A theoretical problem with online poker...

k_squared · #1 02-18-2005, 06:24 PM

One thing that is apparent to me about online poker is that it is significantly harder to fool ourself into thinking you are a winning player. You see your money going up and down and up and then down again in your account...

Do you think this has a negative affect on keeping fish in the game? It seems to me that one of the points Mason loves to write about is that a good poker game has a balance of luck and skill. It seems to me the reason that a balnace is necessary is because it allows bad players to have the misconception that they are good players because they lose gradually enough to nt really have a sense that they are losing and win enough to think they just might be ahead, or that it is just a bad run of cards that has kept them down.

Online it seems more difficult to have this misconception simply because your account clearly shows you your overall status.

I guess a lot of people are constantly withdrawing money from their accounts and redepositing, but this still seems to present a significant problem to keeping fish happy! How can we keep bad players from realizing they are losing money?

Discuss....

I hope the fishing stays good,
-k_squared

KingDan · #2 02-18-2005, 06:56 PM

So many fish believe online poker is rigged, so they can still attribute it to things other than their play.

johnnybeef · #3 02-18-2005, 08:51 PM

it is the same as live play. many players can be fooled by a good run of short term luck which leads them to believe that they are winning players, when in fact they are not. once they have this run, they will believe that all bad streaks are due to bad luck. furthermore, there are millions of people who go to casinos each year even though they know that they are a heavy favorite to lose, yet they continue to do so.

GrekeHaus · #4 02-18-2005, 09:11 PM

I've also been told (though I've never had the opportunity to experience it) that Party Poker offers more bonuses to people who don't have money left in their accounts. The fish will routinely come back for that too. They'll justify their bad streaks as bad luck and then justify buying in for more because things need to "break even", plus they'll be getting more money just for cashing in.

bilyin · #5 02-18-2005, 11:07 PM

It is not a theoretical problem, it is real.
The game will get tougher once the market gets fully penetrated.

Smasharoo · #6 02-18-2005, 11:50 PM

It is not a theoretical problem, it is real.
The game will get tougher once the market gets fully penetrated.

Right. That's why the games are so tough in Vegas.

Chris Dow · #7 02-19-2005, 01:28 PM

All of the silly 2+2 brainiacs assuming everyone plays for money. Remember folks there are people out there who just enjoy gambling and truly believe that their results at the table are based primarily on luck. They don't expect to be able to win in any sort of consistent manner so a few excuses (which are oh so easy to find) more than make up for having to deposit more frequently. Remember, pretty much any player will go on a rush at some point and he's not very likely to forget his moment of glory.

elmitchbo · #8 02-19-2005, 11:39 PM

i agree. people here at this site don't view poker or gambling the way most 'normal' people do. i've made this argument before , but it seems worthy of repeating here. most of the people here are reasonably intelligent, self-disciplined, and somewhat risk averse. that's why we gravitate to poker... it is a game that you can actually win, given the right amount of study and self control. very few people here would even consider throwing money at a roulette table. however, millions of other people do.

the best piece of anecdotal evidence is a friend of mine. he loves poker and blackjack. he's terrible at both, and that's ok with him. for him the results are almost irrelevant. it's all about the action, whether he wins or loses. he's not an addict(although many people with simlar tendencies are), he just enjoys it. he works within a bankroll he can afford, and he thinks about the way you or i would think about buying a case of beer. he feels the expense is justfied given the satisfaction he gets fom playing. no one here thinks about poker that way, and that's why these conversations keep popping up. the fish will be around for a long, long time. hopefully long enough for me to build a bankroll and get out of micro games.

PokerFink · #9 02-20-2005, 06:28 AM

he works within a bankroll he can afford, and he thinks about the way you or i would think about buying a case of beer. he feels the expense is justfied given the satisfaction he gets fom playing.

I think that's a phenominal analogy.

There are several reasons why online is tougher than live at equal stakes. I think one of them is that it is tougher to trick yourself into thinking you are a winning player, or "about even." However, I don't think this will ever stop the fish from playing.

I think the entertainment factor is what brings most fish in. It's also why live games are fishier, because there is far more entertainment playing drunk in a casino with your buddies than clicking online.

cowboyzfan · #10 02-20-2005, 12:36 AM

yes, that is the answer. The games are good because poker is popular, most people view it as entertainment. Sure it is like golf in a way in that the average player sucks but thinks he is good; but deep down they are there for the fun of it.

Just think if poker had no element of fun at all. Would even 2+2 types be working so hard at it? The amount of time, energy, and talent it takes to become a true winner could easily be used to make more money in another pursuit.