How much to quit? - a twist

[Paul2432]

I just read the thread, How much to quit forever (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4473351&an=0&page=0#Post 4473351) and noticed that a lot of people said that they love the game so much that quitting would be very difficult.

My question to those posters is this: If poker was suddenly like bridge would you still play?

Let me explain what I mean. Bridge is card game that like poker is very complex, has elements of skill and luck, and people devote their lives to playing and mastering. The main difference is that the game is mostly not played for money but for points. If you accumulate enough points you can become a "life master" and so on.

So, would you play poker under a similar system? My guess is the games would be tougher because there would not be the lure of gambling.

Paul

[flair1239]

Yes I would.

[frappeboy]

It's the same thing with chess. Almost no money involved (unless you are top 10 in the world), but people still play just for the love of the game, and the challenge that comes with it.

[Banks2334]

[ QUOTE ]


So, would you play poker under a similar system? My guess is the games would be tougher because there would not be the lure of gambling.



[/ QUOTE ]
Money is a great motivator and the best follow the money. The games would be weaker if played for points.

[DrVanNostrin]

I know nothing of Bridge. The idea of earning points and becoming a "lifetime master" sounds like fun. But playing without money is -EV.

[joop]

Why don't people play bridge for money instead of points?

[Harv72b]

I'd still play poker. But I wouldn't play it as often.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd still play poker. But I wouldn't play it as often.

[/ QUOTE ]

[soko]

[ QUOTE ]
I just read the thread, How much to quit forever (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4473351&an=0&page=0#Post 4473351) and noticed that a lot of people said that they love the game so much that quitting would be very difficult.

My question to those posters is this: If poker was suddenly like bridge would you still play?

Let me explain what I mean. Bridge is card game that like poker is very complex, has elements of skill and luck, and people devote their lives to playing and mastering. The main difference is that the game is mostly not played for money but for points. If you accumulate enough points you can become a "life master" and so on.

So, would you play poker under a similar system? My guess is the games would be tougher because there would not be the lure of gambling.

Paul

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, what an amazing question. I am so surprised to see how many people say they will play, i mean, it's not like there are tens of thousands of players who play with fake money at online poker sites already. And they are by far, the most tough games around as the OP expected.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, what an amazing question. I am so surprised to see how many people say they will play, i mean, it's not like there are tens of thousands of players who play with fake money at online poker sites already. And they are by far, the most tough games around as the OP expected.

[/ QUOTE ]

This probably has to do with the fact that the good players go on and play for real money.

[MikeLowry]

I would not play poker if the only thing I could win was points. So my answer implies that I play poker to win money, correct? Well, I have been a losing player over my first year of playing for a few thousand dollars. I do believe I am on my way to turning that around as I have refocused my game with the intentions of changing or quitting what has become an expensive habit into a supplemental income. But, to answer the original question would be one more busted bankroll and I am done for good.

-ML

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
I would not play poker if the only thing I could win was points. So my answer implies that I play poker to win money, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your answer implies that the primary reason you play poker is to win money. This is the case for most players, and especially many players on this board. When you remove money from the equation, poker seems suddenly empty. The fact is that there will be fewer people who can justify taking the game seriously.

I think one thing that would change is the nature of ring games. Without money on the line, the basis for ring games is non-existent. Why play indefinately for accumulation of points? I think a larger emphasis would be placed on tournament play (think: Card Player Player of the Year point system).

There are many games that people play that don't earn money. The real question is whether poker has enough of a challenge to justify the time spent on it. Personally, I find the math and psychology behind poker very fascinating. The primary reason I started studying (and consequently playing) the game was to investigate the relationships between players and risk. I'm also fascinated with the idea of discipline and what is typically called the "Zen" mindset.

The problem with removing money is that it greatly mitigates the risk factor. This has two effects: First, less players will be able to take the game seriously. Second, more players will be inclined to play in tougher games. At first glance, it seems like these two ideas contradict each other. Take a deeper look.

Take chess for example. Many players play recreationally: those who play terribly often get discouraged and quit; those who play somewhat well will continue to play recreationally; those who have the propensity to succeed will challenge better players to prove themselves; and those who are amazing compete internationally for the title of Grandmaster. Poker players would be more likely to quit if they had no natural talent for the game, but players with some ability to succeed will want to play tougher and tougher games. The skill gap will widen substantially: the tough games will get tougher, and the easy games will get easier.

One of the factors in the growing size of the field at the WSOP is that anyone can play, provided they have the money required to buy in. Without money involved, I think we would see a decrease in the number and frequency of open tournaments, and an increase in the number of invitational and qualifying tournaments.

[vypremik]

I started playing bridge when I was about ten years old and I have always enjoyed it. But I don't really look at it as the same type of game. Some notable differences:

1) Bridge is played with the entire deck. You need to keep track of the cards played and can always know what remains.

Poker is player with only a few cards and you can never know which cards are in play and out of play.

2) Bridge is a game of knowledge. Not only does the betting system reveal a lot about players hands, but one of the hands is fully exposed for all players to see.

Poker is a game of incomplete knowledge and best guesses.

3) Bridge has "correct" plays. There are certain plays you are supposed to make at certain times. If you fail to make the expected plays, you are thought of as a bad player. Although there is some variety, most decent players will play most hands almost the same way.

Poker can be played in many ways and won many ways

4) There is no unexpected or additional information in bridge after the deal. The hands are set. You can usually determine who is strongest and they will usually win the hand. There are no "bad beats" on the last card.

You can have a dominant hand in poker, you can be 98% to win with only one card left, you can play your hand perfectly, you can be the best player in the world - but when that last card comes, you can still lose to a bad beat.

5) Have you ever seen a bridge player bluff? Can you imagine what my partner would do to me if I overbet my opponents and claimed to have a good hand when I was sitting on trash? Bluffing has no place in bridge.

All poker players bluff - or at least they should.

Basically, poker is built to be a money game. I don't think it would work otherwise. There needs to be a threat of loss for the game to work.

If I have a chance to be top dog on the point chart and only have a 2% chance of doing it, I will probably take the chance if I have nothing to lose. If I have to put money on my 2% chance, it ain't happening.

Take away the risk of loss (and the monetary rewards), you take away the spirit of poker.

So, to make a long answer short - No.

[Paul2432]

[ QUOTE ]
I started playing bridge when I was about ten years old and I have always enjoyed it. But I don't really look at it as the same type of game. Some notable differences:

1) Bridge is played with the entire deck. You need to keep track of the cards played and can always know what remains.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but you don't know the distribution. A good player will know the probabilities of the various splits, but a great player will be able to make deductions from the bidding and play, and may find a line to make/beat a contract by going against standard probabilities.



[ QUOTE ]
Poker is player with only a few cards and you can never know which cards are in play and out of play.

2) Bridge is a game of knowledge. Not only does the betting system reveal a lot about players hands, but one of the hands is fully exposed for all players to see.

Poker is a game of incomplete knowledge and best guesses.

[/ QUOTE ]
See above.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Bridge has "correct" plays. There are certain plays you are supposed to make at certain times. If you fail to make the expected plays, you are thought of as a bad player. Although there is some variety, most decent players will play most hands almost the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, same point. Furthermore, the correct play can be subtle. Sometimes I'll see a hand written up where the expert finds some exotic squeeze or end play that I can't find seeing all four hands.


[ QUOTE ]
Poker can be played in many ways and won many ways

4) There is no unexpected or additional information in bridge after the deal. The hands are set. You can usually determine who is strongest and they will usually win the hand. There are no "bad beats" on the last card.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you play duplicate, you are sometimes given a bottom when your opponent makes a "bad" play and the card distribution just happens to favor that play. I'd call that a bad beat.

[ QUOTE ]
You can have a dominant hand in poker, you can be 98% to win with only one card left, you can play your hand perfectly, you can be the best player in the world - but when that last card comes, you can still lose to a bad beat.

[/ QUOTE ]
This, I agree with.

[ QUOTE ]
5) Have you ever seen a bridge player bluff? Can you imagine what my partner would do to me if I overbet my opponents and claimed to have a good hand when I was sitting on trash? Bluffing has no place in bridge.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure it does. False carding is a standard technique to mislead the opposition. Bridge has plenty of opportunities for deceptive plays.

[ QUOTE ]
All poker players bluff - or at least they should.

Basically, poker is built to be a money game. I don't think it would work otherwise. There needs to be a threat of loss for the game to work.

If I have a chance to be top dog on the point chart and only have a 2% chance of doing it, I will probably take the chance if I have nothing to lose. If I have to put money on my 2% chance, it ain't happening.

Take away the risk of loss (and the monetary rewards), you take away the spirit of poker.

So, to make a long answer short - No.

[/ QUOTE ]

As others have pointed out, ring games probably would not work. I think tournament play could work though, and I think it could be structured so that skill was rewarded. Points would be accumulated over a long period over many tournaments.

Paul