Put myself into debt because of online poker

[bgtas]

hello everyone just wanted to say that i put myself in a little bit of a debt because of online poker around $5000. I really can't be doing this anymore. My life is upside down because of this. I started playing around a year ago. I dont know what to do anymore. all i think about is poker but I know i have to stop thinking about poker. any suggestions on how to stop thinking about poker???

[Synergistic Explosions]

Since you can't win after a year, don't risk your own money anymore. Play free rolls instead.

[craig r]

I am assuming this thread is serious. If not, then I guess I am an idiot. But, it appears that you have a gambling problem. You should probably get help of some kind. I have never been to a support group of any kind, so I can't tell you if GA is any good.

craig

[AngryCola]

If you ever choose to play again, don't let yourself gamble money which you can't afford to lose.

Definitely do not borrow money to gamble with.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
hello everyone just wanted to say that i put myself in a little bit of a debt because of online poker around $5000. I really can't be doing this anymore. My life is upside down because of this. I started playing around a year ago. I dont know what to do anymore. all i think about is poker but I know i have to stop thinking about poker. any suggestions on how to stop thinking about poker???

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you play on party? What is your user name?

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you play on party? What is your user name?


[/ QUOTE ]

That's f'd up dude...but funny.

On a serious note, you need to step away from poker. Google "Gambler's Anonymous" and that should get you off on the right foot. F'n up your life on account of poker is very -EV.

[goodguy_1]

hahah post of the week you heartless hump /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[bgtas]

very funny but im not telling you. Thanx for the advice guys

[Al P]

Step down in limits.

[lorinda]

GA is the way forward, they're meant to be pretty good if you're willing to try.

You'll meet others in the same position and have a chance to do non-pokery things with like minded people.

Lori

[Tony Corbett]

Since when is poker gambling?

I always thought it was a game of skill.

The guy dropped $5K becuase he's either

a) Too lazy too learn.

or

b) Too dumb to play at limits within his skill level.

[toss]

Poker is gambling no matter how you look at it.

[AngryCola]

Poker is a gambling game which involves skill.

If you have any doubts, see SSHE for a nice elaboration.

[TGoldman]

If poker is all that you think about, use that obsession to your advantage as motivation to spend some time studying and improving your game. However, since you mentioned that it's affecting your life, perhaps it's time to quit. Uninstall all of the poker programs from your computer and take a break. If you're unable to quit, you may have a problem. Seek out GA as other's have recommended.

[Jurollo]

Wow, talk about some horrible advice, the guy is down $5K and admittedly is a compulsive gambler and people are telling him to keep playing and studying or to move down limits. Certain people don't have the inner capacity to stop themselves from gambling excessively so they need outside help, reading about it or playing smaller limits won't stop this he needs to go to a support group and stop playing all together. Gambling can be a bitch of an addiction, in many ways like alcohol. Good luck moving forward.
~Justin

[Tony Corbett]

A single poker hand is gambling.
A billion poker hands is not.

[xxx]

Uninstall all the poker apps and take a break.

Get a second job and pay off the 5g. If you still want to play after that, play microlimits only and concentrate on bonus whoring.

If you need to play for big money to get the excitement, just quit. Take up bowling or golf or chess or whatever else.

Be glad you learned this for just 5000. Some people really screw up their lives.

[Tony Corbett]

"...winning will be inevitable." (SSH p 15)

I'll gamble with those odds any day. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[xxx]

[ QUOTE ]
A single poker hand is gambling.
A billion poker hands is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you given any thought as to when you might expect to play that billionth hand?

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
"...winning will be inevitable." (SSH p 15)

I'll gamble with those odds any day. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have SSHE, then you obviously haven't read it enough.

In the very first part of the book, it explains that people who view poker as NOT gambling are missing the fundamental ideas of the game.

[AngryCola]

Unfortunately, you're still wrong.

All poker playing IS gambling.

[steamboatin]

Poker is absolutely gambling. At one time, I would have agreed with Tony but once you realize that poker is gambling, the bad beats don't hurt nearly as bad.

If it was mostly skill then everytime you made the correct play, you would win. Everytime a fish drew to a one outer, they would lose. Of course if this was the case, there wouldn't be any fish. They would get better or get out of poker.

After you embrace the fact that poker is gambling and a fish sucks out on you, it feels different. It is no longer personal. It is a dumbass taking a long shot and hitting. It doesn't reflect upon your abilites as a poker player and you sometimes feel good to be in a game with a loser.

[lorinda]

A single poker hand is gambling.
A billion poker hands is not.

What screen resolution do I need for that?

Lori

[Tony Corbett]

If I played a million hands and showed a good profit would I be lucky or skillfull?

Where would you draw the line?

I used the billion number to represent the long term because I wanted my reply to be short, sweet and snappy.

[lorinda]

If I played a million hands and showed a good profit would I be lucky or skillfull?

Both.

Lori

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
If I played a million hands and showed a good profit would I be lucky or skillfull?

Where would you draw the line?

I used the billion number to represent the long term because I wanted my reply to be short, sweet and snappy.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you are saying *now* is not the same thing as saying poker isn't gambling.

You are saying that, over time, skill will preveil.
I absolutely agree!

But that doesn't mean it's not gambling.

You never made it out to be "luck vs. skill".
You were discussing "Gambling vs. Not Gambling"

These are different concepts.

[bgtas]

well i do think i am lucky that i only lost 5k and i do take it as a lesson in poker and in life. thanx for advice

[DoubleClutch]

bgtas,

You're ahead of so many onther people in the fact that you have identified your problem. And simply uninstalling the software on your computer won't fix your problem. We all know you can download PP and others in about one minute. However, I strongly agree with the above recomendation to visit GA, as you will find many other people in the exact situation as you are. Good luck.

[David04]

From dictionary.com: Gambling: To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest.

Now I believe that qualifies poker as gambling. Unless of course you have a pattern mapper. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
any suggestions on how to stop thinking about poker???



[/ QUOTE ]

You might consider no longer posting on an internet poker forum for starters.

[Kevin J]

There is also:

c). Playing too high for his bankroll.

[DoubleClutch]

I disagree. However, I would try the psychology forum for better responses. (They won't argue wheather or not poker is gambling).

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
(They won't argue wheather or not poker is gambling)

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not, but I guarantee the thread will get sidetracked somehow.

[solucky]

play untill now ONLY as a Bonuswhore, guess its unpossible to loose money if you play ONLY with a Bonus. Seems u can get back your 5000 in 2 years without a risk. After that u should be able to win the lowest limits. And dont expect to be rich soon. Set u a goal that is realistic and make notes about your success (excel-sheet)

Wolfgang

[ZimbuTheMonkey]

"A single poker hand is gambling.
A billion poker hands is not. "

That doesn't make sense to me AT ALL. We're not talking about whether the game is beatable or not, it certainly is. At all times, you are wagering money on outcomes that are unknown to everyone at the table. Yes, you can figure the percentages, and discipline yourself to beat the bad players, but it's still gambling.

[lorinda]

Maybe it should have read "playing a single hand is gambling, dealing a billion is not"

Lori

[aLOWdAkING]

Even Miller, Sklansky, and Malmuth will think you are crazy if you do not think poker is gambling.

[Myrtle]

....Before I would begin to attempt to comment........

Do you wager money in any other ways? .......Other casino table games?.....sports betting?...other forms of 'gambling'?

How old are you?

Have you made an earnest effort to improve your poker skills? If so, how?

I also agree that this post would serve you better in the Psychology Forum.

[Hung]

Oh no I'm a gambler!

[jokerthief]

A girlfriend of mine had a brother who had a gambling problem. He didn't quit playing. He NEVER could become a winning player because he was more addicted to losing than he was to winning. This is the way of the problem gambler. He first went into debt to cover his losses, all the while lying to himself that he was trying to win. He went so far into debt that no one would lend to him. He then stole money from the company he worked for (a gamble in itself). He got caught because he was more addicted to losing than he was to winning. His family posted his bail. He was found two weeks later, dead, with a self inflicted gun shot wound to the head. He was found on a highway heading east in Utah. A highway that leads away from Las Vegas. His name was Brad Major from Milwaukee Wisconsin. He thought his life wasn't worth living and that no one would care if he was gone. I saw 80 weeping people at his funeral that would disagree.

5000 dollars is a very small amount of money when put it into perspective with your life or your freedom. You are wise to admit that you have a problem. Now, turn that 5000 dollars into further wisdom and escape with your life intact.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
A single poker hand is gambling.
A billion poker hands is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't suppose the guy posted for a semantic argument, but...

If one were to play "a billion poker hands," we might assume he has been winning.

Anything that involves placing a wager that might be lost against odds, favorable or not, is called "gambling."

Anyway, cut the guy some slack. Tell him to quit poker entirely, not to play so much as a stupid online freeroll. Just forget it entirely, because he's no damned good at it, and is putting himself in a bad spot because of it.

Ok, I'll tell him.

Uh, fella, read what I just said.

[XChamp]

The problem I have with people saying poker is "gambling" is that skill is involved. If skill is involved then it is tremendously different than betting on, say, roulette.

If the definition of gambling is "betting on an outcome that is not certain", than everything is gambling. Life is gambling. Crossing the road to your job, thus risking getting hit by a car, is gambling.

[Uglyowl]

Then the stock market is gambling and should be illegal.

[richrf]

Good advice. My brother-in-law gambled away $100,000's of dollars in his life. Ruined his life, his marriage, and his children's life. Now he is old .. and ill. And sorry for all that he has done.

When I was young I lost $10,000 (tax deductible) on options and learned my lesson early in life. My friends unfortuntately didn't. They "gambled" on the stock market and the dot.com craze and collectively lost millions (several of my friends were millionaires and lost practically everything they had). So it is better to learn early so the losses are smaller.

There are people who "win" but they are playing a different game. They are on the "inside" and know things that outsiders don't know. Right now you are playing with a computer and who knows who else. I team of professionals? A large dormitory of students? A computer wizard with a load of robots? A contrived deal? You're not on the inside and ultimately you will lose. When the insiders are ready for you to lose (just like the dot.com craze).

Best to stay clear of this "game" where everything is beyond your control and understanding and find something else to do. You really don't want to risk your whole future as my brother-in-law did. Or do you? If you can leave the game behind you, then you don't have a gambling problem. You just learned a lesson that everyone learns in life. That "gambling" is a heck of lot more than risking some money. Good luck!

[Uglyowl]

"When the insiders are ready for you to lose (just like the dot.com craze). "

Are you kidding?

[XChamp]

The stockmarket is uncertain. People risk money by investing in it. How can the same person possibly consider poker to be gambling while at the same time consider investing in the market NOT gambling?

[MicroBob]

Many investors DO consider the stock-market to be gambling. It just happens to be legal.


My Dad is one of those who has excelled at the stock-market and plays the percentages as best he can. But his viewpoint is that it is generally just a form of gambling and he knows of several experts who share this idea.


I think some people are confusing two different things here.
Just because something can be +EV in the long-term doesn't mean it isn't gambling.
Or, contrarily...it doesn't HAVE to be -EV to still be gambling.
Gambling does NOT mean -EV.


Look at it the other way:
The definition revolves around 'uncertain outcome'...not whether you know what the long-term result is likely to be.

So, for example, if I play a -EV game like roulette for the next 10 consecutive years I am almost guaranteed to lose.
so does that mean that roulette isn't gambling as long as I play it long-term because I KNOW that I'm just giving my money away?

If poker long-term is just 'making money' and not 'gambling' because you know the long-term result then roulette long-term has to be just 'losing money' and not gambling becuase you equally know the result long-term (with a high degree of confidence anyway)

This would mean that NOTHING is gambling which, of course, is ridiculous.


But, on each trial (each hand..or spin of the roulette wheel) I might win or I might lose.
On each stock my Dad decides to hold or sell he might win or might lose.


It's all very similar.
If you hang onto your AA when there's heavy-betting and the board looks like crap you STILL might win the hand. It's your decision whether to hang onto it or not but either way it's a gamble. It's up to you to determine whether to ditch the AA or not.
If my Dad decides to hold or sell a stock he's taking a similar gamble. Because if he ditches it he could miss out on the stock shooting straight upward for the next 12 mths. but if he hangs onto it that might turn out badly too. He makes a caluclated decision and hopes for the best. It's a gamble.


A card-player article on Dan Harrington had some quote in it where he says that his endeavors in real-estate and the stock-market are very similar to poker. He calls ALL of them a kind of 'game'.

Here's an excerpt from the article:
Now, much of Dan's time is spent at his successful business, Anchor Loans, where he loans money and invests in the stock-market and real-estate. He admits, "I'm very good at learning games and playing them. Real estate and the stock market are just other types of games, as far as I'm concerned. There's hardly any difference."


Ed Miller and others whom I think most of us respect have said that if you somehow think poker ISN'T gambling you're kidding yourself.

[Tony Corbett]

[ QUOTE ]
I think some people are confusing two different things here.
Just because something can be +EV in the long-term doesn't mean it isn't gambling.
Or, contrarily...it doesn't HAVE to be -EV to still be gambling.
Gambling does NOT mean -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.


[ QUOTE ]

Look at it the other way:
The definition revolves around 'uncertain outcome'...not whether you know what the long-term result is likely to be.

So, for example, if I play a -EV game like roulette for the next 10 consecutive years I am almost guaranteed to lose.
so does that mean that roulette isn't gambling as long as I play it long-term because I KNOW that I'm just giving my money away?

If poker long-term is just 'making money' and not 'gambling' because you know the long-term result then roulette long-term has to be just 'losing money' and not gambling becuase you equally know the result long-term (with a high degree of confidence anyway)

This would mean that NOTHING is gambling which, of course, is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]



This nicely highlights where my views appear to differ from everyone else.

The long term of results of a winning poker player is that he will show a profit over the long term. The outcome is not uncertain it is known and therefore I do not consider it to be gambling.

However the results of single hand, session, month, even year are uncertain and are therefore gambling. So poker over the short term even for a winning player is gambling.

The same with roulette short term gambling, long term giving your money to a casino.


[ QUOTE ]
Ed Miller and others whom I think most of us respect have said that if you somehow think poker ISN'T gambling you're kidding yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ed Miller is talking about the short term not the long term. He goes on to say that "as long as you understand fundamental gambling concepts and make correct decisions, winning will be inevitable.". Inevitable implies that the long term outcome is known.

In essence he saying that a skilled poker player is acting as the casino when playing poker in that the player as a long term edge over his opponents.

Do casinos gamble or do they just provide the opportunity for others to gamble.

To conclude where the outcome is unknown it's gambling. When the outcome is known it's no longer gambling.

Hope this clears up my position on the subject. I never thought a quick remark would generate so much discussion.

[lorinda]

If I make a post and say that I'll play the seventh person to reply at chess for $50 is that gambling?

Lori

[rerazor]

Do people consider gambling companies to be gamblers? Because generally they only have a few percentage point advantage over the confirmed "gamblers", but through the wonders of math they aren't gambling at all.

[Tony Corbett]

[ QUOTE ]
If I make a post and say that I'll play the seventh person to reply at chess for $50 is that gambling?

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel like I'm walking into a trap but.

As long as you know how to play chess and the 7th to reply is some random person then yes.

Although If you happen to be the current world champion then I would hope you laid odds. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Siingo]

Poker is gambling! The only special thing with poker is that you can get positiv EV if you are skilled in it. It is gambling because there is an element of chance in it.

If you bet $1 on black at roulette and you will win $10 every time it will be black then you will win alot in the long run. You will probably win after 100 play around 10*50+1*50=$450 but it is still gambling because you can not tell for sure how much you will win. You can only calculate what you expect to win. There is an element of chance.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]

Ed Miller is talking about the short term not the long term. He goes on to say that "as long as you understand fundamental gambling concepts and make correct decisions, winning will be inevitable.". Inevitable implies that the long term outcome is known.


[/ QUOTE ]

Even if winning is inevitable, there's still a ton of variance about "how much" you win. Thats why its gambling, even over the course of years. The Standard deviation is so large in relation to your EV, so your results can greatly differ from month to month. or year to year. even if you play at the same skill level, and with the same poor-playing opponents.

Whether or now your EV is positive doesn't determine whether something is gambling. IF you play Roulette, you know that you will lose over the long run... that is inevitable. Yet almost anyone would state that playing roulette is a form or gambling.

[lorinda]

IF you play Roulette, you know that you will lose over the long run... that is inevitable. Yet almost anyone would state that playing roulette is a form or gambling.


Perfect.

Lori

[richrf]

Totally agree. As a counter example to gambling games are games like Chess or Go. If I enter into either of these games with a person of even a modicum of experience I will lose 99% of the time. If a enter into a game with a "professional" I will be crushed each and every game - and it is inevitable from the very first couple of moves. Neither of these games are gambling. Both are truly a game of skill.

Poker, on the other hand, is a game of completely unpredictable outcome. I can pick up a "nuts hand" and crush a pro who has been playing for 30 years and that will be that. No skill involved at all.

What is the "long run", well that is also indeterminable. I know many people who have been in the stock market for a very long time and at this point have lost practically everything. The market may not recover for another 20 or more years (just like the period between 1930 and 1950) and even when it does, a person has to be "in" during the right times, since the "up" days occur during a very short duration. Frankly, I made more money in CDS - which has no luck involved in it at all.

Any time the results are unpredictable, it is gambling. And usually in any gambling game, the vast majority of people end up losing for one reason or another. In the case of the stock market - it is because of insider knowledge. In the case of online poker - the same. Whether you are ready to accept it or not. All of the same logic that is used for online poker was used during the three years of the stock market boom - and then it busted. The lesson is always the same whether it is stocks, gold (which reached a high of $800 during the boom years of the 70s and still has not recovered), or poker. A player is always taking a "chance".

[JGalt]

[ QUOTE ]
Do people consider gambling companies to be gamblers? Because generally they only have a few percentage point advantage over the confirmed "gamblers", but through the wonders of math they aren't gambling at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure they are. There are casinos that have gone broke before. The big advantage that they have is their bankroll.

[richrf]

Nope I am not kidding. I have seen the same "craze" over and over again. Tons of books on "technical analysis" of gold, stocks, Beany Babies, tulips, whatever ... where a "professor of mathematics cooly explains how they can "beat the market". Of course, it never works out like the "math" because people are involved - and people "cheat". But it doesn't stop people from trying. Pople are always looking for the "easy buck" at home. Never ceases ... and there will be something after online poker also.

[MicroBob]

Yes...I definitely consider casinos to be 'gambling' with their money.
A well run organization will have enough capital to withstand the fluctuations and will control the situation as much as reasonably possible.


For example, I worked at a low-roller casino for a few months.
There was a stumbling drunk betting monsterously large for our place. Incredibly drunk and stupid...bizarrely so in fact.

Anyway, he was hanging out at the roulette table and kept wanting to put 2 or 3 purple chips on whatever his favorite number was. At 36-to-1 that's a $36k payoff if the casino accepted his $1k bet. But I think the max bet is $50 or $100 or something...so on EVERY spin he would push his purple chips out there...and on EVERY spin the dealer would push them back and say 'no bet' and the floor would explain to him that he wasn't allowed to bet that high on roulette.


Even though the casino is getting the best of it and it's +EV it was more than the casino was willing to gamble (they could have accepted the bets if they wanted).

if he hits just a few times it is really damaging to the bottom-line.
so the casino decided 'nope, this GAMBLE is not in our best interest.'

[JGalt]

I think one of the best quotes on gambling I have ever heard was from the movie Owning Mahowney.

Psychologist: How would you rate the thrill you got from gambling, on a scale of one to 100?

Dan Mahowny: Um... hundred.

Psychologist: And what about the biggest thrill you've ever had outside of gambling?

Dan Mahowny: Twenty

And if that is the case for anyone playing who is a loser or winner it can be very, very dangerous.

[MicroBob]

while I agree with your general idea I do believe there are SOME elements of gambling involved in chess.

Even though it is a game of complete information (you know where all my pieces are and I know where all yours are) it's not TOTALLY complete information. For example, one bit of information I don't know is what you next move is going to be...or if you are going to be able to see the trap I am trying to set to win your knight.


You can take a risk (errr....gamble??) by playing an opening that you know the opponent will find unorthodox for you.
In the 1972 Bobby Fishcer vs. Boris Spassky championship Fischer opened a game with his queen's pawn which was a huge surprise since he had always been a kings-pawn player.
He gambled that just opening with such an unusual (for him) move would catch Spassky so off-guard and even psychologically effect him too since he had to know that Spassky's preparations for Fischer probably only involved King's pawn openings.


Also - in chess tournaments with 100 players or more I have no idea who i'm going to be match up against or whether I will get the white pieces 3 rounds out of 5 or be stuck with the black pieces.
If I go 4-0 in the first 4 rounds I'm REALLY hoping that I get white and an opponent I can handle in the 5th round where I am now playing for some prize-money.



Even within the game....if I spend 45 minutes of my time on a single difficult situation (lets say I get 2 hours for my first 40 moves which is common) then I am 'hoping' (err..gambling??) that I will be able to scramble my way through moves 30 through 40 when I have 5 minutes left.

Is it +EV to spend those extra 5 minutes on move 29 just to be sure? Or is it -EV because I pretty much know that I have seen all that I am going to see and I think that 5 minutes as opposed to 10 minutes for my upcoming 10 moves to make time-control will make a difference too.



Anyway, these are some of the situations where luck can play a bit of a role in chess actually.


Related side-note - I have observed before that there is very much a gambler's mentality in a chess-tournament where a bunch of guys pay $200 or $500 in hopes of winning a few thousand dollars in their 'section' (meaning they play against those within their ratings-group).

It's very similar to a poker-tournament in many ways and other chess players have agreed with me that these tournaments are really just "gambling".

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Do people consider gambling companies to be gamblers?

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly what I was going to ask. Is Harrahs gambling when it deals a hand of blackjack? When it deals a billion hands?

The whole argument is kind of silly because "gambling" doesn't have any single precise definition that is indisputably better than any other definition. You can consider poker to be gambling or not, depending on how you define "gambling," and depending on context.

In any event, for any player with -EV, poker is definitely gambling; and anybody who has a problem quitting poker because he likes the action does have a gambling problem.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
IF you play Roulette, you know that you will lose over the long run... that is inevitable. Yet almost anyone would state that playing roulette is a form or gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]
People who play roulette do so because of the variance. They dig the action. That is gambling.

When the house plays roulette, it does so despite the variance (and because of the EV). I would say that when the house is playing roulette, it is not really gambling.

But words, shmurds. It doesn't really matter whether you call something gambling or not. A rose by any other name . . .

[GoSox]

That does suck. After losing the first few thou didn't it dawn on you that you have a problem ? Please seek help, and good luck !!

[Tboner7]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes...I definitely consider casinos to be 'gambling' with their money.
A well run organization will have enough capital to withstand the fluctuations and will control the situation as much as reasonably possible.


For example, I worked at a low-roller casino for a few months.
There was a stumbling drunk betting monsterously large for our place. Incredibly drunk and stupid...bizarrely so in fact.

Anyway, he was hanging out at the roulette table and kept wanting to put 2 or 3 purple chips on whatever his favorite number was. At 36-to-1 that's a $36k payoff if the casino accepted his $1k bet. But I think the max bet is $50 or $100 or something...so on EVERY spin he would push his purple chips out there...and on EVERY spin the dealer would push them back and say 'no bet' and the floor would explain to him that he wasn't allowed to bet that high on roulette.


Even though the casino is getting the best of it and it's +EV it was more than the casino was willing to gamble (they could have accepted the bets if they wanted).

if he hits just a few times it is really damaging to the bottom-line.
so the casino decided 'nope, this GAMBLE is not in our best interest.'

[/ QUOTE ]

They put a limit on how much you can bet on roulette because you CAN win at roulette. BUT only IF the maximum limit is high enough and the low limit is low enough.

[bgtas]

I am 26 years old and i have bet on sports in the past and i have gone to casinos. Vegas 3 times, foxwoods mohegun sun, a.c.

[nongice626]

[ QUOTE ]
hello everyone just wanted to say that i put myself in a little bit of a debt because of online poker around $5000. I really can't be doing this anymore. My life is upside down because of this. I started playing around a year ago. I dont know what to do anymore. all i think about is poker but I know i have to stop thinking about poker. any suggestions on how to stop thinking about poker???

[/ QUOTE ]

try crack. i hear good things.

or learn to make money. pay back the 5K and continue moderately.

[nongice626]

[ QUOTE ]
A single poker hand is gambling.
A billion poker hands is not.

What screen resolution do I need for that?

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

i remember you.

bitch.

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
Step down in limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

no. he needs to stop playing period- there is obviously a gambling/addiction/losing problem.

[imported_stealthcow]

good for you to post your losses/ your problem and questions

that is by far the hardest and most important thing you have done.

i dont really know at what stage/ what your feelings are at.

if you want to play, i'd admit defeat and start from the bottom up. consider the 5k an investment in a stock or whatnot that didn't pay off. maybe things dind't pan out (you never really mentioend what limits/games you were playing- a loss of 5k at 3/6 or 20/40 obviously means a big differencee).

buy a book like lee jones guide to low limit hold'em, buy poker tracker and rock at the .50/1 tables. make it a hobby, as i think poker can make you a better person if you learn to live with teh good and bad that it brings. if you really applied yourself at the hobby (much like someone does for any other) you will find your weaknesses, find your strengths and ultimately succeed. (this is why i love poker)

if you want to get away from poker, good luck and good for you. as many have pointed out, there is a lot to lose by not seeing your mistakes and moving from them. you've found your weakness and now all is left is for you to decide if you can handle it yourself, or if you need somoene else.

in any case

best wishes

stealthcow-

[fearme]

he played to high for his bankroll,

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
Psychologist: How would you rate the thrill you got from gambling, on a scale of one to 100?

Dan Mahowny: Um... hundred.

Psychologist: And what about the biggest thrill you've ever had outside of gambling?

Dan Mahowny: Twenty

And if that is the case for anyone playing who is a loser or winner it can be very, very dangerous.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is extreme obsessive compulsive gambling and this post doesn't even come close to that.

Lawrence