Rob Banks
Pelican
I used to play low-stakes poker for profit. I was thinking of getting back into it now that casinos and cardrooms are opening back up.
For anyone unfamiliar, poker is a game of luck and skill, but in the long run, the luck evens out, and skilled players profit while less-skilled players lose money. That is why there are many professional poker players. I was not a professional. I only played low stakes, but I did turn a small profit.
I know that Aristotle said that usury is a sin because money is "sterile" and should not be made "fertile" (i.e. making money from money). Playing poker for profit is similar. You are not actually creating anything of value. You are instead making money from money, taking advantage of less-skilled players who may or may not be gambling compulsively.
I recently came across this relevant thread on the poker strategy forum Two Plus Two.
On the other hand, I don't only play poker for the money. I enjoy the competitive aspect. It is a very competitive game with deep strategy like chess (some would say a lot deeper than chess, actually). But you have to play for money (even if it's just for pocket change), because to play for free and not have anything at stake would eliminate the whole psychological aspect of the game and make it completely boring and pointless.
At the higher levels of competition (i.e. high stakes games, major tournaments), which I can't afford to play, virtually all players are competent, well aware of what they are getting into, and take the game seriously. However, at lower stakes, the competition consists of some competent players but also a lot of people who are just there to gamble, and are possibly drunk and/or gambling compulsively. If I were to purposely avoid losing money to these players, I would be at such a huge disadvantage that I might as well be lighting money on fire.
In the Two Plus Two thread, they distinguish between playing professionally (i.e. it is your entire livelihood) and playing as a hobby and for side income. Maybe there is a moral distinction to be made there.
For anyone unfamiliar, poker is a game of luck and skill, but in the long run, the luck evens out, and skilled players profit while less-skilled players lose money. That is why there are many professional poker players. I was not a professional. I only played low stakes, but I did turn a small profit.
I know that Aristotle said that usury is a sin because money is "sterile" and should not be made "fertile" (i.e. making money from money). Playing poker for profit is similar. You are not actually creating anything of value. You are instead making money from money, taking advantage of less-skilled players who may or may not be gambling compulsively.
I recently came across this relevant thread on the poker strategy forum Two Plus Two.
On the other hand, I don't only play poker for the money. I enjoy the competitive aspect. It is a very competitive game with deep strategy like chess (some would say a lot deeper than chess, actually). But you have to play for money (even if it's just for pocket change), because to play for free and not have anything at stake would eliminate the whole psychological aspect of the game and make it completely boring and pointless.
At the higher levels of competition (i.e. high stakes games, major tournaments), which I can't afford to play, virtually all players are competent, well aware of what they are getting into, and take the game seriously. However, at lower stakes, the competition consists of some competent players but also a lot of people who are just there to gamble, and are possibly drunk and/or gambling compulsively. If I were to purposely avoid losing money to these players, I would be at such a huge disadvantage that I might as well be lighting money on fire.
In the Two Plus Two thread, they distinguish between playing professionally (i.e. it is your entire livelihood) and playing as a hobby and for side income. Maybe there is a moral distinction to be made there.
Last edited:
