Later on in the account Geertz notes that the depth of a particular cockfight is based upon the status of the players--if a player is higher-class, more experienced, better at choosing and playing their cocks, then the game becomes more entertaining, more stimulating, in spite of the massive risks associated with betting a cock or betting money on a cock.

Also this paragraph is just hilarious.

Just gonna comment here because I don't want to highlight the whole opening; this account is the closest in style and detail to a modern ethnographic account that I've read so far in this class. Taking Visions of Culture's info on Geertz into account, it's clear to see that his approach did change a lot of how anthropological accounts are documented. Looking at his work versus White's (who I just wrote my paper on, so he's...v much on mind right now), the shift from armchair theoretical postulating to empirical fieldwork observations is a breath of fresh freaking air.

So when one takes into account the matches between addicts or those of lower class, it's not considered as deep because there is less weight granted to the players. Status acts as a performative property here, because Geertz later says that you can't ascend or descend in status because of a game. The entertainment comes not from what can be lost or gained, but from the prestige of the players.