Do you find gambling boring when losing doesn't sting?

[James Boston]

First I'll say this. Don't mistake my question as me having a problem. I am in no way a compulsive gambler. I don't do it that much. I don't take risks that could hurt my personal life. Etc... The problem I have is that when I decide I can afford to gamble (play poker) with X amount of dollars, I can't enjoy myslef as much unless I'm in a situation where losing big is possible. It's not that I want to lose. It's just that if my winnings compared to my investment are small, I'm not as interested. Offsetting that puts me in a postition where my whole "bankroll" is at risk. For example. When I got to casinos I take a sufficient amount of money so that I can entertain myself for the weekend, and still try to play solid poker. The internet is another story. Periodically, I'll put $100 on Party (which losing is no big deal), and tell myself that I'm going to build it slowly, which I do for a while. Eventually I get bored, and take some big risk. I've only lost that $100 twice, and it always lasted a good while. I'm just curious if anyone else fells compelled to try and take shots like this, and how do you stay in a frame of mind that prevents it.

[archmagi]

if you get bored after a while at small limits, and if you can afford to, then deposit a bit more and play a higher limit.
the worst thing you can do is try a shot at 5/10 (or something like that) with a 100.
Do you play NL?

[jskills]

I am the exact opposite of you I think. Although there is some adrenaline rush that accompanies the uncertainty of whether your good hand will hold up or not, I prefer the adrenaline rush of having the nut hand and wildly wondering how much I can make with it.

I actually don't like the situations where I can lose money, and shy away from risking large amounts. I have no problem grinding my way upwards 2+2 style ...

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you play NL?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, my plan is always to build it up playing limit, which I stick to for a while. My big risks are usually at no limit.

[charlie_t_jr]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you find gambling boring when losing doesn't sting?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the question for you is, do you want to be a gambler or a winning poker player?

If you want to be a winning poker player, then you'll have to make a bit of a commitment. Along with reading, studying, etc, is getting experience...putting in the table hours. Reading about poker's great, but you've got to put it into action and get experience.

Now you could play in a weekly home game and maybe make it to the casinos once a month, or you could play 2 tables for as little as 10hrs a week online, and get more hands in a month than you could in a years time playing live.

The trick is, I think, would be to deposit your $100, and cease to think of it as money. Think of it as units...big bets. Then make your goal to be a winning poker player. Keep score by the "units" you're winning or losing.

Are you a winning poker player?....You are, you say...are you sure? Have you kept a record of 10k...20k hands? No? Well, then start. Make that your challenge. Prove to yourself you're a winning player. Or find out why you're not, and fix it....Or you could deposit a hundred bucks, play a couple thousand hands, get bored and blow it on a couple of sit 'n go's...in other words...gamble.

[The13atman]

Hmmm, well I grind it out and don't ever GAMBOOOOOL and move up to limits I'm not bankrolled for or anything, but I don't think I could play 0.01/0.02 limit and not get bored. Someone (Barry G? Chip Reese?) said that you should always be playing at a limit where it stings a bit if you lose. I think this helps me personally concentrate on playing my best all the time. As an unemployed college student, it does sting a bit when I drop 50 BBs in an hour, even though I'm only playing 0.5/1 and have over a 1000 BB bankroll.

So yes, I think it should sting a bit when you lose, but that doesn't mean you should be taking shots at limits you can't afford.

[FredJones888]

I've experienced the same problem. I quit playing entirely for a couple of months just to make sure that I could, so I would know I wasn't a compulsive gambler. If you've lost a bit more than you expected over the past couple months, maybe you should do the same.

I think when you go and put your $100 on the line in NL, you are really looking for an adrenaline rush.

[Reef]

if I was playing .01/.02 vs. the top pros and getting lessons, no way would the session be boring by any means. Even though losing my buy ins of $2 wouldn't even cause me to blink.

[David04]

Well if losing doesn't sting....then winning probably doesn't feel really good, at least not at as good as it could.

So no, I don't find it "boring" when I gamble small amounts of money....it's just not as exciting.

Also, I am only talking about gambling on sports and other things. For poker, I play within my BR.

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
I quit playing entirely for a couple of months just to make sure that I could, so I would know I wasn't a compulsive gambler. If you've lost a bit more than you expected over the past couple months, maybe you should do the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll just have to take my word on this, but my personal finances aren't in danger, and compulsive gambling isn't a problem. As another poster pointed out, if losing doesn't sting, then winning probably isn't that rewarding. I agree.

[TomBrooks]

To some extent yes. I play .5/1 now. If I were to drop to .25/.5 I would get bored, but thats mainly because I'm winning at .5/1 and I would be lowering my overall winnings if I dropped.

Taking a large risk to possibly get a large reward does not entice me. Being very comfortable to the point that I feel I have almost a sure win interests me.

I've played Lotto for a lark perhaps 25 times in the last 25 years. My father owned race horses and I've been to the track or OTB about five times in my whole life. I live halfway between Atlantic City and Foxwoods and have never been to a casino. Aside from the stock market, I virtually never gambled before I found out poker is a game of skill and there are a lot of underskilled people playing it.

=TomBk

[Wally Weeks]

[ QUOTE ]
You'll just have to take my word on this, but my personal finances aren't in danger, and compulsive gambling isn't a problem. As another poster pointed out, if losing doesn't sting, then winning probably isn't that rewarding. I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see any problem with this. Maybe you have a little "gamble" in you in that you like the thrill somewhat and that winning isn't the primary objective in playing poker? If you view it as a hobby as opposed to a job, no biggie. Just as long as you're not trying to make a living.

It's probably common sense, but taking shots at games that are significantly above your bankroll is a formula for disaster. This is even the case when a particular game is soft as you may not survive the variance. For a mathematical justification I refer you to the "gambler's ruin" concept in probability.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GamblersRuin.html

Regards,
Walter

[BigSkiRace]

I have the same problem, although I work on having one solid bankroll for a specific game that I build on. I have started another bankroll just recently which is my "taking shots bankroll". This is the bankroll so I dont get bored and when I do I just go to this bankroll and do something stupid...If I hit I hit no big deal...Another thing that Phil Ivey says is "a loss has to sting" so sometimes you dont play your best game if your confortable in the game, theres alot of truth to that