Quote:
Originally Posted by Freelancer  Yeah your right its more a question of morality than light/dark thats just the context I placed it in.
Anyway, if I would provide strategy advice to the general poker community would this be more morally acceptable? Considering I am still basically teaching people to take money from someone else. Also the advice will be available for everyone and completely free so I guess that makes it a bit more acceptable...
A lot of professionals use the reasoning that they'r providing entertainment value to make it more morally acceptable, a lot of them struggle with this especially at the higher limits where the money lost/won is quite outragious. Personally I always thought of this as a bit of a cop out because in reality most people don't play for entertaiment value but because they think they can beat the game (which is very very hard) and there's little entertainment value at any stakes excepth the very low ones (this is one of the few places where most people play for fun and not to make money). |
Interesting question....for the past decade or so I've made my living as a sports handicapper. The majority of my income I made from actually betting (and winning a high enough percentage) on my own. That alone separates me from the majority of the sports handicapping industry which I'll discuss in a moment. A smaller percentage came from selling my handicapping services to other people, writing articles, etc.
The majority of the sports handicapping information industry is a) crooked b) incompetent or c) both. If I'm feeling charitable, I'll say that crooks and incompetents comprise a sizable majority of the industry (at least 60%) and if I'm in a cranky mood I'll go so far as to say its over 90%. That makes my job tougher, since people are predisposed to assume that I'm either crooked or incompetent.
On one hand, I enjoy the process of handicapping--I'm good at it, I've put in a lot of time and work learning about it. For my clients, I like providing an alternative to the crooks in the industry and I like to teach people how to approach it the "right" way. I've made a nice living from it, and I've done whatever I can to give back by helping the less fortunate, donating to charities, volunteering, and so forth.
But the point that the previous poster made is well taken, which is why recently I've become dissatisfied with it and have decided to transition into some different things. Ultimately, I'm not creating anything of value. I guess maybe sharing my knowledge with others is something of value, but its not enough for me to be satisfied. On the other hand, 90%+ of my clients that have signed up for handicapping service renew the next year and I'd imagine that they'd all dispute strongly my assertion that I'm not providing something of value.
I will continue to pursue my sports handicapping activities for my own profit and for my clients, but my goal is to de-emphasize it somewhat in my life and diversify my income. I guess I want to make it more of a "passive income"...
So to the original question, I guess a lot of the "dark vs. light" question depends on the individual. IMO its not much different than if I had been generating my income over the past decade as a stock market trader--I may not be creating value per se, but I've chosen to do good things with the money I generate. Also, I've chosen to use the freedom that my vocation provides--in terms of time, location, mobility, scheduling--to enrich my life and the lives of others.
Obviously the gambling question is one of specific applicability to me, but it seems that you can make a similar distinction about many other methods of generating income.
Ironically, I've written hundreds of pages on the concept of "value". For us sports handicappers, it refers to the difference between the line posted on a game and what the "true odds" of the proposition should be. As an example, in the first round NCAA game between Winthrop and Notre Dame, the Irish were favored by 4 points or thereabouts. However since most of that was based on the public perception--Notre Dame is the most famous college in the country and no one has heard of Winthrop--I determined that the "real" line should have made Winthrop a small favorite. Us gambling types call this an "overlay", and it makes it a good wagering value.
The fundamental point I've made in my writing is that in the sports handicapping context "value" is a transitory concept--and maybe that's applicable to "value" as a philosophical concept. Ultimately--like so many other things in our reality--maybe our "perception" that we're providing value is the important thing?