[paulddraper]

> Is this not also true for many sporting or competitive pursuits that are also effectively zero sum?

No, absolutely not.

LeBron and Stephen Curry show up to a game, and both walk away hundreds of thousands richer.

---

In the top 1% of basketball games and the top 1% of poker games, they are sponsored and no one loses money.

And in the other 99% of basketball games, no money is involved. (People normally don't play pickup games for money.)

The other 99% of poker games involve players losing money.

[jjxw]

I meant zero sum in the closed loop of the game itself. Only one team can win, the reason why they are paid so much is because they have built an audience and the sponsors/teams are effectively built around advertising revenue and/or sales of merch.

Agreed on the distribution of who wins and who loses, most people don't lose money playing basketball. However, the point I am trying to make is writing off poker as "not productive" simply because it is monetarily zero sum (or negative sum in the case of raked games) is a disservice to the game itself.

[paulddraper]

Do the math however you'd like, but for one reason or other, poker games are the reason for foreclosure more of then than basketball games.

[jjxw]

Fair enough, if you look down on games of skill which involve chance and wagering money then there's not much I can do to change your mind.

[vintermann]

Look down on? I think gambling is harmful. That's quite independent on whether I "look down on" it or not.

I do suspect that poker can't be as inherently fun as most other card and board games of chance and skill, because if it was it shouldn't need high stakes to be exciting. But that's just a suspicion.

I have a philosophy of life, that I'd like to explain. Picture there's an immigrant. He comes from some far-off country with a very different culture. He didn't move by choice, he doesn't much like the culture of the county he came to. He'd like to protect his culture and raise his kids in it. He doesn't let them mingle, or get too involved in the culture around them. Naturally, he fails. Looking back on it as an old man, he realises that his kids have adopted not only the worst attributes of the surrounding culture, but they have kept the least sympathetic sides of the old culture, his culture too. And they're repeating his mistakes. "I should have let go", he laments. "I should have picked the things that actually matter, and asked them to hold on to just those, rather than trying to keep everything the way I was used to."

I've told it as a story about immigration, because then it's quite easy to believe, right? But truth is, even if we never move to another country, we move to the future. Culture changes. We are that immigrant dad. We too, if we just try to hold on to what we're familiar with, will lose. We need to make conscious choices about what really matters, what's worth holding onto, and what we can let go. If we just coast along without thinking, we'll keep bad traditions and make new bad traditions too.

Gambling culture is one of those things I want to let go. Become a thing of the past. Recycled into something better. I do love modern board and card games, which manage to be fun without high stakes, smoky rooms and martinis. It's not that I don't understand the glamourous appeal of of all that, I am your "countryman" in that regard. It's just not what I want to save.

[jjxw]

The vast majority of people who play poker do not play it for the "high stakes, smoky rooms, and martinis". Speaking for myself, I regularly play for very low stakes with friends in my own place of residence and we enjoy it as both as an intellectual pursuit and something to socialize over.

Obviously your viewpoint is perfectly valid - there are plenty of people who have been irreparably harmed by gambling culture and the way that poker is marketed largely does itself no favors in that regard. My point is that degenerate culture and poker can be separated and there are absolutely healthy ways to enjoy a hobby which, yes, has a luck element to it, but also requires precise study and meticulous decision making to excel at.

From what I've read I think you are conflating the predatory nature of casinos with the game of poker. Those two things are certainly linked, but I would argue that it would be a mistake to write off a game like No Limit Texas Hold'em as irredeemably harmful due to the association.

[vintermann]

Are you sure about that? If it was just for the intellectual pursuit and socialization, why are you playing poker and not, say, Catan?

Obviously not everyone plays poker in a smoky room with gangsters, or even with real money, but I think maybe that cultural context is part of the explanation. You absolutely can divorce it from that cultural context, if you like poker but hate gambling - but is that worth holding onto, when there are so many options to get similar intellectual and social pleasures?

[sneak]

Poker has taught me so many things about life that I probably never would have learned otherwise. Yes, it’s gambling and there is a random element, but it’s a strategy game played in the currency of the world in which it is set. This has wide philosophical implications far beyond the poker table.

Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Put it on my tombstone: “he got it in good”.

[dessimus]

>In the top 1% of basketball games and the top 1% of poker games, they are sponsored and no one loses money.

I don't know, I hear lots of sports fans complain about the money earned by athletes that one might think that the owners are only moments from bankruptcy because of those greedy players' salaries!