[Orpheus]

I disagree with the previous posters. We have many examples in ordinary life of behaviors where steady modest benefits are punctuated by occassional heavy, even tragic, costs: drunk driving, risky investments, unsafe sex, tax gimmicks, shortsighted corporate policies, chronic criminals, etc. I don't mean to choose pejorative examples. It's VERY common.

It happens in gambling, too: how many people consider martingales "pretty safe" and discount their losses as bad luck? Many skilled table pros (vs. Tourney) make steady profits, but take huge hits. Many have repeatedly gone broke, and need to be staked. Still, though they lack many of the benefits of other employment, they stick with the game through cycle after cycle of busting out. I'm not saying that they're wrong (they may have nice houses and investments despite their temporary loss of liquidity); I'm just saying that these pros experience *exactly* the pattern you describe, over a longer time scale -- and pros think of the game on a longer timescale, anyway.

Would poker "suck" if the win/loss pattern were reversed? Many current players, who like it the way it is would scream YES! Others would probably simply adapt. Many people who do not care much for poker as it stands might find themselves better suited for it. Certainly the pros would stick with it

Personally, I think that the "new' pattern you suggest would have a LOT to recommend it. I would prefer it on a purely rational basis. I think anyone playing a solid unemotional game would prefer to take home a profit nearly ever session at, say, twice the +EV you deserve --only to have the extra "undeserved profits" yanked back periodically-- as opposed to a spiky game where you are usually waiting for for a big jackpot to bring you even or above where you should be.

In other words: would you prefer the dollars from game streakiness to "live" in your bankroll until recalled by a big loss, or would you prefer those bucks live "out around the table" until you can finally claim them?

I can't think of a single reason why I wouldn't rather have the extra bucks live in my pocket, in the long run. Most of our financial industries (e.g. life insurance, banking, bonds, etc.) are built on holding/using other people's money until you have to give it back to them at a net +EV (but collect a net +EV yourself, too). It seems a cozier life than a business (e.g. small independents, like restauranteurs or oil wildcatters) that usually experience many modest losses/failures before they "hit it big".