It works out NOW easily as an excuse like tennis players. But the core root of the issue is not about TV or cable sponsorship, but if the winnings are something to be considered moral. There are office pools, chess tournaments, and many other forms that do not derive money from sponsorship.

People that compete in this game, as you said sometimes don't care about "odds", don't care to know the game thoroughly, they just wish to throw their money at chance and if they figure out something randomly that gives them an edge in a particular hand they will feel like a genius. That edge WAS something to commend them for, but it's not why they are gambling.

The major clear issue is that most that gamble have a problem in their lives. They are living under a lie... who lied to who is the issue.... that lie has them throwing their money as chance or lying to themselves and believing that they can win when they CAN'T against the house, or that they are more skilled or just divinly lucky above others in poker.

I state that even if most people did not lie to themselves when playing poker, it would still but a moral career. It would be much harder playing against intelligent informed players. But such is the case compared to the 70's when close to no one knew the inner workings of the odds and strategies.

It's a skill game. Why others play it is up to them. The rules are offered openly. The strategies are publicized for anyone to look up. As in any form of competition the most competent rise and succeed.

And again, yes... people just playing for "fun" wouldn't be interested in the odds. In fact I know many that know the odds but don't care. They come to have fun and wish to through their money around. They aren't their to be serious. They enjoy the company and competitive nature of the game. Some ironically enjoy playing with people they know to be better than them or professionals, in the off chance they can outsmart them.

Patrick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
it is a player vs player game as opposed to all other games being player vs casino.

This isn't entirely correct.

The "Theorem of Poker" according to David Sklansky is:

"Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose. Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose."

Technically if you are playing in a game where the casino takes a cut, then you are playing against all of the players AND the casino. You are wagering the Rake (Casinos take) in the hopes that you will be able to win enough money from players with lesser skills to come out ahead after paying the Rake.

If you were to constantly play at a table where all of the players (including you) were equally skilled* then there would be no skill advantage, and in the long run everyone would lose to the Rake (casino).

The Rake can be viewed as an adversary or as a cost for services depending on your purpose in playing. If your goal is to make money, then it definitely factors in as a risk in playing and is something you are effectively playing against along with the other players.

If you are playing for entertainment the Rake can be viewed as a charge for the services you receive, what is probably a more luxurious atmosphere than a home game, a professional dealer and in some casinos even "free"drinks served to you.

*(Obviously the fact that poker is a game of incomplete information means that it isn't feasible for everyone to play "perfectly" in line with Sklansky's Theorem.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...