Poker is good for you

Con brings up some understandable and common objections to poker. R1(A): I actually agree with Con that gambling is rarely a good idea. However, there are clear differences between a game like Poker and a game like Roulette, which is always negative expected value. Poker involves much more skill than gambling, and you can find players online who have very consistent winnings. This would never happen in a game where the odds were skewed against you, and in such a game you would never show long term winnings. Online player Nanonoko is proof that poker winnings can be steady and long term. http://www.pokertableratings.com... Con also brings up the point about losing money, and there is certainly some validity to this. However, the money that you play with should not be enough that if you lost it would crush you financially. It is extremely common knowledge that a form of bankroll management needs to be used by any successful poker player. Regardless of how good you are, you will experience downswings and this demands a "cushion" in any bankroll. If a certain player loses a certain number of buy ins (these bankroll management numbers are usually represented in buy ins in NL/PL games and big bets (BB) in FL games) he moves down stakes. When talking about "losing money" we have to understand that it's relative because a loss of a few thousands might be detrimental to one player while to a multi-millionaire it is negligible financially. Additionally, there will be winners and losers in every poker game and this would imply a balancing out effect. (B) Con suggests the risk of poker addiction, and this certainly does occur. However, there are potential addiction issues from something as innocuous as eating to exercise to video games. Given that there is the potential for abuse in a number of activities, is this criteria really meaningful in labeling something as "bad?" -------------- C1: The fact that poker helps with memory should be very self-evident, especially in Stud. You simply need to have a good memory to be a good Stud player, and it takes practice to memorize the cards in terms of number and suit that have been seen. Memory, just like any other muscle, has the "use it or lose it" concept [1]. It is crucial that a new Stud player learn to memorize the seen cards if he wants to advance his game and gain on edge on the opposition. It's structured similar to other memory games and uses the same muscles. C2: Certainly. Any poker player who has played a large amount of hands knows that short term fluctuations in profit will be inevitable. Any poker player who gets exceeding caught up in the short term will never be successful because making correct decisions is done by viewing decisions in terms of their long term expected value. For example sometimes it's fine to go "all in" on certain draws, like a flush draw, even though it's like 2:1 against to hit if you're getting the right price to do it. C3: It appears Con has conceded this point and reiterates one of his objections so I will be moving on. C4: This argument is obviously valid for anyone who has played a substantial amount of poker. The math can sometimes he quite difficult, and you generally need to calculate a few things when in a hand: Your equity (often versus a range of hands your opponent might have), the price you're being laid by the money on the table, and the more abstract "implied odds" which help you get an idea of how much you can earn if your hand "hits." I never claimed that poker was calculus, but it can certainly keep the mind sharp and in some cases the math can be quite challenging for us non-math geniuses. Moreover, we have to be very careful what we count as a "good" card when deciding which cards help us and often must make several calculations against our opponent's possible holdings. C5: You seem to concede this point, but note it's lack of speciality. This is an entirely fair point, but you do the same thing when you claim that poker can lead to addiction. I'm a little confused since this is the first time you use this line of argument and seem to apply it very selectively here. Conclusion: The "losing money" part Con brings up is a little dubious since it can be balanced by a "winning money" part on the other side of the equation. There will be winners and losers in every game, and it would be disingenuous to consider the winners as less deserving than the losers. It would appear these two events would balance each other out. Con brings up the idea of viewing it in terms of cost/benefit which I agree with. In my view, the critical thinking skills (especially in risk management) encouraged by poker outweigh the net costs in that they provide you with life skills that can be applied to many other fields particularly business, stocks, and personal relationships. [1] http://www.helpguide.org...