[beardedetim]

> while providing nothing of value you can't get from a game that's not for stakes.

When I play poker, I don't get the same fun value when it's for nothing but the clay chips or even if it's for $2 total win (_when playing for pennies_). The _fun_ for me is when it's a $20+ decision, the _fun_ for me is to play against other people where the decision they have to make has _weight_ to it. I think that there is _fun_ to be had when you're playing for stakes that cannot be had when you're playing for nothing. When I throw the dice, it's not _fun_ to see if it lands on a 7 or 11 or whatever the rules of craps are. The _fun_ for me is the betting, the winning or losing of the money. If I just wanted to see who could get a set of numbers from random dice rolls without money involved, I'd play Yahtzee.

I agree that _some people_ shouldn't gamble because it's not _fun_ but an _addiction_. Just like _some people_ probably shouldn't drink because it's not _fun_ but an _addiction_ or shouldn't smoke weed because it's not _fun_ but _addicting_. That doesn't mean that there is _no value_ being added to the people's lives that _find it fun_ and don't find it _addicting_.

We may disagree on if _fun_ is of any value to people vs the harm that that _fun_ might give them and I think we both agree we should make it _really clear_ the consequences of the _fun_ someone chooses to have. But I disagree that gambling adds _no value_ whatsoever or the idea that what I find is of no value means that everyone should agree it adds no value. Let the players have their fun, tax the shit out of it, and offer help to those that have an addiction to it, just like smoking or drinking or anything else that we as a society have deemed not illegal but not directly beneficial.

[faeriechangling]

I won't deny that poker REALLY doesn't work when it's for play money, and poker is honestly one of the greatest games I've ever played in terms of sheer depth and how much you can replay it.

At the same time, it's not the only great game I've played. When it comes to probability-centric games, I'm fond of Backgammon, deck builders, and computer strategy games which are all enjoyable when not played for stakes.

I think the first time Poker disturbed me is when I was at a table when somebody was going all-in every other hand for hours just bleeding a ton of money, not really playing the game, just having a sort of problem as everybody at the table stayed at that table swallowing the money. When you realise a lot of the fun the good players have who study poker strategy is not only at the expense of such people, but poker itself wouldn't be nearly as popular as it is if such people didn't exist and it was all very serious people reading strategy books who were all slowly losing money to the rake, the magic sort of fades. Even among the winning players, you see people who aren't technically losing money but can't stop themselves from playing despite the fact they're spending way too much time on the game, not really enjoying it, while barely making any money.

I don't know, Why not play a fun game where nobody has to suffer? You know who I see playing non-gambling probability games all the time? Former poker pros.

[ethbr1]

> poker REALLY doesn't work when it's for play money

I have a great college memory of taking an all-in no-money hand off a fraternity brother as a freshman prospect during rush week... with a pair of 3's (against an ace-high?).

Dealer to brother: "Why the hell did you go all in?"

Brother: "Because we weren't playing for money."

Dealer to me: "Why the hell did you call with 3's?"

Me: "Because we weren't playing for money, and he wasn't either."

[Solvency]

_I implore_you to __stop this_madness

[korse]

Well said, imho.