Using some surprising research on rats playing wrestling games, Barry Carter explains why poker would not be profitable without the luck factor.

Keep the casual player entertained

I’ve written a lot recently about why I believe formats like Spin & Go, BLAST, Spin & Go Max, Beat the Clock and Missions appeal to recreational players. One of the commonalities between all of them is that they allow us to play meta games outside of the poker itself, so we can have a sense of ‘winning’ even if we lose money.

So I might be down $20 playing cash but up $3 playing CardMatch, I might lose my Spin & Go but I ‘won’ the buzz of playing a x10 multiplier, I may be down but I 'beat the clock', and so on. You could argue that this is a way of manipulating recreational players to carry on losing, I would say it is just a way to keep the game more fun. High stakes players have known this for years, that’s why you get them playing table games, the 7-2 game, running it twice, prop bets, and so on.

I may sound like a broke record about this, but the appeal of poker to recreational players is that they can win at any time against much better players. This is why the Chris Moneymaker victory was so compelling, and we forget this at our peril. Poker suffers when the game is no longer fun, especially when everybody is playing with an insurmountable edge against casual players.

We won't play if we never win

I stumbled upon some fascinating research this week that really demonstrates how important it is for recreational players to win now and then, if you want to keep them playing.

Dr Jaak Panksepp was a neuroscientist who sadly passed away this year who studied the role of play in rats. He removed the cortexes of rats to see if they still wanted to roughhouse with other rats, and they did. Rats would play a wrestling game where they would pin each other to the ground, which they still did when their cortexes were removed. This showed that the impulse to play came from a very primitive part of the brain, one which is likely shared with all mammals, including humans.

That was his most famous finding, but within that something very interesting, especially in the context of poker. Larger rats would invariably beat smaller rats most of the time, given their ‘pinning’ game was very body weight dependent. But when larger rats would not let smaller rats win once in a while (Panksepp estimated around 30% of the time), the smaller rats would stop playing with them. They no longer wanted to play when it was impossible for them to win, they were fine with losing most of the time, as long as there was a chance they could win.

As this was from a primitive part of the brain most likely shared by humans, it gives even more evidence as to why it is important to let casual players win, as well as why poker is so much fun in the first place. When recreational players feel there is a chance to win, they keep on playing. When they get absolutely crushed every time, it is very probably hardwired within them to stop.

Give up edge for long term benefit

The amateur occassionally beating the Pros is what makes poker appealing

I know this as a recreational player myself. This may sound counter intuitive, but I actually like playing against professional players. It gives me the biggest thrill the times I beat them in a pot, bust them or think I played a hand well against them. In my weekly home game with friends I am the best player, and I enjoy it for the banter, but I get the biggest thrill from the games where I know I am outmatched. It is that occasional promise of winning that stops me from practicing better game selection.

I say all this as a reminder as to why giving up a little bit of edge in the short term will probably reap dividends in the long term. It is true to that you might stand to win the most money at a 250 big blind cash game table, but for some recreational players that is not where they want to be. You may have decidedly less of an edge in shallower or higher variance games, but you get to play against weaker players much more frequently.

Do you pick games based on the biggest skill edge or the number of casual players? Let us know in the comments: