Some people are just addicted to gambling. Their poker strategy / play is just so bad they are better off just throwing thier money on Red or Black in Roulette.

*Note I do not do any gambling besides playing poker.

Hi Yeodan:

This is from page 7 of my book Cardrooms: Everything Bad and How to Make The Better:

A Proper Balance of Luck and Skill


This is not a statistics text book and to read and understand it you’re not expected to have a background in statistics. But there is an idea that comes straight out of the world of statistics and statistical theory that deserves its own introductory chapter and has already been mentioned. And that idea is what I call “the proper balance of luck and skill.” So, without getting into any heavy statistical theory, here’s an explanation of the proper balance of luck and skill in (I hope) easy to understand language.

It turns out that in games like poker which are grounded in statistical theory (that includes probability theory) there are two parameters that drive the success of the games: The success (or lack of it) of the best players, and much of the enjoyment of the recreational players who, while losers in the long run, will still come back to play again and again. These parameters are luck and skill. And both are required in the right proportions for poker games to be successful in the long run.

First, let’s address skill. You’ll often hear that poker is a “skill game.” But this isn’t exactly true. A better statement is that poker is a form of gambling that has a strong skill element. And this skill element allows the expert players to win money in the long run. And since they win, they’ll come back to play again and again including helping to start games and to keep games going.

Now this idea is very important. Without winning players who act as game starters and help to keep games going, it’s doubtful that poker would be a successful casino game. But there’s also more to it.

In addition, there’s also a problem. If skill was the only parameter, these expert players would never have losing sessions, which means that the non-experts would never win, and if this was the case, there would probably be no poker games.

So, this means that there needs to be a fair amount of short-term luck in poker for the games to exist. And what this short-term luck does is that it’ll allow the recreational players to also have some winning sessions, and on those nights where they end up loser, they’ll be able to think about when they were ahead, and this short-term luck is the hook that keeps these people playing. However, it’ll also mean that the experts will have some losing nights, and many recreational players love beating the experts.

To be specific, David Sklansky and I feel that the proper balance of luck and skill will allow a strong player to win two out of three four-hour sessions, and the moderately weak player to win one out of three four-hour sessions. So, that’s a rough guideline when this book talks about a proper balance of luck and skill. And for a poker room to be successful, this idea of a proper balance of luck and skill can’t be stressed enough.

But there’s another important point that statistical theory tells us. It’s the fact that over time the short-term luck factor will dissipate and the expectation (win rate for the experts and loss rate for the recreational players) will dominate, and this is exactly the way it’s supposed to be.

But when saying “supposed to be,” I’m also referring to those games in which the expectation of the experts and the luck factor is in sort of a balance. That is, to say it again, the experts will be sure of doing well after a reasonable amount of playing time, and the recreational players will have their winning sessions to remember. And when this is the case, you can expect the games to thrive in a well-run poker room. Furthermore, games like this are the type of games that the poker room management should strive for. It’s also the type of games that the experts should want to play in to maximize their long-term success, even if it means that their expected win in their current session might be lower.

In this book, this idea of a proper balance of luck and skill will frequently come up. So, keep this chapter in mind, and if needed, please read it again to make sure that what is written is understood. Also, if you’re a cardroom manager, this idea should guide many of your decisions. To see why, please keep reading.

Best wishes,
Mason

Losing players keeps playing because it's slow and insidious and sprinkled with wins.

Also human brain tends to remember losses with more vivid emotions than wins, a winning player can think he's out of luck.

It's like a slot machine, you don't know when you'll win, so you keep playing, but you ~know~ you can win.

For example, if someone would lose every time at every hand playing poker, he would stop... but humans are similar to rats that's why they do scientific stuff on rats.

So if the rats hits a lever and gets coke, he's going to have a rush and press the lever again, but eventually he's going to get bored of pressing the lever.
If a rats do rats things and have rats friends, he's not going to press the lever. (that's why we're degen)
If a rats gets coke -sometimes- when he press the lever, that rat is going to press that lever like you have no idea.

And what exactly is that?

The most monetary + EV way to live is to hunker down in a hovel eating nothing but gruel and vitamin supplements, but how much fun is that?

If I understand you these players are not drinking? Also they have a healthy life otherwise?
I would put your discription as I see it as them being very emotional and aren't getting anything from it but will change soon and tighten up. Their wife could have cheated on them or dog died etc.
Plus I know from online play and the many hands I've folded that hit anyway that wild play can become a snow ball that is it is their style because some days they win very large.
To say they are losing now but not always. How bad are they? I have gone all in with two pair am called and rivers by a runner runner and now look bad but I knew what they had(mostly) and they knew nothing on me.

One of the most observant players I've ever played with has a theory that some losing players lose because they want to lose to prove that they are right. HUH?



You've all seen it happen if you are a long time poker player. Some guy is tilting explaining to anyone who will listen that he is the unluckiest player in the world. And then to prove he is right, he does every stupid thing you can imagine to show he can't win a hand. He might play every hand in an orbit to show he just can't get a lucky flop with his J5o and similar holdings. He is more interested in validating that he is rightly unlucky than he is interested in winning.

Hi DEKE01:

There's a chapter in my book Real Poker Psychology -- Expanded Edition titled "An Excuse to Lose" which touches upon a similar idea. What happens is that some players need tilt to help explain why they're not a winning player. This is from page 26 of the book:

The answer is they steam, or at least it appears that way, and by playing occasionally in this fashion, they can say to others something like “If I wasn’t on tilt those couple of nights, I would be a winner this month.” Of course, they’re not really on tilt since they have made a decision to occasionally play this way, and this decision is based on rational thought. But from an opponent’s perspective, these people might as well be on tilt based on the way they’ll sometimes open up their games.

Best wishes,
Mason

I probably need to think a little more about this question, but this is along the right lines. It's important to note that dopamine, the neurochemical closely related to reward, is not directly related to rewards - it is more the anticipation of rewards that triggers it's release.

So yes, people are chasing that euphoria. All gambling games are set up so even the biggest chump wins occasionally. Someone who wins very regularly gets that craving satisfied on a regular basis, so much so that the craving eventually disappears. When I got good at poker and won regularly, it started to become a chore and even boring.

Losers get the feeling much more infrequently, and are effectively deprived of that euphoria. They are therefore constantly trying to bridge that gap between how often they get a hit of dopamine compared with how often they perceive they should be getting that hit.

Clearly there are lot of moderators including psychological factors and life circumstances that make people more susceptible to keep playing. For people who are poor, the carrot of a big win. For people who are rich, the need to prove themselves. Men are more likely to play/lose as they tend to be bigger risk takers. A man with very little status has very little to lose and a lot to gain, and they can see poker as a shortcut.

In sum, it's basically the same neurochemical pathways that drive every other addiction.

Was gunching with my post, but yeah, this. Here is Sapolsky explaining it. Monkeys, rat, pigeons, humans all behave the same.

That vid was very interesting. Rod Serling, Twilight Zone, was decades ahead of Sapolsky, and Serling learned only by observing human behavior.



There is a TZ episode where a man, a petty crook of some sort, dies and goes to heaven. Because it is heaven and you can do and get anything you want, the crook gambles, shooting pool, playing slots, and various other games of chance. Beautiful women come to watch him play and all the women think he is handsome and wonderful.


The crook shoots pool and never misses. Every pull of the slot machine lever results in a jackpot. Every girl laughs at his every joke and swoons at his touch. The guy can't lose and he loves every minute of it....for a while.



And when the guy finally realizes that there is no challenge to getting the girl, no risk in the gamble, no chance he can take, that's when he understands he's not in heaven, but hell, and all of the things he thought were fun, are now misery..



The moral of that story is that we all play poker because we want to lose...occasionally.

You guys are all wrong and partly right. Playing poker depending is going to cost you. Whether you're winning or losing. If you're playing poker winning 100k a year and you instead spent that 500 or 1000 hours a year jogging you would be healthier, stronger and live either 20 years longer or (20 years of quality life) gambling is in the nature of humanity. A vast majority of poker players are men also. Which it is in our nature to take risks. The dopamine is part of it but more so we are always gambling.

Your marry Jane, she gives you 2 kids. You gamble she won't leave and take 40% of your income and half your assets.

You gamble that buying that house won't be worthless in 25 years due to real estate tanking.

You gamble that Career Option is a good one but in the end you lose sight in one eye or you lose the ability to walk and lose your entire Career(I've known plenty of people who have lost everything)

You gamble cause it's in your nature.

Look at World War II(there are many more real life examples) The Axis gambled they could actually defeat an opponent that was how many times more economically and militarily superior to them? They even won to a point and one could calculate that there was a slight chance of total victory for them despite odds that were very-very low. With a VERY early collapse of the Soviet Union it is slightly possible that the Axis would have run amuck and created a super Continent of Euroasia and don't question my logic in this as I've studied the subject for 30+ years.

How many Poker Players have chill lives, make millions and are free from health issues? Is the better question. My guess is a minority? Calculate that for me... Without gamblers there would be no poker either. Who makes the real money off poker? TV, Card Companies, the first rich guy in the California Gold Rush I heard was the guy that sold stuff like shovels? Yeah... You get it

You went from playing to addiction with no explanation or apparent appreciation of the enormous difference ... as if they are one in the same experience. Yes, the hijacking of the reward system is fundamental to addiction ... but it isn't fundamental to playing.

Good points then he gets cutesy gimmicky sacrificing science in the process.

I did not say it was fundamental to playing. In fact, I used my own personal experience to explicitly counter this claim.

I did say the reward system is likely why losing players keep playing, which was OP's question.

I saw a variation of this play out at my table yesterdayÂ…

Guy X bets pot on turn and gets called. Texture changing river as the board paired on a straightening board.

Tag that doesnÂ’t get out of line much pots river which is about spr 1Â…

Guy X tanks and tells table he knows heÂ’s beat but wants to prove to himself thatÂ’s heÂ’s right.

Best case scenario this guy is chopping in this spot. Guy x calls and sure enough chopping at best.

I think there was a dopamine rush also that he probably had a 2% chance of being good and picking off a bluff.

Bud he legit told the table how he had to confirm he was right even if he lost.

I based my comment on the last three words you wrote: "every other addiction." Was this not lumping it all together under the addiction umbrella?

No, it was a slightly clumsy conclusion meant to emphasise how powerful these neurochemicals are. Most losing players are not addicted to gambling, the same as most people who drink are not alcoholics. However, it's similar neural pathways that are stimulated in both addicts and non-addicts alike.

I saw that guy a few times in Harvard videos. Kinda have to consider what he says because of that.

I really don't get that video, explain me.

So what he says is that the dopamine rush is at the expectation of happiness, at the signal and at the work is the highest by a large margin so large that the reward doesn't even seem rewarding if at all.

Although, that is not how I experience it.

For exemple :

I see opportunity to trade work for reward : more or less happy about it
Doing the work : not happy about it at all
Receiving the reward : happy about it

?

It's the expectation of reward that makes us happy, at least from a dopamine POV. However, dopamine does not necessarily mean there are not other emotions. For example anger at not receiving a reward you were expecting, like when your aces get cracked.

Not to mention that most mundane of reasons: they like to play. Why do bad golfers keep golfing?

I think we were trying to look a little deeper than that. Assuming you don't have a religious belief that denies free choice, we all do what we choose to do. So why do people choose poker?

There are OMCs in one of my local rooms and they show up every morning to get away from their wives, drink their coffee, and chat about the news of the day while playing poker. why do they prefer that over just sitting in the park or Starbucks or touring the golf course? Because poker offers something more.

What is that something more? See lots of messages above.

Diversion, entertainment, escape, fun, for those with a bent it is a hypnotizing experience on a par with video games for others, etc., people love games since childhood. The gamble element can be enticing. Certainly many have a card jones. Different strokes for different folks to fill the same need. Are we looking for some reason that is different about poker than everything else? If so, why?

most people have given up on doing anything optimal

they just want to be content, be able to cover their bills, attain basic desires and clock in clock out

there's nothing unique about the way they treat poker vs anything else in their lives, it's all the same

they have fun losing that money so just view it as a fun hobby no differently than when they "lose money" buying ski passes or renewing their netflix subscription

Hey, I know exactly what you mean. The doofuses around here talk about nothing but poker like it's something special. I've been trying to redirect the threads to badminton for years.