[faeriechangling]

I won't deny that poker REALLY doesn't work when it's for play money, and poker is honestly one of the greatest games I've ever played in terms of sheer depth and how much you can replay it.

At the same time, it's not the only great game I've played. When it comes to probability-centric games, I'm fond of Backgammon, deck builders, and computer strategy games which are all enjoyable when not played for stakes.

I think the first time Poker disturbed me is when I was at a table when somebody was going all-in every other hand for hours just bleeding a ton of money, not really playing the game, just having a sort of problem as everybody at the table stayed at that table swallowing the money. When you realise a lot of the fun the good players have who study poker strategy is not only at the expense of such people, but poker itself wouldn't be nearly as popular as it is if such people didn't exist and it was all very serious people reading strategy books who were all slowly losing money to the rake, the magic sort of fades. Even among the winning players, you see people who aren't technically losing money but can't stop themselves from playing despite the fact they're spending way too much time on the game, not really enjoying it, while barely making any money.

I don't know, Why not play a fun game where nobody has to suffer? You know who I see playing non-gambling probability games all the time? Former poker pros.

[ethbr1]

> poker REALLY doesn't work when it's for play money

I have a great college memory of taking an all-in no-money hand off a fraternity brother as a freshman prospect during rush week... with a pair of 3's (against an ace-high?).

Dealer to brother: "Why the hell did you go all in?"

Brother: "Because we weren't playing for money."

Dealer to me: "Why the hell did you call with 3's?"

Me: "Because we weren't playing for money, and he wasn't either."