We chat to PokerStars Pro Igor 'lechuckpoker' Kurganov about fame, Super High Rollers and effective altruism.

Igor Kurganov

You rarely did any interviews before joining PokerStars and I remember you (politely) refused to do one with me years ago because you wanted to control your image, what has changed to make you more open to being in the limelight?

lechuckpoker: I didn't like the idea that people I haven't met would have a preconceived belief about me and as there was little upside from being known in the poker media I thought it was -ev to do interviews for me. That changed when we founded reg-charity.org and since then I aimed at sharing more ideas with the poker world. Now as a member of Pokerstars Team Pro I expect interviews and general media involvement to lead to more exchange at the table.

What is it you think a poker ambassador should do and what do you think you bring to the role?

lechuckpoker: There are different roles an ambassador could fill. One important part is aided by deeply knowing the business and player side of the poker world. I believe that I am in a prime position and have a very high ability to communicate between both. Also I am continuously very excited about the game, which I bring to the table and aim to create more entertainment within poker, live and online.

Is managing your image/public persona especially important in the Super High Roller scene, where the player pools are small and obviously any information you give off is amplified?

lechuckpoker: Due to the small pools one's image and reputation spread quickly and are therefore very important. A good reputation happens through peer review rather than media though and therefore managing your reputation is done by being reliable and playing well.

What do you think of the player caps in events like the Super High Roller Bowl, do they work or should their be no caps?

lechuckpoker: Both systems have merits. It's probably good if there are events that cater to all players. That means making open-to-all events, but also restricted and even invitational ones as they serve some player's preferences.

"Charity motivates me to play more"

"Use your public image to raise more"

Given your quite significant work with REG charity, do you think it would be irresponsible NOT to be more of a public person (in other words to inspire others)?

lechuckpoker: I wouldn't call it irresponsible, as it depends on one's abilities/ preferences, but agree that it seems better for most to be more public when aiming at fundraising.

I think that the idea of anonymous donations being of higher moral value is mostly misguided. The people (or animals) on the receiving end of donations don't ask themselves if the donor made it public/got a medal for it or not. What they care about is reducing their suffering which is achieved by more donations rather than less. For the most part being public about donations inspires others to also donate and spreads causes one believes to be especially worthwhile. This increases the impact of ones donation.

I’ve found that players who have been around poker a long time tend to feel jaded because they lack a sense of purpose, do you think charity work is the perfect antidote to that?

lechuckpoker: It has worked for me and for one motivated me to play more and to some degree also satisfied the need to do something for other people than myself. Most of us care more than just about ourselves, we see it for example at Christmas, when seeing your relative being excited about your gift can be better than receiving one. Looking at where this feeling comes from lead me (and would others) to see that we care about family and friends, too, but also about people we don't know to some degree.

Now it happens to be that there are extremely cheap ways of helping and bringing a similar smile as in the Christmas example on the face of many other people by preventing diseases in the developing world. Even a donation of $1 buys a child deworming medicine, $5 delivers a bed net to families in malaria ridden regions and for $3,500 you can save a life in the developing world by donating to the most effective charities, that is someone who also has family and friends that will be happier for it.

"Some charities do more than others"

"Playing more poker makes more sense than volunteer work"

Do you think it is a much better use of your time to play poker to raise money for charity, than it would be to do traditional volunteer work?

lechuckpoker: I used to work in a soup kitchen in Dortmund on weekends. While this certainly helped and motivated me to do more, I can nowadays spend my time more effectively by playing the amount of hours I would have worked there and donating the money earned to the most impactful causes. With that I can achieve an impact multiplier of 10-100x and more.

I am in a special situation and whether this is the best thing to do depends on the hourly one makes and also the skills one has. Mine are currently best used for poker, other people's might be better fit for fundraising or direct aid.

For most players I believe that donating is the most impactful thing they can do due to the very effective opportunities of organisations like AMF or the very high potential of MIRI.

My only real concern with effective altruism is it puts one charity ahead of another. Do you think its right to put charities in a hierarchy like this? (I often wonder if the fact I donate regularly to a dog charity actually makes me a bad person, for example, as I could be helping a human).

lechuckpoker: Yes, I think it is right to put organisations in a hierarchy, especially if we only have limited resources. That doesn't mean at all that some charities are bad (as long as they achieve net benefit for the world), it just means that some do a more effective job than others. If I have $1000 to donate and care about helping the most people or animals with it, it would be sad if I wasn't allowed to find out which organisation creates the most good for the $1000. Some organisations are hundreds of times more effective at helping a cause than others (e.g. for blindness: trachoma surgery vs blind-dogs). I agree with the following quote by Eliezer Yudkowsky:

How very sad, how very hollow the indignation, of those who refuse to say that money and life can ever be compared, when all they're doing is forbidding the strategy that saves the most people, for the sake of pretentious moral grandstanding...

This is to say that in today's world we constantly practically make monetary decisions about lives (safety regulations, hospitals, our own spending, …). It is not to say that X$ describes the ethical worth of a person, it only helps to see if we can help more people for the same amount.

Regarding the dog vs human consideration, I think that people have to decide for themselves what and how much they care about different lives and don't think that there is a right or wrong. Consciousness and the ability to suffer exist in many animals and I think we should help them. To make better decisions I believe that we should look at numbers and what I would recommend asking yourself is to what degree you care more about a human vs a dog, or a dog vs a pig, or a dog vs a chicken. While I am fond of dogs, I do believe that we are speciesist in our behaviour and that for example pigs, who are at least as smart as dogs and more importantly very much able to suffer, deserve as much care as dogs. There are many cheap ways of helping pigs, like vegan outreach and reduction of factory farming.

"Martin Jacobson donated $250k"

Martin Jacobson

How do we get more effective about making other charities more effective?

lechuckpoker: I believe that spreading the methods of organisations like givewell.org aids that process. Getting people to care more about effectiveness when donating and seeing more funds go to organisations that care about effectiveness should increase incentives for other organisations to be effective.

What have been your biggest wins so far for REG charity?

lechuckpoker: The biggest donation to Reg-charity came from Martin Jacobson after he won the Main Event and donated $250k. Personally I donate throughout the year incrementally, independent of wins, a portion of my overall earnings and have comitted to the https://www.givingwhatwecan.org pledge of donating at least 10% of one's earnings per year.

You can learn more about Igor's charitable courses at Reg Charity.

Have you used poker to raise money for charity? Let us know in the comments: