I think you have a middle point between no-information and full-information, and poker isn't that.

My issue with poker is the money component, especially in cash games (I don't mind it in MTT): I think it's manipulative, basically using dopamine highs to make the game seem more interesting.

▲

OkayPhysicist 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Playing for cash normalizes gameplay by eliminating some unwanted incentives (in cashless games, there isn't a huge difference in reward for getting second place while being up 30 chips or down 30, leading to unpredictable, over-aggressive play), and ensures people take it seriously.

It doesn't really take a very high buy-in to achieve those goals. When my buddies and I play, we typically go with a $20 buy in, denominated in dimes or quarters.

	▲	orwin 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Like I said, I like MTTs, I agree that incentives is necessary for the game to be playable (i.e players don't play truly randomly), but rewards, at least in my opinion, break games. If I need to be manipulated for me to appreciate playing, is it really worth? Because we know dopamine rushes have effect on your brain outside of the game, when it's over.

▲

schwartzworld 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It might depend a little on the poker variant. Holdem (the most popular variant) uses shared cards, which gives you a fair amount of information.

	▲	orwin 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, agree, holdem is to me the most interesting variant of poker because the table and how players react to it carry information.