Chess VS Poker

Ok let me start a discussion somewhat worth of thinking about. Poker Texas nl VS chess.Which one is better and why ?

Agree about the thrill thing, I think its exposure to variance. But then, in chess, you could say that you get the same variance, just in a different way; please let me elaborate: every chess player gets "variance" when they reach the mental limit of thinking or seeing X moves ahead, because past that there is just uncertainty. We could also call It luck btw but some pple may get angry bc the term luck has a bad reputation in chess. So basically: the more moves you can think ahead the less variance you may encounter against any opponent assuming he is the same elo or lower , the lower the less. And we could go deeper here into game theory and entropy past the point of uncertainty

Ok lets dissect this, to make It clearer. Assuming that with 'mixed feedback' you mean short term variance, if i understood well : you are saying that its harder to study poker because the short term variance delays the winning gratification (assuming you play many enough hands in a big enough sample, with a winning strategy, to make an upswing chart). - Somewhat agree about that specifically if money is involved, but some people are able to make It manageble for them

About the solvers and variability that comes from using them or not statement : imo , nowadays, the solvers spoiled the game to the point of making a clear difference between somebody using them and somebody not. Being the clear winning side the ones who use them(talking about online mainly, live is becoming like online slowly too tho)

Me too.
With poker - its necessary to understand likely patterns of play from opponents.
Including general patterns not specific to any particular player.
And that is connected with statistics on different forms of poker -
even within Texas Hold'em poker - which itself takes many forms.
A kind of hierarchy in fact. WIthin TH.

Poker has a gladiatorial element.
Its nasty.
And its nastiest form is probably no-limit 'cash game' poker.
One might think 'cash game'? Its all 'cash game'?
'Cash game' is to distinguish a type of poker from 'tournament poker' where the blinds keep going up and the winner is the person who has all the chips of everyone who entered the tournament.
The friendliest form of poker?
I think its where you have a tournament with a low entry fee - say $20 to $50 and that's all the money you could lose in the whole tournament - which has an offical starting time.
Often done in two or three hours. But most people are leaving before then.
Elliminated when all chips gone.
There's usually lots of other prizes besides first place.
But you can still win big if there's a lot of people in it. WIthout winning the whole thing.
The more people in it - the bigger the prizes and the more people who can win a prize.
And tournaments are almost always 'no limit' which means you learn.

Also regarding tournament poker ...
a poker tournament might have dozens of tables to start - 
or in some cases - even hundreds of tables.
But eventually they get down to a 'final table' usually with just 8 or 9 participants left.
There's online poker tournaments too - as opposed to live poker tournaments.
Online poker even has free to enter tournaments with money prizes.
You put down no money at all. They're called 'freerolls'.
What's the catch? Various.

Learning poker in 2025 is a waste of time. The edge between players is tiny, and even breaking even is hard. Unlike chess, where playing stronger opponents makes you better, poker profit comes only from weaker players — the “fish.”

The smaller the skill gap, the higher the variance.

Regulars hate new competition. They’ll sit at your tables and block you from the fish. Back in the heads-up days, there were cartels — if you were new, other regs froze you out until you proved you could survive without profit for weeks. And the competition now is definitely tougher than it used to be — everyone studies solvers, uses databases, and knows population tendencies.

You can study nonstop, avoid tilt, analyze stats, and still get crushed by variance. I remember being 200 buy-ins below EV — playing $60 heads-ups and realizing I should’ve been up another $12,000 if the math evened out. These things are common, even if you’re prepared for them, they’ll still break your soul. When strong players face each other, the edge is microscopic — the only guaranteed winner is the poker room taking the rake.

Chess is fun even without money. Poker without money makes no sense. And if you look at today’s leaderboards, the top high-stakes players are making about as much as microstakes grinders did fifteen years ago.

When playing over the board live - its wise to not play at isolated tables.
In rooms with only one or two active tables.
With no other poker room availble for many miles or even much more than that.
Yes there are 'cliques' in live poker rooms.
In online cash game poker there's a great deal of cheating.
Its too easy.
Players call or message each other who are at the same table and tell each other what they have and 'plan' the hand.
And in some short-handed games - everyone else at the table might be the same person -
knowing how to manipulate their IP addresses and connections and hardwarre to evade detection by the website.
And there's been major scandals about same.
-----------
I myself didn't start playing poker till I discovered a game called Limit cash game poker.
In live poker rooms. I played cross country. 
From the Foxwoods all the way acoss to Los Angeles and the Concord - at the time the biggest poker room in the world I believe.
I could play tight - and had a slight edge if I chose my tables carefully and didn't play too long.
But if I had that part to do over - I would have instead chosen very low stakes no limit tournament poker to start out with.
A game that can get very interesting is limit hi-lo Omaha. Cash game. Live.
Which often has two pots per hand.
A 'high' and a 'low'.
But 'pot-limit' Omaha is a much scarier game. Like no-limit live cash game.