Do Games Not For Money Become Boring to Poker Players?

[shipitfish]

I have always loved games. Card games of all sorts — gin rummy, rummy 500 (the “old lady” version of gin rummy), canasta, hearts, pinochle — I played every last one of them. I could once recite verbatim the rules of every known card game in According to Hoyle.

In high school and college, I got serious about other types of games. I am enough of a geek to admit I played an awful lot of Dungeons and Dragons and similar role playing games. Those have helped my poker immensely, because they are so much more about the psychology of your fellow players and how they are likely to react to your actions.

Games were always a huge part of my life. Even though I admit it's a bit pathetic, the phrase, “it's only a game”, never had any meaning to me. Nothing was ever only a game to me. Games mattered. Playing them correctly and determining the proper way of playing mattered. Winning mattered some, but I never minded if I thought I did the right thing. (I was destine, in other words, to be comfortable with bad beats.)

Of course, by late high school, even though chess was still a big part of my life (admittedly, I was never very good at any game where complete information was available to all players), poker was my preferred game. C.M. (my college poker and chess friend) and I ran the weekly poker games in my college dorm. I (retroactively) call them “$5 buy-in pot limit dealer's choice mixed games&rquo;, but at the time it was just “poker”. I payed for most of my pizza in college with money won in those games; a usual good take was about $15 for an evening — honestly a lot of money for college students in those days.

In graduate school, I got interested some in Diplomacy. Of all the games I've ever played, I think it is most similar to poker. Diplomacy is a board game where the winner is determined by who negotiates best with the other players. There are bluffs (usually called “stabs” in Diplomacy-speak), where you make promises to support another player's armies and then don't. There are moves similar to defensive bets, and over-bets, and slow-plays. Someday, I had actually thought I'd write up a comparison between Diplomacy and poker, but I don't think I ever will. My love for Diplomacy doesn't seem sustainable.

When I took a break from poker recently, I got pretty serious about Diplomacy again. I signed up for a few Internet games. They take a long time to play (usually live games take 7 hours and Internet games, since all communication happens in writing rather than verbal, can take months). I'm still in the two games, but I have all but given up on trying anymore.

I have noticed an old frustration of mine. When there is no external reward (i.e., the money in poker), I find that people don't take the game seriously. And, it has the side-effect of making me want to quit playing. In both my Diplomacy games, two players have quit mid-game. Others had some early losses and gave up rather than play their best. (Comebacks happen often in Diplomacy, so you should never give up.) Others simply lost interest and aren't playing the game fully. Either way, the games turned sour because there was no real competition.

I started to think about why I don't feel this way about poker. The answer is quite obvious, actually. When people don't take poker seriously, I get free money (or, at least, situations with wonderfully positive EV). One of two things happen when you play poker: you are challenged by opponents that you have to work hard to outplay, or you are presented with lots of great EV situations. Either way, you win.

Meanwhile, if you play a game where nothing of value is on the line against opponents who don't take it seriously, what's the point? You get frustrated; well, at least I do. I remember a time in my life when I would get so angry at such a thing — people didn't see the games as important as I did and I couldn't stand it. Since then, two things have happened: (a) I am more likely to realize that I don't have control of other people's actions, so I just quit the game, and (b) I'm usually playing a game (namely, poker) that rewards me no matter what others do. I either get an enjoyable, serious, challenge game, or I get really good EV.

Other games could be like this, I guess. I can imagine a Diplomacy game where the seven players put up money to make a prize pool. Diplomacy even has, as part of its tradition, negotiated settlements (where people agree to end the game with a certain number of players remaining). Those negotiations would be very interesting if there were money to be won. Indeed, I can imagine that people would rediscover the game and how amazing it is if there was serious money in it.

I have to admit, though, a twinge of sadness that games are about money for me now. I guess the truth is that almost all people don't love games the way I do. I'd guess around 1% of the population feels as I do about games. So, odds are that my opponents won't ever have that same love for it, and they won't ever take it as seriously. So, I will usually have to “settle for” playing against players who just don't love the game like I do, and who want to give their money away to better players. It's a nice thing to settle for, but it still leaves some sense of loss.

Going back to Diplomacy reminded me, though, that poker is truly unique. It's an almost magical game of psychology, played for money with cards and chips. No other game really compares to it, because no other game has all these aspects. No other game digs at the deep psychological roots of how people feel about losing and winning money. I could imagine Diplomacy getting the job done in this regard, but I don't think there any high stakes Diplomacy clubs sprouting up soon. It certainly won't be a casino attraction.

So, I'll stick to poker. It's a wonderful game, and while I have a twinge of regret that I won't sit for hours figuring the best opening moves when I've been drawn Austria against an aggressive Turkey, I will still have plenty of game strategy to think about against a nice array of opponents. That is, until the poker bubble bursts.

Comments

[jellymillion.livejournal.com]

I don't know if there are more on KJ, but peterbirks, geoffchall and I edited UK postal games zines for varying lengths of time. Pete was the most prolific, Geoff hung on for a long time and I lasted, well, a couple of years. Diplomacy was the core of the postal games hobby both here and in the US, but I in particular tended to spread my net rather wider. I believe "The Hobby" still exists though in a rather truncated form. Until partner and children appeared there was a long period of Sunday afternoon gaming at my bachelor pad, largely revolving around the 18xx series of railroad games, for which we had a fondness. Strangely I was never really that fond of Diplomacy.

I still remember the excitement I felt when I discovered that people played board games postally. One day I hope to be able to bring some of the old favourites down from the loft to play with my kids. Acquire ought to be possible in two or three years...

I agree that a games-playing background seems to suggest that poker may prove attractive. Although I've been dedicatedly working at my cash game I tend to prefer the tournament format: it's more like a board game. I suppose cash games have more of a campaign element, so the RPG (rather than RGP) afficionados may see more of a home there.

Mike

[roryk.livejournal.com]

You will be surprised but, when I was younger, I was very much a sports enthusiast; when I was little I played the range of sports and eventually decided on soccer. I played varsity soccer from 7th grade until I graduated and in the off season I played for our district team or for club teams playing indoor soccer. I used to run and work out and play almost every single day.

When I graduated and went to college, I stayed in this place called computer science house and I wound up getting really involved in computers. I also watched a few people playing chess and started to play chess; for the next 7 years or so, I spent almost all of my free time playing chess. It is amazing but I have spent over 10% of my life playing chess even though I didn't play a whole lot until college and I haven't played a whole lot since I started playing poker! I estimate that I spent 6-8 hours a day playing chess on the internet for 7 years or so. I decided I wanted to be a USCF chess master; I got to be an Expert until I was derailed by poker.

Once I got involved in poker, I realized that I could make money playing a game, so chess hit the back burner. I still play occasionally, and every time I play I think to myself that poker is a very very dull game. I have reached the point in playing limit hold'em that I can't make major improvements in my game anymore. The thing that determines whether or not I win is how well I selected my table and how I am feeling that day. That's it. I believe that my game is about at 95% of it's best right now.

Chess, on the other hand, I am at maybe 30% of my best. If I wanted to, I could get better at any number of parts of the game. I could study the endgame, bone up on my openings, work on some of my calculation abilities... there is always room for me to sit down with a book of games, go over it, and learn something I didn't learn before. I think I will continue to get better at chess as I go on in life because there is so much to learn. Poker, especially limit hold'em, is entirely different; what could I possibly learn that I do not know already? If I defend my blind with Q7o or fold it, what does it matter, really? Should I check-raise more often or should I be bet-folding a certain river instead of check-calling and all of that, none of those things can really make a huge impact on my game.

The way I think about it is like this: what could Chip Reese or Barry Greenstein or whoever know about limit hold'em that makes them so much better than me? Is there some magic trick I'm not doing that will make me win a lot more money? I don't think so. In chess, I can list about a hundred things GMs do better than me strategically. Therefore, chess is inherently more interesting and fun to play because you can always get better at it. Poker, you top out after a while and the major determinant of your win rate is whether or not you play below your skills and whether or not you choose beatable games. Whoopdedoo.

That being said, I am a clown when I play no limit, so I can of course branch out and play other varieties of card games. That is next on my list of things to do. I have tried to learn to play no limit a few times in the past, but it is frustating to start all over again so I always wind up abandoning the project.

[roryk.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, regarding people not trying when they are playing games:

When I play chess, I like to win but I also like to play a nice game and try to make the right move at every turn. As a result, I can derive enjoyment from playing with players who have no chance to beat me, because the object of the game for me is still the same: make the right move at every turn.

If I am up a queen and a knight and my opponent is still not resigning, I do not get bored and just try to find a way to end the game because I have the game locked up; if I did that, it would be no fun to play my opponent because the opponent never had a chance to begin with.

The way to keep the game challenging and fun is to simply try to play your best at every move, regardless of what is happening. So in the case where I am up a queen and a knight, I try to find the most efficient possible way to win the game. I also keep a lookout for any combinations that might arise even though I am up a lot of material. That way, it doesn't matter how good your opponent is, you can still have a good, rewarding game.

The side effect I have noticed is that when people play me, they do not feel embarassed to lose because I play the entire game respectfully. I do not simply get up a bunch of material and then play sloppily and win; if they keep on playing then I try my best at every move. I am really trying and thinking about the game and that way they do not feel like I am giving off the air that they are wasting my time because they are not.

Maybe a similar approach could be taken in Diplomacy; players not playing the game well or properly so that it makes it easy for you to win does not matter. Just try to figure out the most efficient way to win.

I want to refute you, but

[(Anonymous)]

I understand what you're saying about limit holdem. I want to refute you, but can't think of much.

I guess my primary response is that as you increase the stakes, that additional 5% becomes more important. If you can somehow eek out an extra 0.25 big bets an hour at $150/300, then you'd just tacked on some nice cash.

Still, as you said, table selection and mood are the most significant factor in terms of profit, once you're playing at the 95% level.