Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > General Gambling > Psychology

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-11-2005, 01:12 AM
RocketManJames RocketManJames is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 118
Default Equivalent EV, Different Streakiness

Hypothetical question I thought about for a bit tonight. Currently, poker is a game where you typically piss away chips slowly, and every so often you win a pot or two that basically jumps you right back up. So, assuming you're a winning player, you will bleed chips and get sudden bursts where you win lots of chips.

What if poker were such that your EV would be exactly the same, except you'd be winning chips very slowly, and every so often you would suddenly lose a large amount. I understand that the game would have to take on some funky rules or a different betting structure to accomplish this.

But, my main question is... how would this change the game? Would poker become more lucrative, since most of the time people end up small winners, and every so often they get slammed for a lot of money? How would this affect most players psychologically?

-RMJ
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-11-2005, 07:54 AM
BOTW BOTW is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6
Default Re: Equivalent EV, Different Streakiness

Try playing the lowest limit at your local card room, then come back: I've lost serious amounts without feeling like I'm pissing it away at that stupid game...(j/k)

As to your question, Poker would suck. Why do people play the lotto? A few bucks to win a ton--that's why our favorite opponents chase.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-11-2005, 01:51 PM
meow_meow meow_meow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 180
Default Re: Equivalent EV, Different Streakiness

Nobody would play.

Especially not the fish.

Very -EV relative to real poker.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-11-2005, 06:30 PM
Orpheus Orpheus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 178
Default Re: Equivalent EV, Different Streakiness

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".
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-11-2005, 06:48 PM
RocketManJames RocketManJames is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 118
Default Re: Equivalent EV, Different Streakiness

I agree with your view on this. This is more or less my position on this subject after some thought. There are many analogous situations in life, just as you described.

Also, with regards to fish... I believe it's a lot easier to get hooked on a game, when you win. There would be more fish, and not fewer, if you win most of the time. Most beginners would simply win a small amount, and one guy would be the big loser at the table.

Say a typical poker game today has 10 players. One, maybe two, of them will finish up for the night. The rest will have lost the balance, which covers them and the rake. In the new game, we'd have 8 (much smaller) winners, and 2 large losers.

I don't think it's obviously bad for poker, as the first two responses suggested.

-RMJ
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.