[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Which is more aggravating & why?

Posted By: Bill Riles
Date: Sunday, 15 June 2008, at 2:54 p.m.

In Response To: Which is more aggravating & why? (mamabear)

I agree with Mary that Stick is probably best-suited to answer; however, I'll take a shot. Though as I think of my response I can almost talk myself into taking either side. And, though I played on a very limited basis, I do not consider myself a poker player.

IMHO, the absolute novice has the better opportunity, certainly in the short term, to win at poker because of the limited number of 'moves' per determination of victory (each hand). Also, in addition to a luck factor that exists in both poker and backgammon, you have the element of bluffing, etc. in poker that can contribute to the success of the weaker player.

Backgammon, particularly in match play, is a bit more difficult for a novice to string together a series of 'lucky' multi-moves games to win a match. But, as we all know, it happens -- probably all too regularly from most of our persectives. Also, all play is on the board, so the bluffing elements, etc. are not present.

So, my initial reaction is that backgammon is, or at least should be, more frustrating to lose to an inferior player. Poker, on the other hand, should not be as frustrating because such losses may (should) be anticipated more fequently. However, poker may well be more aggravating as your own actions (falling for bluff as an example) may well contribute to the success of the weaker opponent.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.