Professional Poker Player?

The Science of Options

By aesthetic I mean that which it is optional for one to value. Nutrition is not a matter of aesthetics, cuisine is. Earning a living is not a matter of aesthetics, finding a career which fits you is, and in the highest of forms. I have to make the assumption that your proposed poker players are doing this because they either find it is their only means of making a living (unlikely - and then necessary - and not a matter of aesthetics or even debate) or that they enjoy playing poker. It seems like hard work, just like being a concert musician, and the mentality seems to fit the drive I see in my friend who worked as a dealer in Atlantic City.

I also assume that I don't need to defend those "victims" who are poor or compulsive gamblers on this forum.

I would also ask, if the "trader" mentality is the measure of morality, what does one say of those who sell bottled water, when tap water is relatively free and often better for you? What does one say of people who sell (or buy) $600 Gucci bags which look like sow's ears, and serve as well as a $9.95 back-pack available at Wal-Mart? Are these people, in any more authentic manner than a poker player, offering value for value? At least the poker player knows that he may walk away a total loser. It seems that many people are total losers every day, buying essentially valueless items because of their brand name, which Objectivism presumably views as mere capitalism and uncontroversial. Why is it immoral to knowingly risk your money on your skill at betting and reading your opponent, but perfectly moral to buy a Rolex and a suit at Brooks Brothers?

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 11/29, 5:43am)

Post 41

Thursday, November 29, 2007 - 7:18am

As an aside, an interesting book called How to Be a Billionaire documents a consistent interest in playing cards for money among many successful billionaires in their younger days. The author names Bill Gates and others who did this for fun and profit, even mentioning one who relied on the art of gambling to feed his family in his leanest days. The author considers this a sign of a willingness to take risks and an ability to think strategically in a profitable fashion in situations not entirely under one's own control.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 11/29, 7:22am)

Post 42

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 8:01pm

In My Own words

Joe, I take this (post 37):

"Ted says:
Objectivist moral theory exists only in outline, with a lopsided emphasis on virtues, and a tacit assumption that Rand's or one's own conventional values are self evidently rational.
This is a large reason why we disagree on so many topics. Instead of understanding the principles of Objectivism, you treat them as groundless assertions, to be taken or left without consequence.
I'm not surprised that you can't tell the difference between Objectivist principles and traditional or puritan values. But your ignorant assertions are not facts."

as nothing more than an unworthy personal insult. If you find anything I say unclear, ask, and I will explain it. Asserting your evaluation of my internal mental states is psychologizing. My posts here have content that does not rely on any one single person's imputed mental states. Recently, Jon Trager falsely accused me of calling people "Randroids" and not understanding Objectivism. I challenged him to google "randroid ted keer" and see if I ever used the term, or to show where I have ever misstated Objectivist dogma. He remained and remains silent. I don't bemoan it. But I don't expect content-free insults from people who can argue on the issues without having to resort to specific individual personal attacks either. You and I can argue on the issues.

If you don't understand what I mean by "only in outline" then challenge me. As for "groundless assertions," those are your words. I do accept the Objectivist ethics, and Rand's theory of concepts which underlies her metaphysics and ethics. I differ with her on my understanding of human nature, which I view from a background informed by an understanding of evolutionary biology and comparative anthropology, areas about which she either admitted or showed her own personal lack of knowledge. [I have no desire to criticize her for a lack of omniscience - only to point out that there are objective facts and scientific data that can inform our discussion of human nature and thus human values and ethics.]

Any two sentence attack on me on this list is guaranteed to get the approval of the usual suspects who rarely contribute much of their own. I don't think that's what you want this list to be. I understand Objectivism as a system, and my own views are an integrated system which I can expound at any length you wish to explore. I do understand the difference between puritanism - taking pride in passing judgment on others who's activity is consensual and frankly none of yours or my business - and principled self-interest.

This thread was started with the question as to whether professional gambling could be an ethical pursuit. It was answered with a reference to the trader principle which is not an ethical primary, and which therefore does not decisively answer the question. Then the question was narrowed by Kurt to eliminate the possibility of equally matched players who enjoy themselves and limited to "suckers" (post 17) and "not as entertainment" (post 39).

Well, well. If the question is whether miserable players who seek out suckers and neither derive nor provide enjoyment from their skill are ethical, then I would say anyone who does a job he doesn't like making money off people whose irrationality he has to count on is immoral, whether he plays poker, sells telephone service, writes for an audience, or does absolutely anything for a living. The question never really had anything to do with poker.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/13, 12:44pm)

Post 43

Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 3:13pm

Ted,

I'm actually in agreement with Jon Tager on the other thread. Yes, you don't use the word Randroid, but that doesn't make a difference. As I said here, you use insults like "Never Mind the War, Johnny, Just Repeat Your Mantras". When someone disagrees with you, it's always because they're mindlessly following Rand. And of course, later you reject anyone who is against taxation as damning the facts, living in a fantasy world, and simply taking Rand's words as some magical truth when she didn't even prove her statement (which she did, despite your repeated ignorant statements).

And more importantly, I agree with Jon Tager's point that you don't understand Objectivism. It would be difficult to formulate a complete list given how frequent you get things wrong.. And now here, on this thread, you say:

Objectivist moral theory exists only in outline, with a lopsided emphasis on virtues, and a tacit assumption that Rand's or one's own conventional values are self evidently rational.

Here you go on to suggest Objectivist ethics is merely a rationalization for Rand's own "conventional" values. Again you substitute your own ignorance and lack of understanding in order to dismiss Objectivist arguments. And worse, you expect me to pretend your ignorance is really a deep understanding, and challenge you on it. There's nothing to challenge. This statement of yours is blatantly false. Sure, I could try to argue with you over whether the emphasis on virtues is really "lopsided". I don't think it is. But that's the least of the problems here. This is an outright attempt to dismiss Objectivist ethics as a rationalization, all so you can ignore the principles involved.

I'll repeat what I said before:

This is a large reason why we disagree on so many topics. Instead of understanding the principles of Objectivism, you treat them as groundless assertions, to be taken or left without consequence.

In this case, you dismiss Objectivist ethics entirely, and the trader principle in particular. In a previous case, you dismissed the arguments against taxation. Each time you treat the principles involved as groundless assertions by Rand, evidently supporting her "conventional values" but allegedly without content. And that makes you feel like you can simply dismiss anything as unsupported or inconclusive or "does not decisively answer the question" (as if anyone said it did).

You'd rather I argue ideas, but the whole point is that you don't bother arguing ideas. You just posit the view that Objectivist ideas are groundless and unproven and therefore you don't need to take them seriously. I'm not simply arguing that your ideas are wrong (they are). I'm arguing that your methodology is corrupt through and through. The "psychologizing" that I've done is to assume you follow this methodology out of pure ignorance and lack of understanding of Objectivism. But I suppose willful evasion is another possibility.

Post 44

Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 11:12pm

Joe, this is a continuing smear. Before, you accused me, based on your suspicions, but without hard evidence, of being a crypto-theist. Now you assert my ignorance of Objectivism, yet adduce no evidence, leaving me to prove a negative. Should I even address this arbitrary and admittedly evidenceless attack? (Since I apparently don't understand Objectivism, I will.)

You admit I do not use the word Randroid, but complain that I did, in one post, talk about people repeating mantras. Well, yes. I do happen to believe that certain people hold frozen abstractions and rationalistic and intrinsicist views, and repeat catchphrases out of context, in effect, as articles of faith. I do believe that far too many people believe that a familiarity with Objectivism makes them an expert on everything. This very accusation of absolutism or intrinsicism or rationalism is being raised against Dennis Hardin now on another thread to the point where someone has predicted any facts provided him will bounce off. Are his accusers as guilty as I in your eyes? Is it only bad when I criticize? Or only when I criticize an argument to which you are party?

Again, please stick to the objective or demonstrable facts and the topic at hand. If you think I deny the Objectivist ethics by saying that "Objectivist moral theory exists only in outline, with a lopsided emphasis on virtues, and a tacit assumption that Rand's or one's own conventional values are self evidently rational," then ask me whether I reject Rand's outline. I don't. I would have qualified that sentence by adding "by some" after the word assumption, had you asked.

Don't waste my time or yours or our readers with your impressions of my internal mental states which are unavailable to you. Would it be appropriate for me to adduce that because you repeatedly misspelled Jon Trager's name in the last post, that you are a sloppy emotionalist, are posting in a rage, are a careless reader, or are unaware of the principles of spelling? Of course not. This thread was about a specific issue, an issue which I addressed. You happen to disagree with me here. So you respond like a disgruntled spouse in a losing argument, changing the topic from the specifics at hand to my general supposed vices and supposed past offenses. If they were offenses then, you had the option of addressing them then. If you truly question my understanding of Objectivism, design a quiz and I will take it.

Don't mischaracterize my view on taxes. I agree exactly with Rand, that taxation should be voluntary, but that this is the last step in a cultural revolution which will have to progress from philosophers to economists and political scientists to mainstream attitudes, to political change, to the removal of all improper government functions, and then a transition to some not yet fully outlined method of government. Surely anyone who knows anything about Objectivism must agree with my position?

Neither do I, as you imply, dismiss the essential basics of the Objectivist ethics, the meta-ethical argument, or the virtues. I said Rand provided an outline because that is what she did. Like the plan of a building, she showed the essential foundation and the necessary elements, but she did not provide us with detailed instructions on how to furnish the building. (FYI, the first Rand book I ever read was The Virtue of Selfishness. It was the essay the Objectivist Ethics which converted me to Objectivism and atheism in one week's contemplation.) Rand argued that the basis of valuation is the organisms' need to further its contingent existence. Certain values are absolute relative to life. But most value choices for humans not living in a dictatorship or a hunter-gather lifestyle are optional. I assert that poker playing as a profession is optional, and that enough evidence exists to belive that certain people have a constitution which makes them potentially good and happy gamblers. (And, although I'm a suspect bisexual and happen to think a happy woman might hold the office of President, I absolutely hate gambling myself - isn't that weird?)

I do plead guilty to writing strongly phrased arguments and having strong convictions. I do write in the most provocative manner I can, as did Rand. I do sometimes use words such as "aesthetic" in a non-Objectivist sense in order to express my beliefs where I find that a new concept or a different usage of a concept is helpful, for which, see above. But I don't deliberately obfuscate. I have to understand Rand in order to know where I do disagree with her. And I explain what I mean when asked, retract mistakes when made, give sources when requested, and contribute more positive content to this site than any other currently active member.

So, even if I say something with which you disagree, take offence, or which you think implies heresy, there is no need for differences to turn directly into denunciations. You certainly have the power to ban me for abuse of the term mantra. But you also have the power to engage on the issues, not suspicions and sensitivities. Do what ever you see best, but stop expecting me to defend myself from false and unspecified or irrelevant personal accusations every time you feel yourself or more specifically your arguments on the opposite side of my rhetorical flourishes.

Ted Keer

Post 45

Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 12:20am

Ted, my initial criticism was specific. When Objectivist principles become inconvenient for your existing beliefs, you dismiss them as groundless assertions. Do you really deny this? Do you deny jumping from thread to thread saying that Rand's argument against taxation was written in the margins, without proof? Do you deny dismissing the trader principle in this thread?

Your lack of understanding of Objectivism, coupled with your insults towards anyone who actually uses Objectivist principles in a discussion, are just part of the larger pattern. In every case, you dismiss Objectivist ideas as unsupported and argue that anyone who takes them seriously is simply repeating mantras. Your approach is to not deal with ideas, but to pretend the ideas are groundless and only fools would believe them. In this thread, I explained how the trader principle applies, and how it highlights costs to professional gambling. Instead of arguing against this, you simply dismissed the trader principle and Objectivist ethics as a mere "outline". There was no argument on your behalf. Just a quick dismissal, and a statement that Objectivism is too vague to provide any insight. Conveniently, that lets you ignore any insights Objectivism might have on the topic. Instead of dealing with my arguments, you just claimed that Objectivism is too vague or devoid of meaning to have anything to say on this topic. And to show your commitment to Objectivism, you dismiss the whole ethical outline as being a rationalization for Rand's conventional values.

And this just fits your pattern of not dealing with arguments. And you're willing to dismiss any idea within the philosophy of Objectivism in the process.

And having read your posts on taxation, I can't possibly see how you can say you're in agreement with Rand. You dismissed her comments as "only five paragraphs" and written in the "margins" without proof. And I'm sure you said that taxation wasn't theft, and that was a stolen concept or something. This nonsense about it being the last cultural step was just another smoke-screen not to have to deal with the arguments. Instead of admitting that taxation is an initiation of force, or successfully arguing against it, you simply ask that we don't discuss the topic until the far future. It's just another dismissal.

Your pattern is clear. You avoid real arguments through a variety of means. Why would you think, after all of that, that I would be interested in having a real discussion with you? Or that I would ever think that such a discussion was going to be concerned with addressing ideas?

Is this a smear? Maybe, if the truth can be counted as a smear. But it's funny that someone so willing to smear others suddenly thinks it's wrong to get personal. You don't need to defend yourself. Frankly, I'm not interested in your repeated assertions (without evidence) that you really do understand Objectivism. If you want me to take you seriously, then stop this obvious pattern. Deal with real arguments. Quit dismissing Objectivism as if none of its arguments or ideas are meaningful. Quit responding to Objectivist arguments by suggesting the arguer is a mindless follower of Rand. Quit the evasions.

Post 46

Monday, December 17, 2007 - 10:36am

Ted,

I�m not interested in raking you over the coals but, as a friendly acquaintance of yours, I am interested in keeping you honest (for the non-threatening purpose of personal growth). With this aim of mine in mind, it appears that you were being too bold/brazen when you wrote:

I challenged him to google "randroid ted keer" and see if I ever used the term �

Here are the results of a google search of �randroid ted keer�:

Princess Di, Gays and Group-think | SOLO - Sense of Life Objectivists

Submitted by Ted Keer on Thu, 2007-02-01 06:56. "Is poetic licence inapplicable to ..... Cards on the table, Linz... and faster than you can say "Randroid." ...
www.solopassion.com/node/2102 - 179k - Cached - Similar pages

The Non-Partisan Passion of JARS | SOLO - Sense of Life Objectivists

Submitted by Ted Keer on Thu, 2006-11-23 21:33. ...... in what *I*'m being accused of as being a (b)randroid/lier/Rand-Worshipper/Rand-Hater [pick one]", ...
www.solopassion.com/node/844 - 175k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.solopassion.com ]

RoR: Forum

Google "ted keer randroid" and list the results here. I also invite you to provide one plausible example where I show my ignorance of, rather than my ...
rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/1139_1.shtml - 110k - Cached - Similar pages

RoR: Forum

Ted Keer, 03 November 2006, NYC Thanks for the correction Hong. ... That a Randroid like Peter Schwartz favors them is no surprise. ...
rebirthofreason.com/Forum/NewsDiscussions/1554.shtml - 94k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from rebirthofreason.com ]

RoR: Forum

Ted image, Hell, detail, Hieronymus Bosch (Edited by Ted Keer on 11/01, 10:13pm) (Edited by Ted Keer .... as obnoxious as the worst Randroid at ARI or TIA. ...
solohq.org/Forum/NewsDiscussions/1550_1.shtml - 58k - Cached - Similar pages

RoR: Forum

Ted Keer eke: ... how odd it was to hear Mary-Lou Retton being praised in an article .... All were interesting people; no 'Randroids' there

that I noticed. ...
solohq.org/Forum/GeneralForum/1073_1.shtml

In light of these findings, my honest and un-offensive question is: Do any of these 6 hits contradict your defensive posture on this matter?

p.s. I haven�t checked them out personally, because I didn�t especially value that kind of scrutiny regarding your claims.

Post 47

Monday, December 17, 2007 - 6:46pm

Well, I found thirty hits--if you search for the words without quotation marks. It's easy in Firefox to search each page for a term, just hit Ctrl+F or / and cycle through the results by tapping F3. I did this for all thirty, and my findings back up Ted's claim.

Post 48

Monday, December 17, 2007 - 6:54pm

"I did this for all thirty, and my findings back up Ted's claim." [Mike]

I checked three of Ed's. All were authored by someone else.

Post 49

Monday, December 17, 2007 - 7:18pm

My Heroes!

Thanks, gentlemen, for defending my honor - and shame on you Ed for not doing what I did, and using the "find in page" function to see that any positive search results were in lists where my posts happened to be side by side with someone else's use of that term.

One of the benefits of knowing what you believe is not having to keep track of what you say.

As for the overall issue, I would refer people back to my essay "Our Inner Puritan" which fairly presents my moderate views on professional poker players. I think Joe's culling of that one quote on "Rand's ethics as outline" stands in fine stead when placed in its original context.

Ted Keer

Post 50

Monday, December 17, 2007 - 9:47pm

" ... and shame on you Ed for not doing what I did ... "

Ted, I'm not sure if you're kidding here, but you are shaming me for not sharing one of your values. And, of all recently-active contributors to this online forum, that kind of a reaction -- coming from you -- would be the most hypocritical.

Again, if you're kidding then it's just "water under the bridge."

Ed

Post 51

Monday, December 17, 2007 - 10:07pm

Innocence Proves Guilt?

Ed, I did the same google search before I posted my denial of Trager's defamatory claim and looked at the results. The results vindicate my claim! You published damning prima facie evidence, which, upon the most cursory examination (which you proudly refused to do) would have exonerated me!

Read your own posted links. They refer to web pages on which I posted where other people happened to use the expletive.

My God, man, this is Kafka cubed!

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/17, 10:11pm)

Post 52

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 8:06am

My "defamatory claim" was NOT limited to the notion that Ted had called people "randroids" (and I'm sorry that anyone actually followed up on that red herring). My claim was that, as Joe Rowlands has pointed out on this thread, Ted has a pattern of accusing people of blindly following Ayn Rand when his own beliefs inconveniently conflict with her explicitly stated ideas (he seems much more of a conservative than an Objectivist to me). And that claim still stands uncontested.

Post 53

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 9:34am

I have to say I never expected my question to somehow generate this conflict... Odd

Post 54

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 12:59pm

I assume my arguments stand on their own. Mr Trager's bald and arbitrary (i.e., evidenceless) assertions of my ignorance and his false accusation of my using a term I don't also speak for themselves. (He's outraged, so it must be true!) It's funny how a thread about the ethics of professional poker playing becomes an object lesson in how easy it is for even self-identified Objectivists to revert to emotionalism, ad hominem, and the arbitrary.

I'm going to mark this thread read.

Ted Keer

Post 55

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 1:10pm

Ted,

As I said before, I don't value following the evidence where it leads regarding this issue. I merely -- and transparently -- posted admittedly-preliminary results and asked you for an answer to a question. Now here's the kicker to it all: Do you know why I merely asked you -- instead of critically investigating into this matter?

It's because I was trusting in you to simply and honestly answer.

;-)

Ed

Post 56

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 1:29pm