Perry Romanowski "ruthenium4" <thejoggler@...> wrote:

> . . . Why do you think euchre is better than poker?
> . . . My six reasons:


> 1. Poker is boring.

Granted -- unless you are playing real poker, for real
stakes. Like the farm.


> 2. Poker is just luck.

I disagree. There is more skill required to play good poker
than any other card game except, perhaps, bridge. But it's
not card playing skill. See No. 7 below.


> 3. Without money, poker is pointless.

Granted. But see No. 1 above, and No. 6 below.


> 4. Poker is for criminals.

I'll adopt Harvey's answer on this one (and just about
everything else he said).


> 5. Poker is emotion, no brains.

Poker plays emotions, but emotions do not play good poker.
See No. 2 above, and No. 7 below.


> 6. Natty Bumppo doesn't play poker.

That is a bit of a myth. Natty Bumppo does not play poker
very well, however. To play poker really well, you have
to play for real stakes, and be ready to risk the farm (or
get the other players to think you will risk it). And I
don't like risking the farm.

Actually no one can play really good poker in a penny ante
or pocket change limit game. See No. 3 above.


And now, my own thoughts:


7. Poker is not a card game -- it is a parlor game played
with cards. Cards are not played in poker, they are merely
shown. What ARE played are wits, and psychological tricks,
and emotions, and human foibles.


8. "Tournament style Texas Hold 'Em" is not poker. I play
that once in a while, too, because my friends think it's cool.
But I don't like it at all.

Why it isn't poker is that the hands are not played for real
money (see No. 3 above). The only money at risk is the "buy-
in," which is something you can afford (the proof being that
you "bought in"). Really boring.


9. Euchre is more fun because there are ethical ways to cheat
(which is why it's a lot more fun at a card table than on line,
where you can't renege or play out of turn or steal the deal or
engage the "Muncie ploy" or the "Brownstown maneuver").