The mentality of losers

[Nichlemn]

As you know, despite most 2+2ers at least claiming to be winners, a considerable majority of players at any limit are going to be long term losers. What it is that motivates losing players at a level to play there?

For micro/low stakes this question seems fairly easy to answer. These people may treat online poker as an unbeatable gamble like slot machines, depositing money, getting the thrill of occasionally raking big pots, and redepositing when they lose. Since they are just "gambling", they feel no need to try to improve their game in any way, since that's all poker is to them. Some others may see the money lost to poker as just like a "subscription fee" for a fun game. They're hardly seen on 2+2 because they have no real interest in improving their game.

What I'm less sure about is the higher stakes losers. The person depositing $50 every week can't really fit under that category. They have to be a different type.
Some of them will be wealthy whales, treating poker as a gamble or entertainment, only their much higher income allows for consequently higher stakes. But if this were the case for most of them, there would be many absolutely awful plays made at high stakes, which doesn't seem to be the case.

The ones I wonder about are the reasonably solid players who can easily win at a lower limit, yet still play at a game where they're a loser. I imagine that these players amassed their roll at a lower limit, or had a big tournament score, and now play above their skill level. These are "transferrers" who help consolidate the winnings of many low limit losers into a single high limit winner.
I can understand it for the tournament winner, who gets very lucky and overconfidence and a suddenly large roll causes them to lose a lot of money. But how would it work within cash games? What mentality does someone have that allows them to be a winning poker player at lower limits but blow off all their winnings frequently taking shots at a higher limit?

Maybe tournaments are necessary to make high stakes cash games profitable? It's the only thing I can conclude. I just can't see how that many players can like money enough to win it consistently, but not enough to avoid losing it at higher limits. Perhaps only through big scores from for instance, the Sunday Hundred Grand and the Sunday Million on Stars can enough money be regularly concentrated into a loser.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
The ones I wonder about are the reasonably solid players who can easily win at a lower limit, yet still play at a game where they're a loser. I imagine that these players amassed their roll at a lower limit, or had a big tournament score, and now play above their skill level.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's pretty simple. This is just ego. People don't like to move down, and obviously you can beat $.50/1 without tons of trouble. The ego doesn't come in as much if $.50/1 is the highest limit you've ever played.

I know for me that when I first played $5/10 I thought the game was significantly tougher than $2/4 but I had sort of subconsciously classified myself as "a $5/10 player," so I had to remind myself that it was okay to play $2/4 if the $5/10 was no good.

[Flip-Flop]

I think you are over-thinking this.

[Rek]

There are lots of players (gamblers) who just like poker. They may not be very good at it but like the buzz. Depositing say $50 per week for a number of hours entertainment is pretty good value. If you go out for a meal it will cost that.

Good players tend not to be "gamblers". It is more investment.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are over-thinking this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me or the OP? Because I didn't think much. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Albert Moulton]

Read the Psychology of Poker to understand why people who lose like to play poker. It's based on live play, so maybe it isn't as reliable for on-line players. But I bet it's close enough.

To summarize, loose passives like to socialize. They play to feel involved. They usually treat gambling as an entertainment expense that occasionally nets them a profit over a session or two despite their annual loses. They know they lose money, but they like the interaction of the game.

LAGs, at least most LAGs, like to gamble. They love the rush that comes from gambling. They love to go home with 5 or 6 times what they bought in with, even if they usually lose their entire buy-in trying for the big score. These are dangerous players who occasionally win big, but usually go home broke. Long term, this is a style that will generally send a guy into bankruptcy. Most gambling addicts play like this to an extreme.

Tight passives like to win a little money at their hobby, but don't like to gamble very much. They generally break even over the long run, or maybe win some or lose some depending on the quality and type of other players in the game. If a tight passive is playing with a few lags and a lot of loose passives, then he will usually go home as a small winner, but occasionally get stacked by a LAG who got lucky.

TAGs generally play to make money. They are willing to gamble when appropriate, but generally try to make call/bet/raise decisions based on their estimate of EV for a particular hand vs a particular opponent or opponent(s). In general, TAG play can be profitable when most of the other players are playing less optimal styles.

Things change when/if you end up with a bunch of very good mid-to-high stakes gamblers who know how to play TAG, know that the others know how to play TAG, and consequently have to mix up their games and play positiion and reads as much or more than their cards. Smart LAGs probably do quite well in many of these games. But most casio games are not filled with good TAGs as often as they are filled with kinds of players against whom a TAG can consistently win money.