There are no serious poker games played for pride or the satisfaction of winning. Money is tied to poker more than it is any of those other games. The influence money has on how poker is played is greater than it is for any of those other games. I was ready to let your comments stand but it was the responses you've given other people that brought me back in.
Define "serious" here. From your post below, all I can get is that you think "serious" = "money". I guess that, even if you weren't playing for money, you'd take your poker pretty seriously.
Tournament poker has become popular, but it is a relatively new type of poker. Traditional "cash game" or "live game" or "ring game" poker is played using real money as the primary tool. You don't play that form of poker until someone "wins." Traditional poker can have players come and go and in some casinos the same game on the same table can last days, weeks or years. You sit down and buy-in for any amount you'd like within a range, you can add additional money any time between hands up to the set maximum, and you can stand up and cash out at any point, up or down $1, once you've lost all your chips, or with $1 million dollars that you've collected from any number of players who have come and gone from the table. There is no other game like that. At that type of game 8 out of 9 players at the table could be up. Hell there could be a situation after a few people leave a table that 9 out of 9 players could be up. It's also possible that one player could have taken significant amounts from everyone else and once they leave every single player on the table is down. There's no dynamic in that situation that is remotely like bridge. In that game there is a beginning and and end where a player or team is definitely the winner of the game. In poker each hand is essentially independent from all other hands.
Chips are easier to handle and manage so money is exchanged directly for chips that have real cash value.
None of that is in dispute. None of that makes money, as opposed to points, essential to the game. In fact, you could say much of that about nickel-and-dime poker (not the part about the casino games, obviously), yet you don't see that as being the same game. If it's about using money, why is ultra-low-stakes poker a different game for you; they both use money.
Traditional chess clubs can have players come and go and in some clubs the gaming can last days, weeks or years. Playing rapid chess, you can sit down and join with your rating, and you can leave at any point, up or down 1, once you've lost every possible point, or with a large point gain that you've collected from any number of players who have come and gone from the club. There is no other game like that. At that type of game 8 out of 9 players at the club could be up on the day. Hell there could be a situation after a few people leave the club that 9 out of 9 players could be up. It's also possible that one player could have taken significant amounts from everyone else and once they leave every single player on the club is down. In chess each game is essentially independent from all other games.
There's no dynamic in that situation that is remotely like bridge.
It's true that bridge did not, last I checked, have a system where you could lose rating points, instead you gain more than your opponents. The rest of your paragraph could easily be adapted to bridge. When you are playing serious bridge (almost always match points or duplicate), each hand is in fact separate from any previous hand.
Tournament poker might resemble a serious bridge tournament that is played for money, but traditional poker cannot in any way shape or form be separated from the money that is being put into the pot and it is very different from any of the other games you mentioned in that regard.
You know what can't be separated from the money? Roulette. How many people would stand around a roulette wheel if there was no money at stake? What would be the point? When you make an argument that poker needs money, you are basically saying that it's not a game of strategy and psychology, it's primarily a gambling game. Most people who love poker the way you do don't make that claim.
Liar's dice? Show me the serious for money games of liar's dice. c'mon man.
You don't think it's possible you can play Liar's Dice for serious money?
All I've been saying is that there is a different between using money and caring about the outcome of the game and how you do on the poker table. Serious gamers don't need money to juice their competitive edges (this is not a judgment, just a recognition that different things motivate different people). I still don't understand why you disagree on that sentence, or if you don't, what you seem to think our disagreement is. If you care to respond, could you focus on that?
