Editor:

I read Jeff Fullmer’s column on gambling (“Moral or immoral, high stakes gambling is a personal choice,” April 7). I have also read past articles of his. I will no longer be reading his articles because he is so misinformed and his articles are so offbeat from the truth that I really feel bad for him.

He is making himself look uneducated. Hey Jeff, there is no debate on the morality of poker. It is what it is, a vice that tears families, incomes, lives and society apart. Your justification for the professional poker players is ridiculous.

Yes, maybe it is tough to make a living in the United States, but I hardly think resorting to poker is the answer.

Undoubtedly, some day in my profession, I will be helping gambling addicts who have fallen for the same addictive powers of gambling and other vices that you are defending in your article.

Yes, people occasionally win a lot of money, but the majority is left not only with no winnings, but also with less than they started with. The reality is that very few win.

Wake up to reality; they never show the broken home, or the man that just lost millions, on the commercials or on ESPN 2.

You may not become an addict by playing one measly game of poker with friends, but then again you just might. Addiction has to start somewhere.

Good for the U for canceling the tournament. Evil is evil no matter what excuses or justifications you wrap it in. Do not call evil good. Choose a better hobby. Choose a better role model than David Williams.

If he’s so smart, you’d think he’d know that the odds are stacked against making a reliable income in gambling.

And don’t pretend to be the modern Robin Hood, excusing poker players because they “take capital away from rich playboys who would waste it anyway.”

Robin Hood was a thief, whether he gave to the poor or not. It is different if you give your own money to the poor.

Bo Buchi

Junior, Psychology