What's new
By:

I hope you are ready...

One Brow said:
I've heard people make similar arguments about bridge, runny, chess, etc. It depends on your level of competitiveness, I think. I play as fiercely for matchsticks as for money.
Click to expand...

Those games are not like poker at all
 
Bulletproof said:
People have come and not played.

Depending on jazz game situation you could come to watch the game.
Click to expand...

This.
Plus people will get eliminated early and just hang around and party/watch the jazz game/eat etc
 
One Brow said:
Agreed. None of those games are alike at all. Did you intend something beyond what you actually said?
Click to expand...

Just that when you play chess or those other games most of the time money is not involved and not a factor. They have that in common.
Poker is in a different category than them
 
moevillini said:
Well if I ever make it back out to SLC maybe we can have a kick-*** Crazy 8's tournament.
Click to expand...
I don't know crazy 8's but if you're down for hearts, spades or gin rummy, hit me up. Especially spades.
 
fishonjazz said:
Just that when you play chess or those other games most of the time money is not involved and not a factor. They have that in common.
Poker is in a different category than them
Click to expand...

That depends on where and with whom you play. Money is no more essential to poker than any other game, it's just used as the most common scoring token. I have certainly been in places where bridge and chess are played for money regularly.
 
One Brow said:
That depends on where and with whom you play. Money is no more essential to poker than any other game, it's just used as the most common scoring token. I have certainly been in places where bridge and chess are played for money regularly.
Click to expand...
Poker is a psychological game, far far more than any of the other games you have mentioned. The other games have objective strategies within the parameters of the game, where poker relies very heavily on assessments of the player(s) and their motivations, both within the game and outside the game. Winning and losing is certainly a motivating factor, but financial gain or loss absolutely changes the dynamic and does so far more in the game of poker than the other games you've mentioned. You can continue to argue otherwise, but you're wrong.
 
Bulletproof said:
Poker is a psychological game, far far more than any of the other games you have mentioned.
Click to expand...

Sure. So is Liar's Dice, which is often played without using money for scoring.

Bulletproof said:
The other games have objective strategies within the parameters of the game, where poker relies very heavily on assessments of the player(s) and their motivations, both within the game and outside the game.
Click to expand...

No disagreement there. If you are playing seriously, that's true whether you are playing for money or for points.

Bulletproof said:
Winning and losing is certainly a motivating factor, but financial gain or loss absolutely changes the dynamic and does so far more in the game of poker than the other games you've mentioned.
Click to expand...

When was the last time you played bridge for serious money? You ever bid up a contract to force someone who was ahead a few dollars, and force him to risk going behind on the game or taking a smaller gain on this hand?

I agree with "more", but "far more" is very dependent on context. If you are gambling more money than you can afford to lose, that changes the dynamic, regardless of game. People change how they play when something significant is on the line.

Bulletproof said:
You can continue to argue otherwise, but you're wrong.
Click to expand...

As I made clear in my last post, I don't think we even disagree. Why would I be arguing with someone I don't disagree with? All I'm trying to do is offer a different perspective on what makes poker such an interesting game, and that it's not the money per se, but caring about the results that matters. You even partially agreed to this above: "I've played poker at stakes that didn't matter to the people involved and it basically removes folding as a viable option in anyone's strategy." According to you, playing for money didn't make for a good poker game, it was playing for stakes people cared about. You understood that yesterday, why not today? Do you think it's impossible that some people care more about winning for the sake of winning than the financial gain?

I find it odd how what seem to be very uncontroversial statements can stir up so many antagonistic responses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top