PHILOSOPHIZING ABOUT POKER

THE MORALITY OF POKER

by Bob Ciaffone

What is the most reasonable w= ay for a person with a sense of morality to look at our favorite game, poker? And = how should our moral view influence our behavior? These are the questions I wou= ld like to address in my present article.

= ; Before we go to the heart of the matter, there are a couple of points I would like= to make. First, to judge an activity as detrimental or improper, many people a= sk a simple question; "Is anybody abusing this activity?" If the answe= r is "Yes," the activity is viewed as immoral. Frankly, I feel this standard to judge by is ridiculously rigid.

= ; Every year, many people are injured in auto accidents. Do you think we should ban driving because some people abuse it and bad things can happen? Of course n= ot. This activity is of far too much benefit to prohibit just because it can produce a bad result on occasion. There are always a few people who misuse something or are just plain unlucky. We need to judge an activity by whether the benefits justify it, not by whether anyone on the planet is harmed by i= t in any way. For example, a number of people abuse alcohol, but studies show li= ght drinkers have a slightly longer life expectancy than even complete teetotal= ers. Should alcohol be kept from me, a person who likes to have one glass a day = with his dinner, because some intemperate people drink too much? I don't think t= his is fair or moral at all. The few abusers should not be depriving normal peo= ple of something beneficial.

= ; My second point is the less people know about something, the fewer mental categories they have for classifying information about it. Dissimilar things get lumped together, so apples and oranges can be mistakenly assigned the s= ame basket. People who know almost nothing about gambling often classify every = type of game played for money into the general category of gambling. Hey, gambli= ng is a big category. It is highly unfair to look on all forms of gambling as equivalent. Gameplayers like me feel there is a significant difference betw= een playing a game requiring a high degree of skill for money and playing a game of pure luck for the thrill of gambling. The morality of playing a game of pure luc= k I regard as a substantially different subject, and one beyond the scope of th= is article. In here I am simply addressing the playing of games like poker, bridge, backgammon, and scrabble, for money. All these games require a large degree of skill to play well. The thing they have in common is the use of a "randomizing agent" as an element of the game. This randomizing a= gent may be cards, dice, tiles, or something else, but there is no fundamental difference in the character of the game. There is a blend of both skill and luck needed for success, and there is a lot of literature available to help= the player perform well.

= ; Most people seem to feel that it is all right to have a monetary stake on the outcome of an activity that is considered "pure skill." Few go so= far as to complain about the holding of a chess tournament for prize money. Hav= ing a stake riding on the outcome of a contest gives it more flavor and more significance. Even a game of some kind between spouses acquires greater meaning—and is therefore more enjoyable—if the loser has to do = the dishes, or perhaps perform a massage or some other loving act. To have something at stake does not demean an activity, but elevates it.=

Unfortunately, a number of pe= ople feel that the acceptability of competing for money becomes questionable by = the use of playing cards. It is okay to have prize tournaments—as long as= it is not competing at a game like poker. Somehow, those people feel betting a= t a game that uses a randomizing agent is a bit immoral. This seems quite unreasonable to me. If a game has a luck element because it uses a randomiz= ing agent, this simply gives the less-skilled player a chance to win. Is this immoral, to allow the weaker player a chance at victory? Hardly. So to cond= emn a game simply because it uses a randomizing agent strikes me as faulty thinking.

= ; The real question we need to ask is, "Does a game played for money have a redeeming value to justify itself?" Any poker player would reply "yes" when asked about his own game. And what is the redeeming va= lue? Simply that it is fun to play. Something being a lot of fun can be an argum= ent that it is a worthwhile activity, an important element of the good life. Man has a serious side and a lighter side. As the saying goes, "All work a= nd no play make Jack a dull boy." Take the fun out of life, and a key rea= son for human existence has disappeared. The reason poker is a justifiable acti= vity is because it is fun! And the harm it can do when = abused is vastly outweighed by its benefit of providing enjoyment for the overwhel= ming majority of the people that play it.

= ; There is a lot of attention focused on compulsive gambling these days, because casinos have proliferated to so many places. Anyone familiar with this subj= ect knows that the games of mostly luck snare far more people into addictive behavior than do the games with a high degree of skill. The number one game= for addictive gamblers is playing the lottery. According to some recent figures= I saw, the New Jersey Council on Compulsive gambling says playing the lottery= is the addiction of choice for 49 percent of compulsive gamblers. (How anyone = can get hooked on a game that provides so little enjoyment in playing and is known = to give bettors way the worst of it is a mystery to me.) Does poker produce addictive behavior? Yes, it does, for some people. But the depth of addicti= on and the number of addicts is far less than in the games of pure luck. Remem= ber that the test of something's acceptability goes beyond just whether anyone = on the planet abuses it.

= ; What impact does all this philosophy have on life in the real world? A lot. We p= oker players feel our game is a worthwhile human activity. It is immoral to force us to play our game subject to the threat of hijacking or police raids. We deserve to have all the obvious benefits of having public cardrooms available for our pastime. A public cardroom is a s= ocial benefit to the community, because it provides a place where poker players c= an have fun playing their game without threats and harassment. We deserve such a place.

= ; We do have something in our favor in trying to get public cardrooms. There is = less objection to poker than the games of pure chance. Many people realize that poker is a traditional American game that millions of people enjoy playing.= So in places where it is politically impossible to get full-scale casino gambl= ing, there still may be the possibility of getting poker. There are municipaliti= es that allow poker, but few or no other forms of gambling.<= /p>

People involved with gaming s= hould take the view that part of a loaf is better than none. Games of pure chance bring in far more revenue than poker, but it may be possible to get poker w= hen other gambling games are unobtainable. Some people realize this. For exampl= e, the horse-racing industry is eager to get poker available at racetracks. My experience at Hollywood Park Casino indicates that horse racing and poker is quite a reasonable combination.

= ; I encourage each of you poker players to try and promote our game to the gene= ral public as a worthwhile social activity, and one that its aficionados should have an opportunity to play in safety. This means everything from trying to= get legalized cardrooms in your community to doing what you can to make poker perceived as an honest game played by ladies and gentleman. So do your shar= e to properly promote our game.