Poker: Hobby, Sport, or Profit?

March 13, 2004

Posted By: hdouble

hdouble

"I had discovered that a person does not have to be this or be that or be anything, not even oneself. One is free."
--Walker Percy

Work and social commitments (ugh) have kept me off of the poker tables for the last couple of days, although I did manage to eek out a couple of short, barely-winning sessions on PartyPoker. I did get to engage with a thought provoking session with a reader via email, who brought me back to the question of "Why do people play poker?"

The reader astutely pointed out that although PartyPoker may be the most profitable place to play, it may not be the best. If our goal is not to win the most money, but to challenge ourselves intellectually, then most likely the site with the most fish is not the best place to play.

I've been struggling with this question for a while now. It always seems to appear in different forms, but it really comes down to "Why do you play poker?" Note that this is not the same question as "Why do you play poker rather than do X?" where X ranges from watch tv to saving the world. It could be reformulated as, "What is your goal as a poker player?"

The answer to this question has wavered over my short career as a poker player, but it always seems to fall across 3 categories. Poker as a hobby, Poker as a sport, or Poker for profit. I gonna break it on down for ya.

Poker as a hobby
Sorry, but I'm going to have to go to Webster's:
hobby--a small Old World falcon (Falco subbuteo) formerly trained to catch small birds (as larks)
That's actually the first definition! Let's go to number 2...
hobby--a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation
Ahh. So Webster tells us that the most important attribute of a hobby is that its purpose is relaxation. So poker as a hobby can be looked at as a form of relaxation. This is very interesting from a personal perspective, since I'm very bad at relaxing. If I'm not doing something, I get anxious and start pacing, and eventually find something to do, whether it's drink a beer or meditate on pot odds. But poker is a very active form of meditation-- just you, the cards, and the other players, and your mind churns away trying to figure out if your hand is the best, and why the hell the maniac in seat 1 keeps reraising. Although I enjoy the relaxation aspect of poker, my desire to improve and "win" seems stronger than my desire to "relax".

Poker as sport
Webster's definition of "sport" sucks, so I'll do my best...
sport--an activity in which a group of competitors attempt to achieve a defined goal according to a set of agreed upon rules
A little-known philosopher once said that all sport is just a sublimation of war. It's a way that humans can satisfy their instinctual urges without killing or getting killed. I agree with that to some extent, and see sport as a way to combine knowledge, skill, and instinct to defeat one's competitors. So if we look at poker as sport, the most rewarding game would be one in which we utilize our unique abilities to win our opponents chips (which act as the scoreboard). Thus, the dream of the poker-for-sport player is be to consistently beat the best players in the world for a single big bet per hour. This player would be happy even if the limit was .01/.02, if he or she was sure that the other players were playing their best. The problem is, increased stakes usually result in an improvement in play. If someone's rent money is on the line, it's a lot more likely they will be taking the game more seriously and concentrating a lot harder.

I think this brings us to the WPT/WSOP folks. I find it very hard to believe that these tourneys can have a positive expectation for anybody. Most of the people in these tourneys have plenty of money to burn, and I would think that 99% of the players have lost a considerable amount of cash on this tour. Short term luck is the most important factor, and with a 10K buy in, your expectation is pretty low. But you're playing against the Lederers and the Iveys, the most skilled players playing their best game. And if 10K doesn't hurt your bankroll, who wouldn't enjoy doing that?

Poker for profit
And we come to the grinder's perspective. There are many who would argue that those who are not playing poker to win the most money are not true poker players. This attitude goes hand in hand with one of my most hated quotes: "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." What matters is not how you played, it's how many chips you bring to the cashier when you rack out. Of course, if you sucked out a 2-out runner-runner to win those racks, that's not important.

The grinder's pleasure comes from watching his bankroll grow steadily. He knows that his small edge will add up over time, but the "thrill of the chase" is not for the likes of the grinder. Poker for profit relies on being more disciplined than the average player, sacrificing the thrill of gamb00lin it up for the pleasure of slowly and steadily bleeding the gamblers dry. Some might argue that this is a perversion of gambling-- "seeing all the angles but not having the stones to play them".

But poker for profit doesn't have to be a grind. The grinder knows his odds, and can shed his grinding shell at any time. The true grinder never leaves the grind, always minimizing risk for the sake of a slow and steady profit. But a grinder can "roll up the stake and go to Vegas", knowing he's good enough to beat any game with a little short term luck.

The Verdict
I'm still working it out, but I'd have to say I fall somewhere in the middle of poker for profit and poker for sport. Right now I choose the grind-- 3 $3-6 tables of straight-forward poker. But it's still somewhat of a challenge, as I'm still learning a fair bit. But I'll often hop on the more challenging $5-10 shorthanded games, where psychology and knowledge become more important and result in bigger profits (if you can withstand the huge swings).

My hope is that when I finally tire of robot poker and have extracted as much knowledge as I can from the $3-6 games, I'll be able to move on to the $5-10 shorthanded games armed with knowledge and a fat bankroll.

Or maybe I should just stop blogging so much and play some damn poker. Shut up and deal!

Posted by hdouble at March 13, 2004 12:57 AM | TrackBack

Maximize your profits: learn how to use the most powerful tool in online poker.

Comments

Great post, as usual. This is one *the* epistomological question in poker, and one I'm fascinated with. I think for most of us the answer lies somewhere between poker for profit and poker for sport. And by us, I mean the poker blogger community. We all seem to have a similar approach to the game. And that's what makes the WPBT such a hit -- it combines the best of both worlds. We know we're testing our skills against people of similar talent, although they may range from the high end of that spectrum (Yourself, Iggy, Pauly, Felicia) to the low end (me) we all have an idea of the kind and quality of competition we're going up against there. That's why the whole thing has been so satisfying for us, collectively.

Beating the fish is a point of business. Beating each other is a point of pride.

(Why yes, I am drunk. Why do you ask?)

Posted by: Jason at March 13, 2004 01:19 AM

Nice post HDouble... why ask why? Just do it. Sorry about they 1990s advertising slogans.

Hey Jason, thanks for mentioning me on the "high end" of the poker spectrum! I also figured myself for middle of the road. You played well the other night, don;t sell yourself short!

Posted by: Pauly at March 13, 2004 06:46 AM

Very interesting post HD. I actually find that if I approach the game as "poker as sport" I tend to do better than if I concentrate on grinding. I'll get some larger variances, but it's too easy for me to lose focus while grinding and ruin the small profits that I've gained in the other 90% of the time.

Posted by: tp at March 13, 2004 08:32 AM

How about poker as poker? It can be all three, and any of us can have a good time at any version of it. To me, that's what's important, being able to make that switch from grinder to gambler to just effin' around.

I only care about this because Julie talked me into playing Mr. Moss Covered Rock / robot poker. It's lucrative, and you can watch a movie. It's boring and time consuming, but you can make a dollar at it.

I still love NL most of all, because that's the poker I grew up with and love the most. It's exciting, it's gambling, it's heads-up, it's cool.

Anyway...why do I play? Cuz I love the cards, man...

Posted by: Scott Chaffin at March 13, 2004 07:57 PM

Another great post in a long line of great ones.

I will have to address this in my own I think (once the server gets back up :). Thanks for getting me thinking though.

Posted by: Chris Halverson at March 15, 2004 08:22 AM

"hobby—a small Old World falcon (Falco subbuteo) formerly trained to catch small birds (as larks)."

Many dictionaries, including (apparently) the one you used, order the definitions etymologically. In other words, this definition of hobby was the first one used in print (that we know of).

Why yes, I am full of useless information ... why do you ask?

Posted by: LordGeznikor at March 15, 2004 09:29 AM