One thing that has always interested me is how there are some super talented and competitive poker players who absolutely refuse to knowingly make a -EV play in a NLHE hand, but those same players will walk over to the pits after their poker session and gladly take the worst of it versus the casino playing craps or whatever.

Why is that? These players don't want to make -EV bets against another individual in a poker hand, but they seemingly don't mind making bad bets against the casino. It seems like their competitive nature and desire to win/not be embarrassed by having the losers side in a bet, would stop them from purposely making those bets. I'm hypothesizing that there is some kind of ego thing that comes into play when you're against another person face-to-face on the table that makes people even more competitive/eager to win than they normally are, and therefore have less desire to gamble than they do against a faceless casino. Thoughts?

some people like to gamble man

any chance this thread could peter out with just a single reply? or will this one reply cause a snowball effect? i hope the former

Humans have multiple drives.

If you were to do brain scans of poker players playing poker, and then brain scans of the same poker players playing roulette for example, poker would likely cause more prefrontal cortex activity (associated with reason and puzzle solving), while roulette would probably light up the amygdala (adrenaline) and other zones related to the dopamine cycle more. I speculate but there is probably enough research on those topics to make this a reasonable hypothesis.

It would appear to a spectator that those poker players who go to the table games are contradicting themselves, but actually they are just in the process of obeying different drives.

In my personal experience, engaging knowingly in -EV gambling when you know so much about EV is about letting go of the responsibility and pressure that comes along with poker decisions. It's about enjoying self-inflicted variance devoid of any relevant decision making.

I’m not sure how that’s an improvement over “some people like to gamble man.”

It's an attempt to explain why "some people like to gamble man" when they are trained to know they should not.

If people have to be trained to know they shouldn’t do something, it doesn’t need much explaining that people like to do it.

Some or not some, that is the question. It looks pretty clear to me that one must be willing to gamble to move up. You can't play this game too carefully and expect to get high.

Now the only thing a gambler needs, is a suitcase and a trunk.

You're underestimating the amount of -ev plays people make playing poker although I understand the thought for arguments sake.

The next best thing to playing and winning is playing and losing.

Gambling's fun
You trade $for entertainment

A poker pro has a job, and then has fun doing flips or going for craps it's like a plumber doing the same thing, the poker pro will just be more aware

Ding. There's a really good scene in The Big Short, where Mark Baum, an obsessive, hyper over-stressed hedge fund manager, becomes disgusted with himself after he realizes an extremely well-researched ultra-longshot bet he's made in the financial market is going to pay off, but at enormous damage to other people who have no idea what's coming to them. Even some of his best friends might be financially ruined or left unemployed.

On the verge of puking he tells his dinner party that he's leaving "to go find moral redemption, at the roulette wheel."

Sometimes you just want to turn your brain off and go degenerate and whether you win or lose on a long enough timeline isn't really the point in that moment. It's like asking why do doctors do drugs sometimes.

I know playing pit games is a losing proposition but I do it for fun. It's sometimes nice to just risk some money on the hopes of winning as opposed to the calculated decision making of poker.

We all enjoy different things.

Gotta admit I rather enjoy the occasional successful calculated decision making of poker rather than pit games.

But then as a kid I like chess, checkers and Monopoly instead of "Candyland" and "Chutes and Ladders". )For those who thankfully never had to play the last two board "games", the "spinner" decided your fate, there was no strategy whatsoever.)

I've given up on telling poker friends not to punt in the pits
I don't understand it but it's not my money