Hacker News Reader

Comment by pyrale | Hacker News Reader

> If you take the money out of it you have to replace it with something that matters to the players outside of the game itself for it to work.

This claim is genuinely alien to me. I've seen people play lots of games very competitively without tying money in it. No one would seriously claim that chess hustler games are the only serious chess games, yet that claim looks oddly similar to the one made in poker. Why would poker be an exception? Is the game not interesting enough to play without it? Does the game use money to lure in a population of players that would otherwise not play? If so, is i likely that this extra population is skilled enough at the game to compete fairly?

View on HN

Bit of a tortured example, but imagine if in chess every time you moved your queen you had to put $1 in escrow that you only got back if you won the game - do you think you'd still make exactly the same moves, or would you maybe play a sub optimal game to avoid moving your queen as much?

And if you saw your opponent move their queen would you be more confident that they probably saw a path to victory than you would be otherwise, and would you maybe spend more time analyzing moves that required that queen move instead of what you might have analyzed instead otherwise? (analogous to bluffing in poker).

Basically the fact that there's some external factor you can use to communicate what your move might mean to other players makes the mind games/bluffing/analysis work better than if you were just playing to win. The money isn't just linked to whether you win or lose - it's actually tied to the individual mechanics in a way that affects how each round plays out.

The cost/information function of moves exists in poker regardless of whether it's tied to actual money. You put your money in a hand if you believe that you have good ev, whether that ev is labeled in chips or dollars. I don't see how changing the rules of chess (therefore changing the ev - of course if you change the ev that changes players' behaviour. But that would be like changing the poker ruleset, not changing the money value of chips) makes a comparable case.

Let me give you a counter-comparison: if regardless of which chess piece was moved, after both players had made a play, they could bet on the game outcome (therefore not changing the ev of a move), I'm not sure players would want to play differently.

Your chess betting example would play slightly differently than standard chess. Since the goal becomes not just to win, but to win the most cash, you'd be trying to leverage your hidden information in order to improve your outcome, which in chess is just "things you've foreseen but your opponent hasn't", which, due to the nature of chess, you'd weaken by jacking up your bets to try and capitalize. The result would probably be a worse game of chess, since without the chance component the better player will win the chess game far more often than the worse player, and then the optimal move for the worse player would be to forfeit early constantly.

> Is the game not interesting enough to play without it?

Yes. Poker ceases to be interesting when not played for something. Chess and most other games are certainly different in this aspect.

Yea, one of the main attributes that define poker is that the chips are worth something (either cash value, or as potential equity in a tournament cash-out).

It's hard to articulate how this happens, but when the chips have no value, the game plays totally different, and just isn't poker anymore. There's no point to bluffing, or aggressively raising, or agonizing over whether you should fold your two pair, if a 100 chip bet has the same zero value as a 1000 chip bet. It just ends up playing like a boring, no stakes "guess the number I'm thinking" game.

The money is a countable resource that players are motivated to win and not to lose. The game can be played with a substitute, but it doesn't pan out the same way, because the players don't have the same relationship to other kinds of token. (Same applies to playing for pennies. The amounts have to be at least somewhat meaningful.)

> (Same applies to playing for pennies. The amounts have to be at least somewhat meaningful.)

That's kind of an issue, though. Richer players are advantaged, as are seasoned players who are used to lose large amounts of money. That's not really related to game skills, since there is no way to ensure that players bet something equally valuable to them, which in your reasoning means that some players start with an advantage.

This mostly gets avoided with maximum buyin limits on tables. Sure someone can accrue well over that amount, but that's part of cash poker too (dealing with players with large stacks).

Obviously players with much larger bankrolls can weather variance better, but that should even out at pretty much any table a player should reasonably be at (don't play stakes you can't afford where losing the money severely negatively impacts your life).

Richer players can keep losing for longer than you could, but that's fine: that means more money for you to win!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com