Is it the Thrill or the Money?

[andyfox]

For me, I think it's the thrill.

I responded to a humorous post by Clarkmeister in the Who is Jim Brier thread on the mid-stakes forum by saying that I sometimes raise after seeing only one card.

Why would I do this? Even a half-brain like me should be able to play better seeing both cards. (Although I once had an opponent tell me, and I believed him, that he had beaten me twice in a half hour without looking at any of his cards.) So why only look at one?

It has to be the thrill. The excitement of playing that way.

I don't support myself playing poker. I enjoy playing. I don't think that the next best thing to playing and winning is playing and losing. Losing sucks. But I think it's the thrill of winning the money, rather than the money itself, that is the attraction.

Because if I got out of my car in the casino parking lot and found $1,000 on the floor, while that would be nice, it wouldn't be anywhere near as great as winning the $1,000 playing poker. Not for me. So I think it's got to be the thrill, rather than the money, that I play for."

"To think of poker as something glamorous is very bad. You must think that you are just working as a poker player and that you are not particularly anxious about making a big score." (TOP)

But I do (think of it as something glamorous).

How about you?

[Clarkmeister]

For me its the competition.

I am a very competitive person. I like to win. In poker, we keep score with money. If we kept score with sea shells, I would want to acquire the most sea shells. Not because I want sea shells. But because I want to win. And having the most sea shells is the only way to prove that I won.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I agree almost 100%. The only thing I can add is that because it's money and not seashells, there's an extra attraction.

[eMarkM]

For me its the competition

I would put that under "thrill". The thrill of competition. Though, Clark, isn't this how you make your living, or am I wrong about that? I would think for most recreational players it's about the thrill of competition and the thrill of putting your money at risk. But if you're a professional poker player, who's bills have to be paid by your poker income, I would think it's all about the money. For a professional, at some point, it's just another job. The Sklansky quote would be appropriate for those types. I here countless stories of pros who find no thrill in the game after so many years of grinding it out because at some point it's just what pays the bills.

[oddjob]

it's the thrill of winning money. it's about being better than the next guy, and being rewarded with money that you didn't have. it's about deceiving people. it's about distorting people's perception of you. it's knowing that it's a skill game, when others think it's a luck game.

it's about getting respect. or not getting respect and punishing people for that. it's about finally hitting that draw when you've missed it a dozen times that day, and dragging a huge pot. it's about playing against competitors from all walks of life.

and most of all for me, it's about having fun. having a good time, win or lose. when it stops being fun, then i quit. that's why i'll never be a "professional" poker player.

[balt999]

I'm like most recreational players...I play it for the thrill of competition...but the money is nice...I guess there is a different mindset for professionals because it's their living and more apt to take it seriously or look at it as a career.

[HDPM]

For me its not the money, but money does play a role in my playing. I got to the point that I could pretty much beat all the LL games. Instead of grinding out a bankroll I moved up because I wanted to try to beat the mid limits. So I play mid-limit on a short bankroll. Although I have not been playing recently because of all the other stuff going on in life, I have also lost a little interest over the money issue. And that is because I realized that even if I were pretty good I probably would never play enough to win enough to really make a difference in my life and I do have an adequate bankroll if I am willing to commit some of the funds to gambling. So it became kind of like playing very small limit poker which isn't very interesting. I suppose this means that I want to play big enough where there's a point to winning, or at least a thrill of winning. And since mid-limit is big enough really, I will get my desire back. (And perhaps even at lower limits) I have been wanting to play more lately, and have not been able to. This is good in that when I get to play again, I'll want to. In general though, I play for the competition and challenge of the game, the thrill of the action, and the interaction with others that makes gambling on competitive events interesting. Unlike Clark, though, I would not play hard enough for seashells in a lot of games. If I got my pride and ego involved and there was a challenge I would play hard - like a seashell game with excellent playing 2+2 posters. With a bunch of low-limit donkeys, I wouldn't bother with a seashell game. Does this make any sense to anyone else? No? Well tough. And like Andy I probably do see it as something kind of glamorous at some level. Even though a whole lot of gambling is in less-than-glamorous spots with some slightly less-than-glamorous people.

[Clarkmeister]

No, it is not how I make my living.

I did take about 8 months after my last job to play daily just so when I was 60 I could say I did it, but it was never a goal to make a full time living with. Currently I am doing some consulting work, and as a consequence, I am playing more online than live.

[Mikey]

I think that for the most part, it is the thrill of easy money.

[oddjob]

what is your opinion of online poker vs. B&M poker? do you play the same limits?

mostly we only hear from people who go from online to B&M, just curious to see what you thought about the differences.