[Hanoi5]

http://bobbywolff.br.../?p=94#comments

[JLOGIC]

It's definitely an interesting question:

"Will bridge be better or worse of by being closely associated to poker."

There are a million reasons that it might be worse, namely poker is a gambling game and bridge is not (usually), which people don't realize. A lot of people have a moral objection to gambling, especially the type that bridge usually attracts (older well off retired people), so that might cause those people to not start playing.

Also, bridge is a much much much more complex game than poker. If they are associated, people might not realize this, and think the luck factor in a bridge tournament is similar to the luck factor in a poker tournament. Another core group of people that bridge attracts is the die hard games players who want to play the toughest games. Most of those types are not attracted to poker for very long since it's relatively simple.

So it does seem like an association with poker will turn off at least 2 groups of people that we usually attract to the game.

On the other hand, poker has had a huge boom, and is on TV, and is attracting tons of people who are looking to make a big score or otherwise. Given the huge exposure, it cannot be bad if these people think bridge is related to poker, and give bridge a try. Even by the time they realize it's not similar at all, they might be hooked already. I always say if people give bridge a chance for long enough, they will instantly be hooked. Most people don't make it that far though.

So from that point of view, the game would benefit from an association with poker.

Also bridge might get more media coverage etc at the world mind games if there's a poker tournament running at the same time. This effect can only be positive for bridge.

Overall I think the association will be good, but it does kind of lower the status of our game imo.

That said, even if it hurts the image of bridge, the image right now for almost everyone is that it's a game played by their grandmothers. Can the image really be hurt that much?

[kayin801]

If there were a $10,000 (or some number) buy-in bridge pairs or teams event at the WSOP each year I would watch it.

It seems to me that the lowering of the "status of our game", as JLOGIC somewhat puts it and how the EBL is seeming to put it, is kinda like having an awesome mansion next to some abandoned buildings in a city. Yeah, your house is sick, but look at what it's sitting next to! This is as opposed to having the mansion out in the rolling hills in the countryside surrounded by green grass wondrous scenery. Too bad no one comes out to see it!

Before I get flamed for calling poker abandoned buildings I'll just mention that this is the sort of analogy that I think the EBL is using, not my own views. I play poker very rarely and only with friends but it's still an awesome game.

(Quick edit to try to not put words in JLOGIC's mouth)

[aguahombre]

Consider also local clubs which need to find places to hold their games. Certain churches, Community centers, and membership clubs do not want to be associated with gambling activities....whether real or imagined. For bridge to be linked in any way to poker could be problematic.

[hrothgar]

I’ve always been extremely skeptical regarding the efforts to enshrine bridge as a Olympic sport. As an outside observer my immediate reaction is that the the primary draw is a mechanism to auction Olympic gold medals to well heeled “sponsors”. My next reaction is that the drug testing regimes are a disaster waiting to happen; especially the fights regarding whether various medicines as well as caffeine and nicotine should be considered performance enhancing for a “mind sport”.

With this said and done, if anything, poker as an Olympic “sport” seems even more ludicrous. The sheer amount of variance in poker results should exclude it from Olympic competition. Consider the implication of a legion of “Eddie the Eagles” employing a “Kill Phil” type strategies.

Olympic poker would be a joke…

[mikegill]

The main problem I see with recruiting young people to bridge is an image problem. I think all of my non-bridge friends (despite my repeated attempts to claim otherwise) have a mental image of me beating up helpless little old ladies when they think about bridge. For the sake of the game's future, I think that changing this is extremely important. Yes, recruiting people who are in their 50's is probably going quite well right now given the current state of affairs. But that doesn't seem like a way to make good bridge players, nor does it seem to be a stable long-term solution for the survival of the game's popularity.

However, if everyone under the age of 40 knew that bridge tournaments were way more like poker tournaments (minus the money payouts) than, say, quilting conventions, I think it would be a big step in the right direction, and anything that facilitates that is good. I don't think it's a big worry that bridge playing sites would dry up. After all, there are already major money bridge games in this country and that doesn't stop churches, community centers, etc. from hosting non-money-bridge events.

Btw, due to my liking bridge, facebook has suggested several other things I might like: grandchildren, knitting and walking! Even the facebooks think bridge has an image problem...

[Free]

JLOGIC, on Jul 18 2010, 11:42 PM, said:

poker is a gambling game and bridge is not (usually)

I don't see why poker would be gambling and bridge would not (by law perhaps?). If you play rubber bridge, it's pure gambling. You either get the cards or not, if your opponents keep getting 25HCP combined you'll definitely lose.

Both games can be considered gambling, both games can be considered "not gambling". If you play poker, you make choices based on percentages. Same goes for bridge. Still, it doesn't matter how high your percentage action is. After a while your good action will be a loser. However, playing according to percentages makes sure it's usually the same people that make a chance of winning. Play a single hand and both games are a pure gamble. Play 1000000 hands and both games are no longer gambling. Problem is you don't have enough time to play that many hands, so there is no real "long run"... The biggest difference between these 2 games are that percentages in bridge are much higher than in poker (especially at the beginning).

[Codo]

Free, on Jul 19 2010, 05:51 PM, said:

JLOGIC, on Jul 18 2010, 11:42 PM, said:

poker is a gambling game and bridge is not (usually)

I don't see why poker would be gambling and bridge would not (by law perhaps?). If you play rubber bridge, it's pure gambling. You either get the cards or not, if your opponents keep getting 25HCP combined you'll definitely lose.

But rubber bridge is not what is played in the WBF so often. And if you talk about IMPS or MPS, the luck factor is very small.

[billw55]

No offense, but saying bridge and poker are equal in "gambling factor" is serious LOL.

Poker begins and ends with gambling. It would not exist at all otherwise. If poker was not for money, how many people do you think would be playing? Can you really imagine a poker tournament with entry fees but no payouts at all? I bet not a single player would show up. Now how about bridge? Hmmm ...

I played a fair amount of limit poker back before the big boom in "tournament" style poker. With this experience, I really believe that the number one reason tournament poker became so much more popular, is precisely because it is more like gambling, as compared to limit poker. The advantage of the skilled palyer (and likewise, the disadvantage of the unskilled) is greatly reduced, making it much closer to ordinary gambling like slot machines. Therefore poker now attracts large numbers of people with gambler mentalities.

Bridge attracts people for various reasons. Some play for the challenge of a truly complex and difficult mental competition. Others consider it a social event. But I do not think that a desire to gamble is something that will ever draw people to bridge, or keep them involved. Bridge is just not a quick enough fix, and has too much skill factor, for most gamblers. For this reason, I think that hardly any tournament poker players would cross to bridge and stay.

I say no to associating bridge with poker. Much more productive would be to associate with other widely popular mind games, such as chess, or maybe Scrabble.

[Hanoi5]

The most I have (and the anyone can ever have) gambled in a bridge hand is 7NT. And I wouldn't dare do that on a yarborough.

[Free]

billw55, on Jul 19 2010, 01:37 PM, said:

No offense, but saying bridge and poker are equal in "gambling factor" is serious LOL.

Poker begins and ends with gambling.  It would not exist at all otherwise.  If poker was not for money, how many people do you think would be playing?  Can you really imagine a poker tournament with entry fees but no payouts at all?  I bet not a single player would show up.  Now how about bridge?  Hmmm ...

I played a fair amount of limit poker back before the big boom in "tournament" style poker.  With this experience, I really believe that the number one reason tournament poker became so much more popular, is precisely because it is more like gambling, as compared to limit poker.  The advantage of the skilled palyer (and likewise, the disadvantage of the unskilled) is greatly reduced, making it much closer to ordinary gambling like slot machines.  Therefore poker now attracts large numbers of people with gambler mentalities. 

Bridge attracts people for various reasons.  Some play for the challenge of a truly complex and difficult mental competition.  Others consider it a social event.  But I do not think that a desire to gamble is something that will ever draw people to bridge, or keep them involved.  Bridge is just not a quick enough fix, and has too much skill factor, for most gamblers.  For this reason, I think that hardly any tournament poker players would cross to bridge and stay.

I say no to associating bridge with poker.  Much more productive would be to associate with other widely popular mind games, such as chess, or maybe Scrabble.

I didn't claim the gambling factor is the same. If you read carefully, you'll notice that I said there's a difference in percentages. The lower the percentage action is, the more you're gambling. So yes, in poker there's a bigger gambling factor than in bridge. Btw, I was also talking about rubber bridge, team games are completely different ofcourse...

Comparing poker with playing slot machines however is a serious LOL. Why do we always see the same people getting far in poker tournaments? Their skill surely must give them a huge advantage. The fact that they don't always win the event, or that they get knocked out before the final table, is a result of the gambling factor.

[jjbrr]

IMO bridge and poker are apples and oranges.

Poker isn't even a card game; it's a gambling game that uses cards. You could play poker with an Uno deck or a box of colored rocks and really the game wouldn't change much at all.

Also the motivations to play the two games are completely different for the majority of competitors. I don't know very many people who spend lots of time and effort at poker just because it's a fun game. It's not that fun, but being good and putting in a high volume yields potentially lots of money. Many poker players refer to their hobby as "the grind" which should be a good indicator of how much fun they're not having.

Bridge players, in my experience, play the game because it's a challenge and this type of challenge is fun. Also there is a social aspect that keeps people coming back.

[JLOGIC]

There are many definitions/usages of the word gamble.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=of...DQ&ved=0CBIQkAE

The one that is relevant to my post and the most common use when talking about a "gambling game" is:

Quote

play games for money

Poker is a game that is always played for money, and is thus a gambling game. It does not matter what the percentages are, you are still gambling every time you play for money. Sure there are such things as favorable gambles, but that is irrelevant.

Some people on poker forums try to say "playing poker is not gambling because it's a game of skill." This implies you cannot gamble on a game of skill which is obviously nonsense.

Similarly, if bridge was played as rubber bridge, it would be gambling.

Bridge is not commonly played as a gambling game, and is not considered one in general. Almost all tournaments are duplicate, and are not based on a buy in with a prize pool or gambling.

There is and probably always will be a stigma attached to gambling games. Bridge does not have this. It is a legitimate concern that if bridge and poker are thought of similarly, people will think that bridge is a gambling game and that will turn some people off of it.

[billw55]

jjbrr, on Jul 19 2010, 09:25 AM, said:

Also the motivations to play the two games are completely different for the majority of competitors.

This is what I was trying to say. I would add that many poker players are motivated by the desire to gamble, which may be related to the desire to make money, but is not exactly the same. I have never met a bridge player who appeared to me to be motivated by a desire to gamble.

[NickRW]

One thing I would say in defence of poker is this - aren't they considering duplicate poker - as opposed to the more normal non-duplicate sort. I haven't played duplicate poker, but the variance must be considerably reduced - just as it is for the duplicate versus non-duplicate forms of bridge. I do know that duplicate poker (heads up, limit) was the form used in a fairly recent man versus machine challenge.

Also, contrary to the apparent suggestion elsewhere in this thread, duplicate bridge is not without a significant luck factor over relatively small numbers of boards. As indeed are many 'proper' sports for that matter.

Anyway, people are worried about the status of bridge. a] I don't think it will affect it that much one way or the other and b] if there is a "negative" effect, perhaps the "status" of bridge (for the well off, middle class, mainly elderly) could do with taking down a peg or two if we are to attract greater numbers.

Nick

[hanp]

On a different note:

It's much easier to cheat in bridge than it is to cheat in poker. Money has already corrupted the game to some extend, I'm not sure the game of bridge would get more enjoyable to me if it would receive similar attention as poker.

[qwery_hi]

JLOGIC, on Jul 18 2010, 02:42 PM, said:

Also, bridge is a much much much more complex game than poker.

Disagree. Bridge *can* be a much more complex game than poker, if the restrictions on bidding were lifted, but as the games stand, poker is much more complex than bridge.

One test that I have for complexity is who would be the winner in a computer vs human WC match. In a bridge contest, I think Zia long ago withdrew his 1M challenge. In poker, only very recently have the computers been good enough to take on the pros 1v1, let alone play at a table with 10 pros.

[jjbrr]

qwery_hi, on Jul 19 2010, 01:55 PM, said:

JLOGIC, on Jul 18 2010, 02:42 PM, said:

Also, bridge is a much much much more complex game than poker.

Disagree. Bridge *can* be a much more complex game than poker, if the restrictions on bidding were lifted, but as the games stand, poker is much more complex than bridge.

One test that I have for complexity is who would be the winner in a computer vs human WC match. In a bridge contest, I think Zia long ago withdrew his 1M challenge. In poker, only very recently have the computers been good enough to take on the pros 1v1, let alone play at a table with 10 pros.

I don't know what other criteria you use to determine complexity, but I think bridge is way more complex also.

You can teach someone poker in 5 minutes and within a few hours they could be reasonably competent.

You cannot teach someone bridge in 5 minutes, and even if you could, they'd still need a lot more than a few hours to really get it.

[hotShot]

qwery_hi, on Jul 19 2010, 08:55 PM, said:

One test that I have for complexity is who would be the winner in a computer vs human WC match. In a bridge contest, I think Zia long ago withdrew his 1M challenge. In poker, only very recently have the computers been good enough to take on the pros 1v1, let alone play at a table with 10 pros.

The inability of software developers to write a good poker program has nothing to do with the complexity of poker.
It has to do with the limitations of computers and with limitations that you set to allow the software to make use of all available data.
Professional payers can make use of visible physiological signals of their opponents.
If you allow the programmers to make use of e.g. an infrared camera, they can extend the program to recognize minimal changes in the skin temperature. This would enhance the softwares ability to discover bluffs.

[NickRW]

Zia may or may not have withdrawn his challenge, but computers can, albeit over a large number of hands, match and just about beat world class pros at heads up limit. They've had an at least competent bot to play multi player limit for years. They're working no limit and multi player versions to get up to that sort of standard. Currently the best computer bots aren't in that sort of league at bridge - given the speed of modern cpus they can play the cards well enough - but the bidding remains a chellenge.

Nick