> In Pocker there is a clear correlation between your actions and your results
Years ago I was okay-ish with Poker (positive net outcome after about 20k hands on pokerstars) and I'm not so sure about this.
I mean it's statistically true, and calling Poker a pure-luck game is like calling golf a pure-luck game because of wind. But to me the addictiveness of Poker is pretty "Skinner Box like" -- you can literally do nothing wrong, do the theoratically best moves, and still lose hard.
Of course if you did the same move every time in the same situation, it would eventually pay off. But if people are so reasonable addiction wouldn't be a problem in the first place?
I'm not sure why you put the pure-luck-or-not aspect on par with the addictiveness. People can get addicted to winning, regardless of if it's due to their skills or just luck.
The problem with e.g. slot machines is that anyone can win, with the same odds, so it's easy to get addicted to it. You can't get addicted to winning at golf unless you're already putting the work to get good at it. With slot machines you can win, without doing any work. That's the catch.
> With slot machines you can win, without doing any work
Uh, this is the exact my point. With Poker you can win, without doing any work, for one hand or even one night. You can't win forever, but gamblers are not famous for their long-term thinking ability.
And I didn't put the pure-luck-or-not aspect on par with the addictiveness. Actually I opened this conversation with this:
> Is gambling's issue its addictiveness, or its luck-based nature?
It's the luck based nature. The addiction is because you have inconsistent results despite consistent inputs. Humans like to learn, problem solve and pattern seek. Luck based reward systems subvert that but random games tease that part of our brains that it is possible to figure out the pattern if we just do a few more experiments with inputs.
Years ago I was okay-ish with Poker (positive net outcome after about 20k hands on pokerstars) and I'm not so sure about this.
I mean it's statistically true, and calling Poker a pure-luck game is like calling golf a pure-luck game because of wind. But to me the addictiveness of Poker is pretty "Skinner Box like" -- you can literally do nothing wrong, do the theoratically best moves, and still lose hard.
Of course if you did the same move every time in the same situation, it would eventually pay off. But if people are so reasonable addiction wouldn't be a problem in the first place?