Would Poker Be As Fun If...

[RocketManJames]

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

[Mr. Curious]

How do tournaments fit into your scenario?

I think that it is much easier psychologically to know you will always make N/100 than it is to endure the up and down swings of variance and figure out the N/100 afterwards.

[RocketManJames]

[ QUOTE ]
How do tournaments fit into your scenario?

I think that it is much easier psychologically to know you will always make N/100 than it is to endure the up and down swings of variance and figure out the N/100 afterwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

For now let's just talk about cash games. And, I know that psychologically it's easier to know exactly what you'll be up after short 100 hand sessions.

My question was driving more at... would the "glamour" of poker be there still? Would all these young kids still want to go pro? Would the game be able to keep your attention over the years?

-RMJ

[Nigel]

Poker would be waaaaaaaaay more fun.

[Mr. Curious]

[ QUOTE ]

would the "glamour" of poker be there still?


[/ QUOTE ]
The "glamour" of the big win is what brings the fish to the games. It is the "short term" perspective and not something someone playing for a living thinks about. People who play for a living are focused on the long term. Big wins, like big losses, are just bumps in the road.

[ QUOTE ]

Would all these young kids still want to go pro?


[/ QUOTE ]
No, I don't think there would be as many people trying to go pro, but I think a higher percentage of the ones who did would be able to make it because they would know exactly what they will make, just like a 9 to 5 job.

[ QUOTE ]

Would the game be able to keep your attention over the years?


[/ QUOTE ]
One of the best aspects of poker is that the game is always changing and there are new challenges at every turn. Unless you were stuck playing in the same game with the same people forever, you will always have to improve and adapt in order to survive.

btw - When words like "glamour" are mentioned, it really is an emphasis on the psychological and emotional sides of the game. Perhaps the question you are trying to answer is: Is the current status of poker driving many to try to make it as a pro and if poker falls from the limelight, will those same people still play?

[Victor]

poker would suck.

[Klepton]

poker would be not fun, but it would be awesome in the fact that more hands really means more money

it would be like an hourly job, and then i would play 8 hours a day

[Duke]

If no channels sucked, how would we be able to determine what the cool channels were?

Remove the luck, and you don't have a game anymore.

~D

[Uglyowl]

I was thinking that driving around today if someone said, you make 2/bb per 100 always would that be better. No huge days, no losing days.

I had these thoughts since the last 3 days have been miserable.

[pretender2k]

I have a job that pays me exactly N/hour. There are good nights and bad nights but apparently N/hour is good enough to keep me doing it until N/100 starts to exceed it.