I found a kind of interesting article on Card Runners recently by one of their guest pros named Zimba. The piece, entitled “The Myth of the Socially Non Redeeming Activity“, disputes not only the claim that poker is actively harmful but also the claim that it is, “inherently unproductive from a social perspective,” that is, that it contributes nothing to society. I was expecting to disagree with him, and while that’s not exactly how I ended up feeling, I believe this was only because he didn’t ultimately prove what he intended to prove. In other words, I agree with what he argues, but I don’t think what he argues is really what he was trying to argue.
His central claim is that, “poker is no better or worse than any other activity.” I just don’t see how this can be true. Although I don’t believe poker is really a destructive force, it can’t really be compared to professions, such as many of those in the fields of education and medicine, that produce something clearly of use to others and to society as a whole. Of course there are bad teachers and doctors who do more harm than good, but there are also good ones, people whose work make the lives of those around them indisputably better.
The same can’t really be said about poker players. Some, such as cheaters or degenerates, are worse than others, but I can’t think of a single example of someone who accomplishes something actively good or useful by the very act of playing poker.
Zimba’s contention, which doesn’t really support his claim that poker is not inherently unproductive, is that what people do with their money and how they behave is what matters. Although Zimba doesn’t mention him, Barry Greenstein, a famous poker professional who has donated well over $1 million to charity, seems to be an example of a poker player who has had a clearly beneficial impact on the livers of others. But this wasn’t a direct result of his poker playing. He could have made millions in any line of work and donated it to charity.
A doctor, regardless of what he chooses to do with the money he earns, earns his money by doing something useful for someone else. This is crucially different from the professional poker player, who makes his money by passing colored chips back and forth across a table, or in the case of the internet pro, by clicking buttons on his mouse.
I certainly don’t mean to discourage any poker players from donating their time and money to worthy causes. Quite the opposite, I would argue that precisely because their work is not inherently productive, they have an obligation to do something useful with their spare time and money.
In the conventional order of things, people do something that needs to be done, in other words they work, and in exchange, they get things that they need or want, in other words they get paid or otherwise compensated for their efforts. Undoubtedly, there is no shortage of useless or even harmful jobs and professions out there. I obviously do not think it is inherently immoral to play poker professionally. But I don’t see how one can argue that poker is, in of itself, anything but unproductive.
Thus, poker players, who deviate from the usual ‘deal’ by getting the things they want and need without doing something that needs to be done, ought to do their part by finding other ways to contribute to society and better the lives of those around them. On this point, I think that Kimba agrees with me, or at least his logic does. He concludes that, “as long as the way you accumlate your wealth is legal, then how you choose to spend it defines your legacy and standing in society.”
No argument. But there are people whose very work defines their “legacy and standing in society,” to use his phrasing. Poker players are not among them, and nothing in Kimba’s article demonstrates otherwise.
Poker is “productive” in the same way that Bruckheimer movies, David E. Kelley TV shows, and Stephen King novels are productive. The game is rightly classified in that general field of human endeavor labeled “entertainment.” It’s just difficult to think of it that way if you are a professional such that the game no longer possesses those qualities which we normally associate with our leisure activities.
I see what you’re saying, but I don’t think that the professional poker player’s role in a poker game is the same as that of the author of a popular novel. I guess in some sense, more true of brick and mortar card rooms than online, the professionals are the ones who keep the games going so that others have the opportunity to play for entertainment. But losing money isn’t fun, so professionals certainly detract from poker’s entertainment value as well. I think that the typical professional poker player is producing very little if any entertainment value for the amateurs who play with him, though there are exceptions (Marcel Luske, for example).
I do believe this is much like the argument Darren, Logan, and I were having at dinner one night… (although less liquored up here, obviously).
I would point out that the “poker produces entertainment” argument doesn’t really address the compulsive aspect of gambling that is significantly less relevant to consumption of Michael Bay movies and the O.C.
Poker is also different from the other mentioned forms of entertainment in that it is enjoyed almost exclusively by participation rather than consumption or observation, and in that sense it is indeed entertainment for those creating it, but not, in fact, for the rest of society–more like performance art or enjoying a dinner party.
That there are problem gamblers shouldn’t invalidate the general entertainment value of gambling any more than problem drinkers invalidate the general entertainment value of alcohol.
These days I do not play poker for the purpose of making money. I play for the competition and the challenge, so my opinion is skewed from those that actually support themselves by playing.
Also, I was not analogizing professional poker players to authors, I do think that is a stretch too far. But lots of people that do not have a gambling problem do choose to play poker for reasons other than income: namely, it’s a damn fun game.
Jen, I agree that the entertainment in poker is primarily from participation, but the plethora of fairly well watched poker TV shows, does make the point that consumption and observation can be fun.