Why Winning Poker Players Play Negative EV Games

[peterbirks]

How many top poker players do you know of who have done their bollocks at Craps, or some other negative EV game? Quite a few, I should think.

So, why do they do it?

Well, there are many reasons for this, but I thought of a new one (for me) the other day. It was inspired by Chris Fargas's observation that he felt worse about losing than he felt good about winning. This meant that, even though he was a winner at poker, the accumulative emotional effect was negative.

Now, the accepted wisdom is that, even if a bet is neutral EV, we feel worse about losing that bet than we feel good about winning it. But if you are a poker player, it's worse than that. Because, of course, your EV at poker is positive, if you are a winning poker player.

So, when you play poker, and you win, then things are how they should be. So why should you feel good about it? A computer-like player (with emotions, if you see what I mean) could feel "good" if he won more than his average winnings per hour, but that's a tall order in emotional requirements. As a rule, unless a win is absolutely brilliant, there isn't that much positive emotion attached.

Contrarily, if a winning poker player loses, then of course there is a severe negative emotional reaction, because things have not happened as the odds would indicate. Not only have you lost, but you have, by definition, been unlucky.

Now, spin this onto its head. If I play a negative EV game, I expect to lose. Losing, therefore, does not generate much of a negative reaction, because things were as they should be. However, if I defy the odds, get lucky, beat fate at its own game, and I win, then I feel great. I am blessed, I am the lucky one incarnate. In fact, even if I break even, I feel fairly good.

So, in emotional reward rather than financial reward, the negative EV game has a lot going for it. Because you expect so little, anything that you get back makes you happy. In poker, because you are a winner, you expect a lot. Anything that you don't get back, makes you sad. Tghe negative EV game's positive emotional bias counterbalances the negative emotion that builds up from suffering the standard deviations of poker.

Gimme a Hard Eight, $2,000.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I like this - it's very neat. But I'm not sure it's a complete explanation for the amounts reputedly spunked away by some players. It seems to me that poker attracts those with a self-punishing streak perhaps, and this manifests istelf in self-destructive behaviour.

[(Anonymous)]

GREAT point... Hadn't really thought about it like this before, but it makes perfect sense. I really do feel better, and am in a better mood after breaking even playing four card poker than I am after a two hour +$100 session of small stakes limit poker. Never realized why this was, I just knew I felt ecstatic everytime I did even moderately well at -EV games. Your post opened my eyes to why. Thank you,
Cayne

[(Anonymous)]

I like the thesis Pete, but I happen to think that in the past people came to poker after they had played other games. I only got into poker because one day in 1995 I turned up at the Barracuda to play craps and discovered that they had done away with the table. I got talked into playing poker by some guys I met at the blackjack table. I carried on playing house games (and losing) for about four years because I finally quit negative EV games.

The new generation of poker players are not like this. Many didn't play any negative EV games before they played poker. When I think of those good players who piss their money away at the dice table, I'm thinking of people who've played for a long time.

DY

[(Anonymous)]

that should read -

I carried on playing house games (and losing) for about four years BEFORE I finally quit negative EV games.

[countingmyouts.livejournal.com]

Your post reminded me of a quote from Al Pacino's character in "Two For The Money"):

"You're a lemon. Like a bad car. There is something... there is something inherently defective in you, and you, and you, and me, and all of us. We're all lemons. We look like everyone else, but what makes us different is our defect. See, most gamblers, when they go to gamble, they go to win. When we go to gamble, we go to lose. Subconsciously. Me, I never feel better than when they're raking the chips away; not bringing them in. And everyone here knows what I'm talking about. Hell, even when we win it's just a matter of time before we give it all back. But when we lose, that's another story. When we lose, and I'm talking about the kind of loss that makes your asshole pucker to the size of a decimal point - you know what I mean - You've just recreated the worst possible nightmare this side of malignant cancer, for the twentieth goddamn time; and you're standing there and you suddenly realise, Hey, I'm still... here. I'm still breathing. I'm still alive. Us lemons, we fuck shit up all the time on purpose. Because we constantly need to remind ourselves we're alive. Gambling's not your problem. It's this fucked up need to feel something. To convince yourself you exist. That's the problem. "

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

As I said, this was only one part of a greater point. Some winning poker players secretly want to lose to get back at their father. Some are just action junkies, who, if they can't get a positive EV bet, will take a negative EV bet. Some are playing negative EV games to confirm their lack of self-worth. This was just an additional point that I hadn't thought of before.

PJ

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Many thanks, Cayne. I didn't think that the point was THAT spellbinding. Indeed, both factos were known (and well known, at that). It was just a matter of bringing them together, which I hadn't seen anyone do before.

PJ

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

I think you might be in the minority here, David. I was playing poker long before I ever entered a casino, and I've played hardly any negative EV games. Most of the players I know of my generation are the same, playing poker outside of casinos, and only playing poker inside casinos because home games were not available, for some reason.

Good luck in LV, BTW.

PJ

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

This is the degenerate action junkie risk-seeker scenario, adn in the mid 1970s was the favourite thesis of academia and of the "compulsive gambling" trait.

Today it's accepted that it's abit more complicated. Compulsive gambling can actually be indicative of more than one kind of defect, with the "wish to lose" a subset of these.

But, as you say, it was a great speech.

I always remember the way that compulsive gamblers were dismissed in Once Upon A Time In America and (during the Executive Game episode) in The Sopranos, as "degenerates". They were seen in the same way as junkies, and with some accuracy.

Guy (Bowles) reckoned I was "addicted" to online poker. And, in a way, he's right, but it's different from my one-time addiction to alcohol and different from your standard compulsive gambling problem (where, by definition, I would be increasing the stakes to maintain the 'thrill'). For me, it's more of an OCD kind of replacement therapy while I wait for something better to come along. LIke playing with rosary beads to relive stress, it's a compulsion that does some good, rather than long-term harm (oh, and the money helps, too....)

PJ

[countingmyouts.livejournal.com]

I would agree that the "wish to lose" is a likely subset of multiple defects. It would certainly be interesting to see which big name poker pros would be categorized by a true psychological expert into this group. Given the legendary status T.J. Cloutier has achieved with his time at the craps tables, I would not be surprised if he suffered from this malady.

Maybe you are addicted to online poker, maybe you are not. If we enjoy any particular endeavor, I guess it could be argued that we are addicted to it. Some are good, some are not.

In regards to online poker, for those that count on making income from it, no matter how small that income is, I would say they are not addicted to it. Perhaps that could be the litmus test.

Interesting post, Pete.