Why Poker?

[7ontheline]

Nothing too different to add to this thread here.

I'm smart, I like games. Games where I can make money >>> Games for free. I'm a doctor, so the day job earning potential is way too high to consider poker anything more than a hobby. Oh, and I'm Asian, so I'm a degenerate gambler. (I kid, I kid.)

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm smart, I like games. Games where I can make money >>> Games for free.

[/ QUOTE ]

You win the award for best concise answer . . .

[pheasant tail (no 18)]

The short answer to the question is:

Home poker (80 hours a year)--85% fun/competition/comradery--15% money

B&M (20 hours)--50% fun/obsession/social interaction--50% money

Online (20 hours)--85% money--15% obsession.

Long answer:

I started playing in fairly high stakes home games back east (win or lose $200--$1000 an evening). Though I beat those games fairly significantly, they only occurred only a few times a month so it wasn't significant income. Winning was important, but it was so fun. The energy that gambling generates amonst a bunch of guys is really a blast combined w/ the complexities of poker. The comeradery can be really cool in a game where no tools are invited. Since the games were only so often, the losers could usually afford to stay since they didn't go broke. In public card rooms and on-line, the losers primary purpose is to feed the games and not many can afford to do it over a long period of constant play. Most of us would rather have a total donk who is not so fun sit down than a great guy who wins. That says a lot. In a home game, you don't even invite the a$$hole. The games that I fly back to are full of bad players who are really glad that I come so far to take their money. Also, in home settings, it is always more fun to beat the good players and leave the weakies alone as much as possible since you know that you are going to get their money anyway (eg. bet $150 against a strong player on 7th st. whereas only $40 for the weakie). It may not seem right, but the health of a game can depend on it.

Then I moved west and there are cardrooms here and I began to play limit HE. Now there were some tools but I made it out often since I didn't know anybody and the comeradery was still nice. Now the game was much tougher, as what we would call fish usually had several years experience, and I was a stud player who had never had to contend w/ rake. The friendship is not as good, but the shared energy that action provides is still exciting. As I was realizing that I couldn't beat 4/8 HE it became more competitive and the intricacies of the game consumed me. I, after about 6 months, finally became a consistant winner at 4/8 B&M HE and started to play 10/20 only to find that it is easier to overcome the rake and began to build a bankroll and make a meager living since there is no job in the west (or East)that I want (I had savings that got me through to that point). Now it is %50 money and %50 fun/comradery/obsessed w/ game.

Then a bunch of unexpected expenses came and my >$10,000 bankroll dropped to below $4k when the holidays were approaching and I really started to run terrible. When I was down to $2500, I deposited $500 on-line just in case I needed an out.

I promptly lost the last $1200 (post holliday $) of my money (still had $500 cash for bills) after the new year and started to play on-line with my $500 seed that I deposited and didn't really touch. Now poker is %99 about money, well %85 money and %15 obsession. I have done very well so far and have accumulated a 10/20 (6-max) bankroll, even after withdrawling over $15K from my $500 seed money. Thank god for on-line poker. But it feels like pulling teeth to sit here for over 3 hours at one sitting. Frazzled. Playing against PDubb777 and Jdog23 will never seem like plaing w/ Craig and Ed.

Despite the fact that my win rate is far superior online, I still play over 20 hours B&M so that it will stay fun and I can enjoy the action w/ others and I fly back east twice a year when a big game is scheduled so that I can play w/ people whos money seems so much more valuable to win--no bad beat stories, just dramatic slow rolls and pitchers of beer.

I'm not especially good but the games are. I am quite unambitious though so it has worked for me. I presume that many of you will be able to do better w/ a career since many on these boards are freaking smart and might be able to find that poker is really fun if you actually play w/ other people and don't need the money (I do, of course). Action is a drug and it is certainly more fun to do drugs w/ others, especially when you make some extra cash in the meantime. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[stripsqueez]

i love backgammon - never been really good at it but i have spent enough time doing it to be good - about 2 years ago i went through a sustained bout of playing backgammon on-line - probably 2 hours a day for 6 months or so - i eventually stopped and part of the reason was that i probably cant beat the computer and i figured it wasnt much use playing on-line if my opponents could simply download some stuff and beat me - i'm not sure but i imagine that the best in the world at backgammon would struggle to beat the computer and if they could it would only be a tiny edge - it definately detracts from a sense of achievement for me if the game can be reduced to something a computer can do almost as well as it can be done - i still play every couple of weeks but only live

i have seen several bridge programs and i'm confident that an expert bridge player still holds a big advantage - i doubt that a computer can yet hurt an expert poker player

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[wildwood]

[ QUOTE ]
i love backgammon - never been really good at it but i have spent enough time doing it to be good - about 2 years ago i went through a sustained bout of playing backgammon on-line - probably 2 hours a day for 6 months or so - i eventually stopped and part of the reason was that i probably cant beat the computer and i figured it wasnt much use playing on-line if my opponents could simply download some stuff and beat me - i'm not sure but i imagine that the best in the world at backgammon would struggle to beat the computer and if they could it would only be a tiny edge - it definately detracts from a sense of achievement for me if the game can be reduced to something a computer can do almost as well as it can be done - i still play every couple of weeks but only live

i have seen several bridge programs and i'm confident that an expert bridge player still holds a big advantage - i doubt that a computer can yet hurt an expert poker player

[/ QUOTE ]
Very interesting. I don't play bridge and have played a little backgammon. I've been playing chess for about 40 years. My USCF rating is 2040 (expert). When chess computer programs first started coming out, they were ridiculously easy to beat. Then a decade later, they became much tougher as programmers developed better algorithms for openings, middle and end games. Also computing power grew exponentially. But I could still beat them most of the time. Now another decade later, the best computer chess games play grandmaster strength and are extremely difficult to beat if I can beat them at all. In professional chess, adjourned games are nonexistent now because of the threat of someone using a computer to analyse their adjourned position. With poker being so popular and widespread now, I surmise there must be many hundreds of programmers working on software to beat online games because there is just too much money to be made. I have a feeling this may eventually be the death of online poker, but it may take a decade or two. Live games will probably do fine. fwiw

[sthief09]

it used to be sim fantasy sports leagues for me. I'd dominate pretty much every league I was in and I was in a lot of them. I liked the competition and there's a lot of strategy to the sim leagues. I kidn of grew out of those. one year I built a stacked team and picked up Coors Field and Barry Bonds hit 102 homers. good times.

but I just need the competition and the strategy, and I felt like from the minute I started playing that I had a head for it. my friend was decent and we'd play dealer's choice and he'd help us with some basic strategy and I was picking everything up really fast. so I was obsessed from the start.

but I tend to agree with Jeff. ego fucks everything up

[Alobar]

Sadly, I only play because it pays my bills, and keeps me from having to work some crappy job (i.e. anything with a schedule and somone to answer to). When I first started playing I actually enjoyed it, it was competitive, you had to use your brain, and it was a game. 3 things I love. Somewhere along the way I lost that "fire" and honestly I don't think I've enjoyed playing poker for a while now, which I think has contributed to my horrible running as of late, I'm just not playing my best game, because I just don't care that much anymore.

When I get back from the WSOP (which is looking very much like it will be sunday, since I finished day one really short stacked) I think I'm gunna take a couple days and figure out if I can get that love back.

Im in the biggest poker event in the world, and I have had zero fun. Thats not the way it should be. I got on 2+2 from my hotel to check my PMs and saw this post and just realized all this.

Good post Rory

[rory]

Hey man-- PM me when you get back and I'll give you a pep talk. I have the fire.

[Stephen Gray]

My reasons are two-fold:
(1) I like money.
(2) I like games.

[RunDownHouse]

I have a job to pay the bills. And I actually love my job, as its interesting, challenging, and I couldn't ask for a greater work environment (moved out of corporate America to a startup, its awesome). That being said, I still play poker for the money. I guess I also really like the challenge of trying to beat the games, for which money is only a scorecard, but the best part about beating the games is that I can then move up. And the best part of moving up is that I can then make more money. So.