Would Poker Be As Fun If...

[random]

Say I'm making 2bb/100 over a ton of hands. If I could set up a deal for someone to stake me and pay me 1.75bb/100 to play for him, I would. To be fair we could write up a contract that doesn't allow me to drop below something like 1.4 over a certain amount of hands or give me bonuses if I greatly exceed 2bb. And the contract can be renewed every three months or something. I'm pretty sure I would do this, though I haven't given it much thought. I like the money a lot more than I like playing.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone has a long-term win rate N BB's / 100 hands. To those who play for a living or make a not insignificant amount from the game... Would Poker be as fun or as appealing if after every 100 hands you were up exactly what your win rate says you should be up?

Do the swings and uncertainty add to the fun and appeal? Or, are they a necessary evil in this game?

Would you rather have some incredibly huge nights and some incredibly bad ones? Or would you prefer it to be steady, much like the income generated from a "typical" job?

Just curious what you all thought.

-RMJ

[/ QUOTE ]

it would be fun to never run at -20bb/100 over 1000 hands.

it would suck to never fun at 20bb/100 over 1000 hands.

but i love gambling.