Losing Players

[UncleHoot 0]

Since finding out about Sharkscope, I've been checking on players at the table, from time to time. I've seen several players with a negative ROI of more than 50%, meaning -54%, -57%, etc. And in many of these cases, they had played more than 500 games. One of these guys was being verbally abusive to one of the other players, and eventually won the tournament. Afterward, I made a comment about him being a bad player, and he said something like, "I don't think I'm bad. I'm probably about average." At that point, I forced myself to shut up and simply said, "ok". (Honestly, I don't like berating the fish.)Granted, we're always happy to see fish, but why do they still play? Who are they? Is it simply a compulsion?I play Keno from time to time (it's run by the state of Michigan now). The ROI on that is extremely negative. I don't play all the time, but I've probaly lost a couple hundred or so over the last 3 years. For a few bucks, it's fun to sit and play during lunch. I expect to lose, and yet I still play. Is that the mentality behind fish? Do they honestly believe that it's all "just luck"? I've wondered about this for a long time. One poster here mentioned that he finally became a winning player, after being down about $900. That's very commendable.

[qyayqi 11]

yes, we just enjoy playing. quit beating us over the head with our ineptitude, please. we get it. wsap. if you don't want our freakin' money, we'll go play blackjack. at least the dealer doesn't whine when we win occasionally.

[Moneyball16 0]

Isnt poker fun for you? Its entertainment and there has to be a price in which you are willing to pay for hat entertainment. Its just another thing to do like renting a movie or going to a hockey game. Even if I was a losing player I would still play poker just because its fun.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I think Poker is a different beast - for some of the same reasons we all love to play the game, fish keep coming back. The "luck" factor. The Play v. Player rather than a house advantage. The competition without having to be "in shape". All of these things lead to a very different sort of Gambler's Fallacy than the traditional Gambler's Fallacy. Traditionally, the GF leads someone to believe that prior events will have an outcome on future random events. the Poker Gambler's Fallacy is a mixture of denial and failed reasoning. I could go on, but that is the basis of my developing Point of View of the Fish.

[nutzbuster 7]

People play becasue it fun. Simple. Most players wont admit that they lose a ton when first starting out. Losing is the only way to get better really. Remembering the pain of a bad play keeps you from doing it again.Hopefully. But some folks never figure it out.....and it is they who help me pay the bills. Don't tap the fish tank.

[Dogpatch 2]

Two threads, very similar. People like to play because they like to gamble. Most people don't track their results. All they care about is winning occasionaly. They could slowly lose $500 and not care as long as they drag the occasional big pot. I love those people.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Actually a pretty interesting question. Why keep coming back? I think many players don't keep track of their losses, so when they are winning, the perspective isn't there. That's one thing probably. Yeah, it's fun. Fun for me because I win though. Don't think I'd donk off my money playing poker if I was a consistent loser, I would buy beer or something instead. It's really hard for me to have a similar perspective as the many people online who are either consistent losers or just rec players in general. I think about it so much, think/talk strat, really care about what I'm doing...it's just hard to look at it from a different perspective than that.

[IAGTTAYM 0]

I think the vast majority doesn't play to win the big bucks, me included. We play cause it's a fun, competitive and an extremely addictive game.

[qyayqi 11]

now you've done it, consider the fish tank officially tapped. <breaking out e-book of HoH>

[DonkSlayer 1]

Oh, and I wouldn't invest too much faith into Sharkscope for ratings. I would almost guaruntee that any rating system would have a neg. ROI for me (at least for MTT's), because I MIGHT play them once a month; I'm a winning cash game player though.

[Socrates 0]

I'd agree that most probably think they are actually good or average. The fact that they probably don't track results is another point. People generally remember their wins and not all of their loses. If someone is playing low dollar $50-100 buy in tournaments once a week or so will lose 6 or 7 weeks in a row, but if they win once they think that they're even or something or that its just the way poker goes. Poker is still a fad, its cool to say you play poker. I run into and talk to people all the time who talk about how they play alot and so on, but once they get to a game its obvious to me that they have no idea what's going on. People also play for fun, I have a few guys at our rooms who are consistent losers and they know they are outmatched when they sit down, but they always have a smile on their face and are happy to give away their money for entertainment.

[hblask 1]

I've wondered about this for a long time. One poster here mentioned that he finally became a winning player, after being down about $900. That's very commendable.

That was me, and I can tell you why I continued: I saw or imagined I saw improvement each week. My losses got slower, I understood more of the game, I was studying and learning, and also, I just plain enjoyed it. Per hour it was cheaper than a movie, play, or sports event.I believe in that post I pointed out that I was ready to quit at one point. While it was cheap entertainment on an hourly basis, the constant availability of it was starting to add up.At that point, I had no meaningful way to measure whether I actually was improving or not, so a week of wins convinced me I had finally turned the corner. I had more winning sessions than losing sessions, it's just that the losing sessions were *terrible*, so that was just bad luck, right?Looking back many months later, I can tell you the moment I switched from a losing player to a winning player, and I can tell you several other turning points. At the time, every winning session was, in my mind, THE turning point.So to answer your original question, I think it's part delusion and part entertainment. And occasionally a gambling problem.There is also a psychological explanation based on reinforcement patterns, if anyone is interested, but it could get a bit lengthy. Think B.F. Skinner. I'll type more on it if anyone is interested.

[Socrates 0]

That was me, and I can tell you why I continued: I saw or imagined I saw improvement each week. My losses got slower, I understood more of the game, I was studying and learning, and also, I just plain enjoyed it. Per hour it was cheaper than a movie, play, or sports event.I believe in that post I pointed out that I was ready to quit at one point. While it was cheap entertainment on an hourly basis, the constant availability of it was starting to add up.At that point, I had no meaningful way to measure whether I actually was improving or not, so a week of wins convinced me I had finally turned the corner. I had more winning sessions than losing sessions, it's just that the losing sessions were *terrible*, so that was just bad luck, right?Looking back many months later, I can tell you the moment I switched from a losing player to a winning player, and I can tell you several other turning points. At the time, every winning session was, in my mind, THE turning point.So to answer your original question, I think it's part delusion and part entertainment. And occasionally a gambling problem.There is also a psychological explanation based on reinforcement patterns, if anyone is interested, but it could get a bit lengthy. Think B.F. Skinner. I'll type more on it if anyone is interested.

Skinner was crazy - although, it is a good point. it would be lengthy, but I agree it has something to do with it as well.

[milojones 0]

what is the skinner philosophy. i admire skinner and have studied him in college but not to a great extent.. you dont have to type it as i understand it owuld probably be a hassle but i cant find anything on google.

[Socrates 0]

what is the skinner philosophy. i admire skinner and have studied him in college but not to a great extent.. you dont have to type it as i understand it owuld probably be a hassle but i cant find anything on google.

You can just google Skinner and reinforcement theory and that will give you a number of things to read.

[WhatArunAA 0]

I think you need to take these rating systems with a grain of salt. I'm down 2000 in my lifetime on Stars MTTS and that is over alot of tournies. yet I'm up a considerable amount across other sites (Mostly Party). Look up SDouble on sharkscope.. he is down 36000 dollars in SNGS>. yet he is a VERY GOOD PLAYER. I think its more important to look at recent results as opposed to the greater picture.. because I lost a grand or 2 before I ever even cashed out... That being said I do believe that these are useful tools to gauge players.. but I think you need to be careful when using these systems.

[UncleHoot 0]

That was me, and I can tell you why I continued: I saw or imagined I saw improvement each week. My losses got slower, I understood more of the game, I was studying and learning, and also, I just plain enjoyed it. Per hour it was cheaper than a movie, play, or sports event.<snip>

That just reminded me... Way back (in 2005), I discovered Party Poker's dollar tournament. For a buck, I could average a couple hours of fun each night. Some nights it was 10 minutes, other nights it was 3.5 hours (and I'd make 4 bucks. Yes!!!) Then one night, for whatever reason, I became super-aggressive. I was getting good hands, and I'd push hard. (yada yada) Anyway, I made the final table, and cashed about $150, which put me about $75 in the black overall. Then, I eventually lost that $75, redeposited a couple more times, then made another final table, and cashed another $150. Right about that time, poker went from being entertainment to something that I could actually make money at, and I've never been in the red since.Honestly, I had completely forgotten about the "entertainment" factor. Sure, it's more fun when you win, but in 2005, it was simply entertainment. It was just fun to play. Losing didn't matter. Winning was a bonus.It's kinda scary that I had all but forgotten the pure entertainment factor. It wasn't very long ago. Now it's only fun when I win. Gee, that sucks.

[hblask 1]

what is the skinner philosophy. i admire skinner and have studied him in college but not to a great extent.. you dont have to type it as i understand it owuld probably be a hassle but i cant find anything on google.

Here's the short version (or as short as I can make it). I will relate it to dog training, as that is a part-time job for me, and the principles work the same on humans:There are different types of reinforcement:1) giving the subject a pleasant stimulus for performing a desired action (e.g., dog gets a treat for sitting). This is called Positive Reinforcement, and this is the one that applies most to poker2) taking away an unpleasant stimulus for stopping a non-desired action (e.g., stop yanking on the leash if the dog stops pulling in the other direction)3) giving an unpleasant stimulus for a non-desired action (e.g., bark collars on dogs)4) taking away a pleasant stimulus for a non-desired behavior (e.g. taking away a toy if the dog gets too rambunctious with it).Skinner also studied the effects of intermittent rewards/punishments, and found that the most effective teaching/training method is intermittent Positive Reinforcement, even more so than consistent Positive Reinforcement, and any other combination of consistent/intermittent positive/negative reinforcement/punishment.The example I give in my classes is if a business set up a roomful of machines with flashing lights and spinning dials, and every time you put a dollar in, the lights flashed, the machine made noise, and it gave out 3 quarters, two dimes and a nickel, your business wouldn't last long.Instead, make similar machines that sometimes pay out more and sometimes less. Even though *in the long run* they pay out *WAY* less, and everybody knows that, people will plan their vacation around it (aka Las Vegas).This is why fish play poker even though they are losing -- biologically the intermittent winning session overwhelms the negatives from the losing sessions.(This theory also explains a lot of life, such as abusive relationships).

[mtdesmoines 3]

Think B.F. Skinner. I'll type more on it if anyone is interested.

OH SHUT UP, YOU SKINNERIAN BABOON!

[UncleHoot 0]

(This theory also explains a lot of life, such as abusive relationships).

Wait a minute... There are positive times in relationships? (just kidding)But seriously, that was a good review. I think that applies to a lot of compulsive/addicted gamblers especially. I really don't know where I fall in that category at this point.But back to the entertainment value... Sometimes, I just sit back and rail JohnnyBax, BodogAri, etc. It's fun to watch, just like on TV. And watching Bax call someone's all-in with pocket 3's (post flop) is occasionally mind-boggling.

[eYank 0]

i will say i do care about the money, but usually when i play its for $10-20 and its basically what id pay if i went to a movie or seomthing with my friends (and it keeps my parents happy bc they know im not out drinking)As for online I lost like $50 online just seeing what it was like. I made some really bad plays as well as took some beats but its ok. Ive become a much better player because of it.

[MyPlayIsRAB 0]

ill be the first to admit im not the best player in the world, but i know i can profit longterm (from jan-dec this year, i have a 400% (5x) return in mtts) but i fn hate the swings. it seems im either at the final table or out in 10 minutes. sometimes i wonder why i keep playing, but i know that even if i drop a grand, i am going to win back four or five. i guess thats what keeps me going.. and when i play cash games, knowing that if i get a normal set of cards and dont get donkstruck every hand i play, ill win longterm as well keeps me ging

[TylerSalzman 0]

People play becasue it fun. Simple. Most players wont admit that they lose a ton when first starting out. Losing is the only way to get better really. Remembering the pain of a bad play keeps you from doing it again.Hopefully. But some folks never figure it out.....and it is they who help me pay the bills. Don't tap the fish tank.

I wouldn't play if I lost money regularly. for me winning money=fun... poker is just a means to that end. I don't like to gamble and poker is a skill game compared to many other casino games. I can see where some people just play because they have fun doing it even though they lose, but you would think that in the long run they would start to get better.... wouldn't you? Well, some dont I guess

[Balloon guy 158]

I wouldn't play if I lost money regularly. for me winning money=nice sweaters... poker is just a means to that end. I don't like to gamble and poker is a skill game compared to many other casino games.

FYP

[hblask 1]

I can see where some people just play because they have fun doing it even though they lose, but you would think that in the long run they would start to get better.... wouldn't you? Well, some dont I guess

They wouldn't get better if they approach the game with the same mentality that they approach a slot-machine: "You win some, you lose some, it's all just luck, but I'm having fun, who cares?"