Note on Subjectivity

The problem of whether or not an alleged profession is or isn't valuable to a society falls victim to the problem of subjectivity. Who is to say what is or isn't valueable? It is the very problem of economics, which is ultimately the quest for an objective value measurement mechanism (that is stable over a very long period of time) that causes our grief in regard to defining the value of poker to our society.

Because we cannot properly objectively measure value, we cannot properly, or at least directly, answer the question of whether poker is valuable (moral) or detrimental (immoral) to our general society.

Note on Intrinsic Value

It is often asked, especially for commodities such as gold and bitcoin (that perhaps serve as some form of an inflation hedge), whether or not there is an intrinsic value to such things:

in·trin·sic
adjective: intrinsic

belonging naturally; essential.

Value, being inherently subjective, has the implication that there can be no thing said to be intrinsically valuable. Instead it is the relationship with OUR (the aggregate of our individual) wants and desires/intents that make something valuable or not valuable.

Ideally Defining Value

If we can think of a value measurement mechanism that is stable over time, or in other words money that is free from inflationary decadence, or “Ideal Money”, and if we can think about an optimized society that pays people in accordance to how they could optimally serve society, we might simply measure the value of poker based on the income a professional player makes.

We haven't yet achieved such a technological marvel.

(Rich) Philanthropy in Exchange for Entertainment

It could be said in certain circumstances that rich philanthropic sorts of people engage in such games as poker (with implied skill involved) such that budding intelligent and creative minds have an excuse to study game theory and probability theory (or any science) with some some significant incentive.

Of course this type of scenario doesn't happen in a game that doesn't pay out (much) to the skilled players). In this sense, the morality, or social value, of the game is tied to the profitability or incentive for intelligent/skilled players.

There could be another circumstance where it is said that money is being filtered, through bells and whistles (that enchant the otherwise unawares), from the ignorant to the wise. This should be altogether seen as moral and helpful to society as well.

Anthropological Studies on Games

It is supposed on the wealthofchips.com that there is some relation between the games that arise specific to a region and the advances in strategy, and that subset society's ability to tackle complex social problems.

The basic conjecture would be that a society strong in game theory is a “free” society, whereas a society weak in game theory is probably not very "free" or "efficient" (of course freedom and therefore efficiency in regard to procuring freedom is also subjective but also solved by the objectivity of the collective of the individuals that make up the general society).