Arrogance

[imported_adhoc]

I realize that the anonymity of the internet breeds a sense of security which, for many otherwise civil people, can translate into an opportunity for their latent sarcasm and arrogance to come out and play. However, the tone of many posts on this particular website strikes me as alarmingly self-absorbed. I am sure other people have noticed this, too. I think that the arrogance on display here is not entirely a phenomenon of net culture; it has something to do with the mentality of poker. I am not sure what, though.

What is it that makes poker players so uniquely full of themselves?

[Aaron51_lz]

Poker players need to be confident in their skills to ensure they continue to succeed, especially during cold streaks and bad beats. They need to remeber that they are winning players.

The line between confident and cocky is very thin. Not going over that line is key, but you always need to be realistic of your abilities, being to cocky can cost you money playing at a table/stakes/game that you are not good enough for, while being under-confident can have you playing in smaller stakes when you have been ready to move up.

I thought about this topic last week and was going to make a post but I turned out to be somewhat busy.

[RYL]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker players need to be confident in their skills to ensure they continue to succeed, especially during cold streaks and bad beats. They need to remeber that they are winning players.

The line between confident and cocky is very thin. Not going over that line is key, but you always need to be realistic of your abilities, being to cocky can cost you money playing at a table/stakes/game that you are not good enough for, while being under-confident can have you playing in smaller stakes when you have been ready to move up.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an excellent point.

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
being to cocky can cost you money

[/ QUOTE ]

And friends too.

[Cyrus]

I'll substitute Blackjack for poker in your post:[ QUOTE ]
Blackjack players need to be confident in their skills to ensure they continue to succeed, especially during cold streaks and bad beats. They need to remember that they are winning players.
<font color="white"> . </font>

The line between confident and cocky is very thin. Not going over that line is key, but you always need to be realistic of your abilities, being to cocky can cost you money playing at a table/stakes/game that you are not good enough for, while being under-confident can have you playing in smaller stakes when you have been ready to move up.

[/ QUOTE ]

See?

The factors of bankroll, variance (and bad beats), etc, are also present in Blackjack. But, in general, I have found Blackjack players, both in real life and online, to be more amiable, more easy-going and less arrogant than poker players.

Now, my personal sample is not conclusive, of course, but I go by what Stanford Wong wrote, some years ago, in a thread about differences in the personalities of the two sets of players:

Poker players compete against each other. (The rake is a minor consideration, in casino poker.) This necessitates an aggressive, assertive personality that spills into arrogance, sometimes. On the other hand, Blackjack players compete against "the house", an entity that's impersonal and elusive, in a player's psyche. A Blackjack player does not compete against the other players at the table. This aspect of Blackjack makes Blackjack players comparatively less antagonistic, in general.

[toots]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker players compete against each other. (The rake is a minor consideration, in casino poker.) This necessitates an aggressive, assertive personality that spills into arrogance, sometimes. On the other hand, Blackjack players compete against "the house", an entity that's impersonal and elusive, in a player's psyche. A Blackjack player does not compete against the other players at the table. This aspect of Blackjack makes Blackjack players comparatively less antagonistic, in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which pretty much summarizes why I'm enjoying blackjack more than poker lately, even though I do much better at poker.

Most of the draw of a live table game (to me) is the whole social interaction aspect - goofing with the other players, soaking up the free drinks, teasing the dealers, and just generally making loud noises to usher in the lucky or unlucky cards.

Of course, at a BJ table, you'll often run into the angry drunk who accuses you of "ruining the deck" because you did or didn't hit when he thought you should, but for the most part, there's a lot more cameraderie at a BJ table. In fact, part of the fun is cheering for the other players.

At a BJ table, I often look for the elderly couple who are there to have fun, and who slow the game down by checking a basic strategy cheat-sheet, and who like to talk about their crackpot theories of betting strategies. It just makes it fun.

At a poker table, I almost dread the older folk because they're often angry, dismissive and insulting, and generally upset that you aren't giving them your money.

Actually, and this is where my arrogance shows, one of my favorite things is seeing the young poker player (nearly always identifiable by the "pokah playah" outfit) cooling their jets at the BJ table, not having the slightest clue of how to play.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker players compete against each other. (The rake is a minor consideration, in casino poker.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Judging from some reactions I got, I guess I better clarify that the rake is a minor consideration in casino poker only in the context of the issue discussed (and not when examined as a drain on EV).

I mean to say, the existence of a rake will NOT endow the players at a poker table with any siginificant trait of collegiality or greater social interaction.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker players compete against each other. (The rake is a minor consideration, in casino poker.) This necessitates an aggressive, assertive personality that spills into arrogance, sometimes. On the other hand, Blackjack players compete against "the house", an entity that's impersonal and elusive, in a player's psyche. A Blackjack player does not compete against the other players at the table. This aspect of Blackjack makes Blackjack players comparatively less antagonistic, in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which pretty much summarizes why I'm enjoying blackjack more than poker lately, even though I do much better at poker.

Most of the draw of a live table game (to me) is the whole social interaction aspect - goofing with the other players, soaking up the free drinks, teasing the dealers, and just generally making loud noises to usher in the lucky or unlucky cards.

Of course, at a BJ table, you'll often run into the angry drunk who accuses you of "ruining the deck" because you did or didn't hit when he thought you should, but for the most part, there's a lot more cameraderie at a BJ table. In fact, part of the fun is cheering for the other players.

At a BJ table, I often look for the elderly couple who are there to have fun, and who slow the game down by checking a basic strategy cheat-sheet, and who like to talk about their crackpot theories of betting strategies. It just makes it fun.

At a poker table, I almost dread the older folk because they're often angry, dismissive and insulting, and generally upset that you aren't giving them your money.

Actually, and this is where my arrogance shows, one of my favorite things is seeing the young poker player (nearly always identifiable by the "pokah playah" outfit) cooling their jets at the BJ table, not having the slightest clue of how to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker = Grown men (and some women) acting like babies. Spoiled babies at that.


[ QUOTE ]
Of course, at a BJ table, you'll often run into the angry drunk who accuses you of "ruining the deck" because you did or didn't hit when he thought you should, but for the most part,

[/ QUOTE ]

In regards to BJ, when I used to play/count, I never sat on 3rd base because of some of what you mentioned above. Anywhere but there. It's also the one seat with the most 'spotlight' on it.

b

[wildwood]

Poker is not a team sport. That's part of the answer...maybe. I've played chess for over 40 years, and I've personally seen quite a few (not all) really good chessplayers who couldn't get their head through a doorway. I think it's just the nature of a non-team type competition. I've never seen such verbal degradation of the bad players like I have in poker. (maybe boxing and wrestling, but lots of that is fake) I think it's an attempt to build self-esteem by tearing down the other players and justify getting the money. I try to think about in terms of I get paid for knowledge, execution, and providing entertainment. That's how you give value for the value you get. But who knows, I might be wrong about all of this....fwiw

[toots]

That's an excellent point.

Poker's a zero sum game. Is it so surprising that its fans also view self-esteem as zero sum?