degeneracy obv

Well that's still more "social" then people playing online, is it not? And lots of people enjoy that, despite no one ever saying anything.

You certainly aren't the only one like that, and that's why lots of recreational players have stats like 80-10 (for the more passive) or 60-50 for the maniacs. Because as there's not much chatting going on, they want to play every hand or they're bored.

To me the fun of poker is the competition. I don't care about the social aspect, and I don't care about playing every hand, I just want to try and outplay people. I used to care about the money because at some point I floated the idea of being a poker pro, but since I gave that up I don't care about the money at all, I play poker like I play other games say Hearthstone... I want to win, that's it.

Note that I'm still a winning player, but what I'm trying to do is to "win the game", while years ago I was trying to win money.

Money is how we keep score.

Forgive me folks, I posted here already. Was curious to see how the conversation was going and it struck me how winning players have such a negative view on losing players.
The title itself says it all.
Why even ask that question? I mean, when you think about it, why do the victors always look down upon, with such great disdain in many cases, at the defeated? Do they feel guilty for making a living by taking other people's money at the poker table 's?
Maybe that's the bigger question here?

I tried googling it but didn't get very far but I would assume, poker players, winning or losing, make up a very small percentage of people visiting a casino anyways. So, why do people go to the Casinos?

I guess, I won't be invited to too many party's, will I?

Yes poker players make up a small percentage compared to slots or table game players. I don't know the percentage either but just walking around my casino I would guess there are 10 - 20 times as many people doing other stuff than poker.

I guess you can read the title as disdainful and maybe it is, I don't know OP's thoughts on this, but me personally I just saw it as asking a psychological question out of curiosity. I certainly don't have disdain for losing players (in general). They feed me. I do wonder about their motivations sometimes, but I don't necessarily look down on them. The people who like to gamble it up, that I understand. They aren't trying to be poker pros. Or the people playing with their friends. The ones I really don't understand are the bad or break evenish guys wearing headphones who don't talk to anyone, look completely miserable, yet are there at the casino 40 hours a week. These guys tend to be bad nits so aren't gambling addicts. They don't talk to anyone so it doesn't seem like a recreational thing. They must think they're winning players and are miserable about constantly "running bad".

I do have some disdain for this particular type of losing player. They aren't total fish so aren't contributing a lot to my winrate, but worse is their negative energy just really brings the table down and makes the real fish want to transfer or play better due to the serious vibe. Although these guys are generally losing, I think the games would overall be better if they weren't there.

Hi SH. Yeah, that now makes a lot more sense. I wouldn't necessarily know that because I'm the typical weekend warrior rec.
I see those guys too but I wouldn't know if they're there for any amount of time or what the deal is.
The attitude you seemed to bring over at first was confusing but now you've made it real clear.
When I'm at the casino playing poker, I try to win money of course but I really enjoy being at the table. It's just something I've been doing for a long time now and would simply like to keep doing.
People who are bad for the game are regretful but what can you do.
The truth is, every person who plays poker probably started out thinking they're going to be some kind of success and if they manage to be up and down, and not comply bust, it becomes habit forming.
Besides, most casual players I talk to don't even keep track of their results to have a true idea of how they're doing. I was waiting for a seat once with a young lady next to me and she said she plays about twice a week and when we got to talking further, she didn't know what a bankroll management app was that keeps track of your sessions.
We ended up at the same table. She bought in for 100 and was limping an awful lot with that short stack and bought in twice. She later confided to me, or complained rather, how she couldn't hit one set. You have only one hundred and you're limp set mining? Needles to say she was a pretty bad player but , rather attractive
I love live poker

Everyone starts out as a bad player. Every. Single. One.
(and yes - whoever is reading this: you did, too. Admit it. It's like driving a car. No one starts out as a good - or even average - driver)

So why did you come back? Because you wanted to get better and beat the game.

Just because you see a losing player come back a few times doesn't mean they're always going to be losing players or that they have some problem or are in it "just for the fun/the excitement".

Maybe they're just coming back because they know (from experience in other areas) if they keep working at it they'll eventually get good enough to crush those who now think of them as loosers.

If it wasn’t for luck we’d all be winners right?

While I would agree nearly everyone starts out bad, this is a byproduct of their approach to learning the game initially by trial and error, and there are other ways to learn the game.

I have never been a losing player. I never played cards growing up. My introduction to poker was watching the WSOP on ESPN. I thought to myself, this doesn't look all that hard. I could probably make money at this with enough preparation.

And I read several dozen books (mostly pirated ebooks) before I ever played a hand. This was largely because I was a college student with no money. I could afford 50 dollars to deposit into PokerStars. I was immediately better than break even and never dropped below 42 dollars and after a month was into the thousands.

I'm no poker prodigy. But I was able to win immediately through immense preparation and analysis every day I played. It's possible, just like a smart person could study chess openings and puzzles without ever playing a match and do quite well against the general population of chess players.

I reject the premise everyone starts out bad.

I doubt that you are a serious chess player either.

But I have found your poker advice well worth taking seriously, TY for that.

Well now, this is turning into a more interesting conversation.
SH, let me start out by saying, just like nozar, I've been following you a bit on the forum and have nothing but respect for you, at least from what you write.
Just so you won't think I'm trying to be a contrarian.
Actually, you're both right.
I totally agree with what you both say. I don't understand why people don't sometimes realize, every truth is sometimes multi faceted.

You were obviously an exceptional talent so to speak.
You're a lawyer right? Well, do you think everyone can be a lawyer?
Of course not. Just like in poker, just about anybody can learn it, sure, but few can become really good at it. And just like nozar said, most of us need the practice, and lot's of it.

Heck, I was a winning player in the beginning too. I had a natural talent for the game as well. My advantage over most players when I started was that I'm a cautious person by nature. I also love to study things. I have a bout 200 books on my shelves. When I first started out, I read a few things like, don't play trouble hands, call with a stronger hand an early position raiser and all that early poker theory. Then, when I started playing on the internet,
I was raising with A K and people kept calling me with K 3 and i was just printing money. Only thing, I thought I knew it all and stopped learning.
I didn't have true poker friends or a mentor.
I started struggling later and just stopped taking poker seriously.
So,yeah. People play for many reasons. I'm guessing for a lot of people,It's just like nozar said. They're trying to improve by playing more. Only, of course. most of them don't study enough or study the right way or approach the game wrong and will never get better.
It's always astounding to me, in this day and age, how so many people who play poker, with all that information out there, are still so poker ignorant.

That doesn't astound me at all.

Lots of people watch basketball for example, and many of them play casually with their friends or on a recreational team, because it's fun. They are not working out for hours a day and practicing their shots and gunning for the NBA, they're just enjoying participating in a game.


Most poker players are in that same boat I think, at least at low stakes in casinos. Online tends to attract more serious players, but it's not hard to imagine loads of people who enjoy watching the game on TV and want to play a few hands, maybe even read a book or some articles, but never aspire to study the game or seriously improve.


You'll never see them on this forum, but I think this forum represents the tiny proportion of poker nerds while the majority are casual players who do not want to study the game and for the most part have no idea how much they lose over time. Just like you might spend $X on movies over Y number of years, their losses are their entertainment spending.


Heck, I'm probably more that type of player than serious player, and there are likely many like me on here. I want to learn enough to be a winning recreational player, but no more than that. I have a rough idea of different concepts and plays and ranges, but I am not interested in playing around in Pokerstove or Flopzilla for hours and hours, memorizing equity vs. ranges in all sorts of situations. That's not fun for me at all. I know I won't ever be great, but I don't want to be. Poker's not worth that work for me, and what's wrong with that?

Grunch

Winning one out of 4 sessions and winning big one out of 12 sessions, etc.

+1
I think you hit the spot.

How many hands did you play? from 50 to thousands in a month looks crazy, even with a super risky bankroll management.

I didn't say I'm not a serious poker player. I am solid at the 2/5 level but I'm not the best player in the room or anything.

My history with chess is similar to poker. I never played until 10th grade. Some friends of mine were in the chess club so I joined mostly just to hang out. I got killed my first game, lost to the "scholars mate" lol. I was really academically competitive with these guys so I bought a couple chess books and was the best player by the next game I played, within two weeks. Ended up president of the chess club. Won some mid level tournaments, placed top 3 in a couple state level tournaments. But I was no prodigy I just studied a lot. When I started playing seriously talented chess players I got killed. Haven't really played in about a decade. I was rated high 1700s ELO in high school, probably like 1400 now. Forgotten most of the opening books.

So no I'm not a serious chess player now but my point was just that it's possible in poker like in chess to become relatively good (winning) really quickly, possibly immediately, through study.

----

@Nepeeme

Mathematician, not lawyer, though not a practicing mathematician just full time grinder now

A lot. I lost my database when my old computer crashed but would estimate I played about 75k hands a week, sometimes significantly more. My bankroll management was very conservative I grew my roll mass tabling micros.

I rest my case, it looks crazy. :]

besides addiction ... love of the hobby, thrill of playing, paying for entertainment wiht a chance of winning and even winning big, that's plenty, most hobbies and entertainment cost money