Comments on: Kiplinger’s Gets the Poker Bug

By: Bob Frick

Bob Frick — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:33:02 +0000

Gents,

What I’m saying is you can get the same emotional reactions even when you’re not playing for money — lots of academic studies, including those with brain scans — prove the competition alone is enough to work.

But does it magnify the reactions to have actual skin in the game? We all know it does.

- Bob

By: John aka The Masked Financier

John aka The Masked Financier — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:29:52 +0000

Good points Spaceman and danm, which I have addressed in my posting about the article at my Texas Holdem Investing blog – http://bit.ly/7YmUxt.
There is no substitute for playing poker with real cash.
Playing freerolls is of limited use, and is similar to “paper trading” to learn how to invest.
All the “free” training you go through will not prepare you for when your cold hard capital is at risk.

By: danm

danm — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:58:25 +0000

I think he’s implying that you can learn/practice said skills even when playing for free — not that free is better than real-money play. But yeah, funny, that graf caught my eye as well.

By: Spaceman

Spaceman — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:41:47 +0000

Pretty good articles for the most part, but this part from “How Texas Hold’em Simulates Investing” made me pause:

“Playing in no-money-involved tournaments, in which players are inclined to make more-thoughtful decisions, is a better way to hone your skills that doesnâ€™t risk your cash.”

Am I reading this correctly – i.e., is the author really saying that people are inclined to make more thoughtful decisions in freerolls than they do when their own money is on the line? My years at the tables suggest otherwise.