In Response to Re: Is There Money To Be Had? : Do you think your normal sports bettor thinks they will win long term? I think everyone knows they will most likely lose, they would like to win of course but its a bit of fun, an added sweat during a game. Posted by MattBates
I think a lot (most possibly) believe they could become a winning bettor - obv they may be self-decieving in that belief.
Poker is an even more extreme example though - it's represented as a game of skill, which enhances this point.
@Matt - just wanted to add that the Dunning-Kruger effect was mentioned earlier, certainly related to this question too.
I know plenty of people who only play for fun. I'm sure most people on here can reel off people they know who do the same.
Difficult for you to grasp, I know, but if you really put your mind to it it might be able to work through the words, process them and take on board what plenty of posters here have pointed out to you.
Poker is a fun game and some people, shock horror, play it just for fun.
i play for fun , i want to win money everybody does but deep down i know i will never be profitable but i,ve learned enough of the game where it doesn,t cost that much and since i don,t go out that much now its a perfect form of entertainment .
i,ve played on here over nine years now and i,m about £500 down which isn,t bad for that timescale and i,ve had some real fun times on here .
cheap fun whats not to like
edit: i just have to say if it wasn,t fun i wouldn,t play
That's a problem gambling campaign slogan isn't it? ^^^ Always found it an interesting choice of words must admit.
There's one other thing that goes against the 'players don't care about money' view - the raging chat box comments that you get (even after someone lost a quid sometimes!)
There's one other thing that goes against the 'players don't care about money' view - the raging chat box comments that you get (even after someone lost a quid sometimes!) Posted by swanstu
You are making more leaps than Sam Beckett with that statement.
In Response to Re: Is There Money To Be Had? : Sure, a little jump, but care to explain a bit more? Raging chat boxes seems to suggest people care? Posted by swanstu
Why are you so bothered if people play 4 fun or not.
In Response to Re: Is There Money To Be Had? : Sure, a little jump, but care to explain a bit more? Raging chat boxes seems to suggest people care? Posted by swanstu
There's one other thing that goes against the 'players don't care about money' view - the raging chat box comments that you get (even after someone lost a quid sometimes!) Posted by swanstu
"There's one other thing that goes against the 'players don't care about money' view" - You are using 'players' as a collective term in this sentence. Nobody has said that players as a collective do not care about money, only that some do not.
Even if you do not mean players as a collective but merely 'some players'... I hardly think a few people venting in chat supports the assertion that there exists no demographic of poker players who only play for the fun aspect. I don't think people venting in chat proves much of anything but if it does then it only proves that there exists a group of players who do care about the money (I don't think anyone denied this anywhere in the thread?). "the raging chat box comments that you get" - The way you have used the word 'raging' here could be taken 2 ways (either (a) raging as in a heavy flow of comments or (b) raging as in 1 or more angered comments).
If you mean as in 'a heavy flow of comments' then this is really not my experience on the tables. Over many games, on many sites, the proportion of people I see 'going off on one' over a small amount of money is very small. This amount of people would certainly not be indicative as to the motivations and characteristics of all poker players.
If you mean 'raging' as in '1 or more angered comments' then again this isn't indicative of all demographics of poker players.
So I would definitely not say that a small amount of players venting in chat gave an indication as to the characteristics of all poker players. As a result the behaviour of this small amount of players doesn't for a second go against the viewpoint that a certain group of players out there on the interwebs may be playing purely for reasons that do not include money. It only proves that a group of players who get bent out of shape over a quid exist; not that other groups do not exist.
In Response to Re: Is There Money To Be Had? : In Response to Re: Is There Money To Be Had? : "There's one other thing that goes against the 'players don't care about money' view" - You are using 'players' as a collective term in this sentence. Nobody has said that players as a collective do not care about money, only that some do not. Even if you do not mean players as a collective but merely 'some players'... I hardly think a few people venting in chat supports the assertion that there exists no demographic of poker players who only play for the fun aspect. I don't think people venting in chat proves much of anything but if it does then it only proves that there exists a group of players who do care about the money (I don't think anyone denied this anywhere in the thread?). " the raging chat box comments that you get " - The way you have used the word 'raging' here could be taken 2 ways (either (a) raging as in a heavy flow of comments or (b) raging as in 1 or more angered comments). If you mean as in 'a heavy flow of comments' then this is really not my experience on the tables. Over many games, on many sites, the proportion of people I see 'going off on one' over a small amount of money is very small. This amount of people would certainly not be indicative as to the motivations and characteristics of all poker players. If you mean 'raging' as in '1 or more angered comments' then again this isn't indicative of all demographics of poker players. So I would definitely not say that a small amount of players venting in chat gave an indication as to the characteristics of all poker players. As a result the behaviour of this small amount of players doesn't for a second go against the viewpoint that a certain group of players out there on the interwebs may be playing purely for reasons that do not include money. It only proves that a group of players who get bent out of shape over a quid exist; not that other groups do not exist. Posted by markycash
Blimey, I'm not sure my original comment was that serious to be fair, but I get the subtleties you mention!
Comments
In Response to Re: Is There Money To Be Had?: "There's one other thing that goes against the 'players don't care about money' view" - You are using 'players' as a collective term in this sentence. Nobody has said that players as a collective do not care about money, only that some do not.
Even if you do not mean players as a collective but merely 'some players'... I hardly think a few people venting in chat supports the assertion that there exists no demographic of poker players who only play for the fun aspect. I don't think people venting in chat proves much of anything but if it does then it only proves that there exists a group of players who do care about the money (I don't think anyone denied this anywhere in the thread?).
"the raging chat box comments that you get" - The way you have used the word 'raging' here could be taken 2 ways (either (a) raging as in a heavy flow of comments or (b) raging as in 1 or more angered comments).
If you mean as in 'a heavy flow of comments' then this is really not my experience on the tables. Over many games, on many sites, the proportion of people I see 'going off on one' over a small amount of money is very small. This amount of people would certainly not be indicative as to the motivations and characteristics of all poker players.
If you mean 'raging' as in '1 or more angered comments' then again this isn't indicative of all demographics of poker players.
So I would definitely not say that a small amount of players venting in chat gave an indication as to the characteristics of all poker players. As a result the behaviour of this small amount of players doesn't for a second go against the viewpoint that a certain group of players out there on the interwebs may be playing purely for reasons that do not include money. It only proves that a group of players who get bent out of shape over a quid exist; not that other groups do not exist.