Originally Posted by eberetta1
I got to see the movie. At the end it still seems like he fights inside himself with taking peoples money and contributing to charity enough to make it a respectful profession. We can't all be like Lederer and not have a conscience.
Yes, though I wonder to what degree he doesnt LIKE taking peoples money, I do love his stance on giving back to society - those that have should always give to those that dont in any profession, whether it be money, goods, or time- whenever they can afford it.
Now his argument that they dont already have societal influence - well its a matter of opinion I think - dealers have jobs, tv and internet have something to broadcast, magazines have stuff to write about, poker rooms make money for owners and (in cases like Michigan
and New Hampshire) charities - lots of people make money because of poker, not just the players. The only downside, is that most of the clients of poker will spend money and get absolutely nothing of substantial value from it (no - the experience of playing is not substantial - to me at least) - in fact they even lose more in time and travel, or in online cases time and electricity and internet costs.
My house, my car, my medical expenses, and my food are being paid for by poker players, and not from me playing.