again, you keep score in poker by how much you win. If you are there for competition you are there to win money. Anyone playing purely for social reasons is either A) kidding themselves, who the hell likes to lose??? or B) not really playing poker, just passing time. So, their motivations really don't matter.

Bill Gates does play poker and he plays low limit poker. He still wants to win money when he plays. Like I said, noone likes to lose. I don't like losing friendly games of monopoly or $1 games of backgammon. the money is either not their or completely insignificant to me, I still don't like to lose.

__________________
For poker news, strategy, and more, check out my daily column at Examiner.com

Do you hear what you are saying? You don't like to "lose", and that implys that you like to win, no matter the amount. Or am I getting this wrong?

You are proving my point that the amount of money is insignificant, but rather, winning is why you are playing.

You are right, if you derive pleasure from profit, then you want to when the biggest pots, but if you want to win period, then winning is central no matter how big the pot.

Also, there is no "score" in poker. There is only winning and losing the pot at hand.

People play poker for various reasons: leisure, for a living, for the social aspect, etc. Money is basically the way we keep score, whether or not playing online is "proper" is a matter of beliefs, nothing more, nothing less.

Everything else as far as the game itself goes is basically identical to live. You have blinds, antes, betting structures, etc. that are the same as live.

To say money isn't the main motivation is an abstract way of looking at it. If you're not playing to win money why are you playing? Bluffing becomes irrevelant (becuase people have nothing to lose if they call) and hand values really don't mean much because the reality in poker is any cards can win. Granted some will win a better % of the time than others but if you have nothing to lose in a game why care about what you're holding? Just bet and see if you get lucky.

By the way you're kidding yourself if you don't think the super rich don't care about losing $, many of them got that way because they're success driven. Success in business, poker or anywhere else means you do it to win, to be the best. Have you ever watched the first series of the show "High Stakes Poker"? The owner of the LA Lakers was in the game a few times, he's not Bill Gates rich, but I'd guess that he had more money behind him than the majority of the poker players at the table, did he care if he lost money....HELL YES. He said in an interview he was scared sitting down at a table with these guys. Do you think he'd really lose sleep being down 50-100K in general, probably not but regardless of how much money anyone has, NOBODY likes to lose it.

Poker is poker plain and simple you're entitled to believe whatever you like, which again is all this boils down to...beliefs. No different than arguing about religion. If you don't believe online poker is poker great, play strictly live but the game is the game either way you get cards and you bet, reaise, call or fold.

__________________
If you're looking to borrow money or have someone give you money in order to play poker online please don't contact me... Click Here for help , and explain your situation.

I generally agree with you here.

The structure of the game is the same. No doubt. That I have not debated. Cleary this is true from the suffcient elements I posted. However, I am suggesting that another important facet, possibly even secondary, but critical in the evolution of poker as it is today, is the "person" element. That element is incomplete in an online game. So to ask, "is it really poker?", becomes a legitimate quesiton.

I have already offered two possibilities: for competitive and social reasons.

If the first part of your statement was true, than the latter would not be true. That is, if you could not bluff, than there would be no reason to hide your cards. If there is no reason to hide your cards, than it is not true that any hand can win. The reason "any" hand can win is because you can decieve your oppponent.

[note] when you use the term "any" I assume all possible hands. That is, a LOSING hand (in terms of value) can win in poker.

Nothing to lose? Again, if I play for competitive reasons, my pride may be at stake. Or how about my own personal beliefs about my level of mastery?

Come on, are you not taking my statement as an absolute? Of course there are rich folks who care about NOT making a profit. My point was to create a hypothetical situation where money is of no matter and possibly, quite possibly, one's pride and esteem are on the line.

Just think about how one may feel when they experience a "bad beat" from a donkey. Not only might you care about the money, but you may also be saying to yourself; "I can't believe that donk beat me!...I play better than him!"

In regards to the starting hands yes I'm refering to all posible hands. Theres a thread here called "post your wins with a 72 off suit". Basically we can all agree that a 72o is basically the worst starting hand you can have. But it is still posible to win with it.

If someone is playing stictly for pride and ego, my belief is they're choosing the wrong game to play. Poker can be a brutal game at times, and from a psychological standpoint, ego and pride should be absent from a player you're playing a game which involves both skill and chance, only 1 of those can be controlled.

But getting back to the belief in mastery, if you feel that taking down a pot for play money gives you that that much satisfaction that's great. Again that in itself is debateable whether or not is "proper poker" but again were looking at beliefs.

However it all comes back to the same scorecard that is poker....money. In order to beat another player you need to either make them fold a hand or have the winning hand. Give me any 2 cards in a game with no money in it and I'll play every hand all day long. If winning hands in a game like that gives you satisfaction, good for you. However that isn't a driving force for me to play the game and care who wins. I'll get the same enjoyment out of a game of solitare.

However if you goal is to do that with money involved then were arging semantics here. If you take a pot down either online or live isn't it winning either way? Poker is a game of betting whether it's match sticks or dollars the goal remains the same....win whatever you're using to wager. But either way live or online isn't winning still winning?

__________________
If you're looking to borrow money or have someone give you money in order to play poker online please don't contact me... Click Here for help , and explain your situation.

Vito,
The foundation of your argument is still entrenched in nothing but counterpoints. An adolescent can do that, so I'll clarify the question that should've been clear as day when you started the thread:

What is lacking in online poker that makes it "not poker" by your definition of what is "real poker."

Try to do this ignoring all of our replies because you came with an idea and it got lost in counterpointing everyone else. I still see no point in your argument. Every point is taking something we say about online poker and you replying, "That's my point." or "You couldn't use that live." without describing why those differences are signifcant to the extent that makes online poker, "not poker."

__________________

How about I ignore your "adolescent" comment, and commence with my analysis?

What is lacking in online poker? How about the flesh and blood that sits across from you in a live game? Is that clear enough? Poker evolved as a social game. This is indisputable. That being said, the human element involved in vying for a pot is non-existent in the online game.

You shoudl refer to previous posts as I outline why I think the bet alone is not sufficient. We can take up from there.

Instead I'll refer you to one of the greatest's own 3 part series:

The Truth About Tells
Online Poker is Too Much Fun!- Part I
Online Poker is Too Much Fun- Part II

__________________

So I read Daniel's opinion. And I agree. And I think he would agree with me, frankly.

Lets look at the first article. What is he telling us? Not to look for the twitching eye...I remember that one. But he mentions patterns. Well, patterns are important. But you yourself admitted that you could not be as successful online, because it is difficult to derive patterns when some many come and go. Heck, alex, you have to use a computer to that for you!

Personality is a pattern, as is demeanor. Both do not consist of a single behavior, but rather a constellation of behaviors and activity. Do they not count? Is not knowing someone is on tilt an opportune tell? How about the hothead? Heck, tells do not have to be subtle.

Also, lets look at something else Daniel so professionally informs us of; deceiving your opppnent about your deception. How about the things YOU do at the table?