Schoonmaker: Profit vs. Affection

[jfk]

[ QUOTE ]
We all want to be liked, but some players dislike winners, even if they are pleasant people. They take the losers’ money, hurting both their wallets and their egos. Winners accept being disliked as part of the price of success, but some losers deliberately trade money for affection. For example, they don’t bet when they have the nuts, or they show a winning hand without their bet being called. These actions may make them more popular, but they obviously reduce their profits.

[/ QUOTE ]

In limit games, being disliked and winning is not always correlated. There are many pleasant winners in limit games who augment their win rate partially because their table manners and disposition make them an attractive, convivial opponent.

Losing players who are playing for motivations other than money would generally prefer to play against someone they may judge to be a winner in the game, as long as the game mood remains favorable. Some losing players who are playing for more recreational purposes may in fact prefer to lose to a pleasant winning player, understanding at some level, that the winning player deserves his results more rightly than others.

Profit and affection are not mutually exclusive at a card table.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Of course, profits and affection are not mutually exclusive. I and many other people have left games to get away from obnoxious drunks who were throwing away lots of money. And a pleasant manner is a decided asset in a winning player.
But many people do sacrifice some profits to get some affection.
More generally, ALL of the trade-odds I mentioned are not either-or. You get more of this for less of that, but you rarely completely sacrifice or satisfy any motive.

Regards,

Al