The Poker Chronicles

FYI.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=payed

OnlineRaider

These comments are a riot.

"benefiting humanity"

A person selects a profession because it will satisfy him and because he will make money at it--not because they will benefit "humanity." Poker players are easy to pick on, but assuming they don't cheat, and report all of their income, they are no different than a mini-casino. Because Maroon is a "better" poker player than the majority of people he plays against, he has a positive expectation every time he plays poker--just like a casino has versus a craps player. Why don't we shut down all casinos then? Does Las Vegas economically benefit from the presence of the casinos or would it be better off if those casinos did not exist? Would it still be one of the fastest growing cities in the country?

"deprived the opportunity of consuming"

And you seriously making the argument that if the typical party poker player had no party poker to play--or no poker at all to play--that he would spend his discretionary income on something that benefits humanity?

Over the past month, I can't think of ONE THING that I spent my discretionary income on that benefited humanity. You know who I was thinking about when I spent my money--ME.

Maroon spends his money at the same type of restaurants that doctors do. He shops at the same types of stores, goes on the same types of vacation as upstanding citizens.

"the government would get a cut eventually"

Wow. How you cannot understand why this is so, so wrong is beyond me. This is a basic economic principle of the velocity of money--and of course taxation.

Let's say Maroon didn't exist, and Joe Gambler spent $50k on a car. He has created two taxable events, the sales tax on the car and corporate tax that the profits contribute toward his

Let's say Maroon existed, and instead of Joe Gambler buying the car, he lost $50k to Maroon and Matt bought a car. Now the government gets income tax on Maroon, AND the sales tax on the car purchase AND the corporate tax on the profits of the sale.

While I agree with the general thrust of the above post, the government does not techincally get any extra money, since Joe Gambler can deduct his gamblign losses against his own income on his tax return. That's not true of most expenditures, but it is for gambling expenditures.

I think you can only deduct gambling losses up to the amount of your gambling winnings.

"since Joe Gambler can deduct his gamblign losses against his own income on his tax return."

ummm, no he can't.

PO and Matt, I made the same argument you were making and some economist came in talking about transferring assets without producing goods as "skipping a step" of elasticity or something along those lines.

I looked into it and found a bunch of information on the web about what he was referring to, and came up with 2 conclusions:

1) The people saying that poker players hurt the economy because money is transferred without goods being consumed and/or produced may be right.

2) I couldn't explain to you why because I couldn't understand high level economist speak.

There was just a lot of reliable looking published information about the whole "step" thing and I could at least gather that skipping a step was bad for the economy.

It's my understanding that you can only claim gambling losses against winnings. If Joe Gambler is a net loser, then the government gets more. I'll stop commenting on comments.

Here would be my best guess of explaining the theory:

It is hard to see when just using one instance, of Joe gambler giving $50k to matt, and then matt spending it. When looking at it like this, it is hard to see how this could be bad for the economy.

But if you look at things in an infinite scale, when comparing the two options it looks like this:

If Joe Gambler spends his 50k, a taxable transaction has taken place and a good is purchased, resulting in another good being produced. Joe Gambler has a job so he is one of the people who produces these goods. If this process happenned infinitely, Joe Gambler would result in producing alot of goods and owning lots of goods and or wealth.

If Joe Gambler loses his 50k to matt, a taxable transaction occurs but no good is produced. If wealth just transferred infinitely, and was taxed with no goods being produced, no goods would be produced period.

When looking at it like this, I am deducing that it is possible that simply the act of transferring money in a taxable transaction with no goods being produced could be bad for the economy.

Now I have put a whole hour of my life into researching and understanding this. I gamble for a living myself so I have no desire to prove that gambling is bad for the economy. I don't care if my poker is good or bad for the economy, because I am looking for my own self-interest.

I am not sure that it is in fact bad for the economy, but I know I once held the same position on the debate, but now I am open to the possibility that those that say it is bad for the economy could be correct. I am sure there is some hole in my infinite example given above, but I'm not going to spend great deals of time for me to discover the truth, simply because it doesn't really matter to me.

Matt bringing up the fact that entertainment is a good, and the person spending time playing poker is a good being produced, obviously he is right that it is a good, but furthermore it should be obvious that this is not a good that is productive for society. However, if entertainment is not a positive good for society, that leads me to ask if being an Actor or television executive is any more productive than a poker player. How many professions produce useful or beneficial goods for the economy?

I suppose we as people value having the money to purchase a movie stub, thus we consider this to be a positive good for society, whereas having the money for the entertainment of poker is not widely viewed as a positive good.

Now I'm just rambling. Fact of the matter is that if economic theory could be explained in simple analogies, then why do even top economists still debate on what's the best way to tax citizens. Steve Forbes suggests a flat tax, and I read Forbes all the time and he sure sounds like a smart guy to me. Every country in the world has different tax laws. Simple anologies cannot be used to really argue economics in my opinion, because it is not that simple.

But, to me, none of this matters. All I want is a case of miller light in the fridge, a football game to watch tonight, and to sleep till noon.

"Without someone to win that money and cash it out it would flow around Party until the majority of it got raked and sent to India."

Or, raked and sent into the pocket of a guy named Anurag Dikshit.

Although a good for humanity arguement wouldn't be affected by it being sent to Gibralter, only a good for the country arguement would be.

Whats with all the talk about contributing to society? People are upset that you can make a living at playing poker and not have to go to a 9-5 job, but how are most jobs contributing to the greater good?

On another note, why be concerned about such a small portion of money when your average CEO out there pulls in millions of dollars a year, and makes consumers overpay for there goods. How many business's take advantage of consumers through price gouging, monopolistic practices, and the like? Go after them, and leave the guy playing poker alone!

Andy's first paragraph basically sums up what I was getting towards. Poker causes a transfer of wealth; nothing is created. We can pass 5 bucks around all day and have 5 billion dollars change hands five dollars at a time, but at the end of the day we collectively only have five bucks. If instead of spending time passing money in circles we applied ourselves to "productive" persuits at the end of the day we would have a certain number of widgets produces, yards mowed, movies made whatever.

"I'm bringing it back to the U.S, which is effectively a net generation of wealth for my country"

Sort of if you frame the question right I guess. That is, only if you look at things from an individual nations perspective. From a world perspective you haven't done anything. Everything is still exactly the same. Nothing has been created.

Even, if you take the nation-centric view you assumes the money would all end up in Gibraltor. You taking money out of play doesnt necessarily mean less money is going offshore unless you taking that money results in someone not playing anymore.

"The point was that most jobs aren't generating material goods or services that advance humanity."

I believe most do. Maybe we differ on our definitions of advance humanity. I believe makign chairs advances humanity, making spreadsheets that allow widgets to be made. It all goes towards producing goods or services. That contributes to a net increase in wealth. It may not be curing cancer but is contributing where poker playing is not.

By the way thanks for the spellcheck. The last resort of a person on a losing end of an argument. Also thanks for blocking me from commenting.

"I believe makign chairs advances humanity" LOL. That's probably why you can't play poker for a living, and why you seem so irrationally hellbent against someone who can. You continue advancing mankind by your chairmaking though!