Self Destructive Players Online

I recently $4-8 stud at Paradise with a player who played every hand (yes, 100%). I saw him lose $750 in about 90 minutes. I've seen other players play almost as badly online and lose large amounts in very short timespans. The mental picture this conjures up is of a dissheveled man or woman, hunched over a desk, cursing and sweating and swigging from a bottle of vodka.

In a casino, I think such extreme behavior would be more likely to attract intervention, either from the floor or from other players. Especially at lower stakes. The anonymity of online play seems to me to increase the ability of troubled players to lose everything fast.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

And there are $1,000 slot machines at Bellagio.

So what? Maybe the guy you saw is a Saudi prince with $$ to burn. I hope he comes to my table. I'll have no remorse taking his money. Free will & all that.

Why respond if all you have to say is "so what"? I think there is a point at which compassion dictates that I should try to help (or at least not participate in hurting) people who are sick. Just as bartenders are required by law in many places to stop serving obviously drunk patrons, casinos do in fact bar certain sick gamblers. My point is that there is less (or no) ability to do this on the Internet. I love bad players who lose money -- but I don't think I'm the only one who starts to feel uncomfortable when "bad" becomes mentally unbalanced.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Fine, if that's how you feel, but that wasn't my point. The point is, you made a judgment about the person based on nothing but your own view of the value of money. For all you know, that $750 could have been less significant to him than $0.75 is to you or me.

On-line, there is no way of telling what the person's circumstance is, thus (to me at least) it is irrelevant. Even in a casino, if a floor person took someone like that away from the table, unless I was assured that there was a personal relationship there that was the basis of the intervention, I would consider it unwarrented outside interference.

Sure, from a human standpoint, I would favor taking the person aside and trying to reason with him, but once that's done, if he chooses to sit at the table, he's fair game. The line beytween winning and losing is too fine to let emotion get in the way.

Often times I feel guilty when I sit at a table with someone who is clearly flushing money down the bowl, but a couple of things make me not worry about.

1)If they were taking my money, they would (almost always) have no remorse.
2)There are always better players than me at the tables I sit at. In a way, we are all "handicapped"(I use this word very liberally) when compared to better players, yet we still choose to sit-down.

Hell, I've known quite a few women (better than I'd like to admit), who continue to buy things that they can't afford. Maybe people out there should try to stop consumerism. I don't think you'll ever see a Lord & Taylor manager walk up to an irresponsible patron and say "Excuse me miss, but you have a sickness, and I think you need to put down the thousand dollar hand bag." Of course, not until the card is maxed out.

-Huh?

[AlanBostick]

I've seen such behavior as you describe in real-life games many times, and I've never known casino or cardroom management to intervene.

The players who do this sort of thing in real life appear to be enjoying themselves, and they don't fit the dissolute addict stereotype you imagine. I'm not a sociopath like KurnsonofMogh, but I don't have any ethical qualms about taking their money. (I'm much more uncomfortable about taking money from the genuine dissolute compulsive gamblers in the game, but there is usually much less of it to take.)

[bernie]

"In a casino, I think such extreme behavior would be more likely to attract intervention, either from the floor or from other players"

in the room where i play, the attention form the other players would be that of encouragement. 'your cards are bound to turn bud, hang in there!'

the casinos arent intervening at all. if they were, they wouldnt put the GA pamphlets next to the cashier. theyd put them next to the ATM.

b
b

[bernie]

"Just as bartenders are required by law in many places to stop serving obviously drunk patrons, casinos do in fact bar certain sick gamblers"

the reasons bartenders are required to intervene is due to liability should the drunk go out and injure somebody. the bar can be held liable for damages. a problem gambler is only a danger to themselves.

also, you cant help someone who doesnt want to help themselves. what are you going to do if the guy refuses help? leave the table?

sure, it's sad. but man are they good for the profits...

b

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Well, I can now add another name I've been called online.

>I'm not a sociopath like KurnsonofMogh, but I don't have any ethical >qualms about taking their money.

I am a competitor, who believes in playing to win. I believe a sociopath is one who will do anything to achieve his ends, including cheating (like Worm in Rounders). If I have posted anything that indicates that I am a cheat, please point it out to me. Otherwise you owe me an apology.

I am a modestly winning low stakes, recreational player and might feel differently if my livelihood depended on poker winnings. When I play live and online, most of the horrible players do seem to be enjoying themselves according to their own lights. But some people have a problem. Roy Cooke, a strong, winning pro for many years has written some interesting columns about losing players. I find his point of view admirable, in that he tries to win and play well without losing his perspective and humanity. I think this is a form of winning in life, too.

[Duke]

All a sociopath is is someone who has a complete disregard for social mores, though dictionaries tend to lean towards calling it someone with social problems.

A sociopath would be a like a Hannibal Lecter. Someone who has their own ideas of right and wrong, and has a distaste for society's.

To a certain degree we're all sociopaths... as I would hope that people have their own ideas of what is OK or not. To copy others' opinions is probably worse than to have "bad" ones of your own. Don't feel bad.

~Duke

[Duke]

The real question, then, is whose money is it OK to take, and to what extent?

Is it 'better' to take someone's money over many years and break them slowly, instead of take a grand from a moron in a 4-8 game in one night, and then scare them away form the table forever? That's probably better for that guy than losing everything over the course of a year.

Is it even OK to take money from an inferior player who is sober? Do they have to be drunk, or is tilt enough to get someone to intervene?

You're citing a fact about the very nature of these games. Whether he's drunk or not he's worse than you at the game. Is it only OK to beat superior players out of money when they're card dead? How can you make a living doing that?

I don't see a moral dilemma in this. Take the money. By putting his money up and sitting down, he bought the right to be respected as if he were any other player. Therefore, I give him that respect. I try to break him the same as I try to break a sober dude who's just a bit worse than me.

Nobody ever gave me money back after I lost to them, or stopped me from putting another grand into a 15-30 game when I wasn't mentally capable of playing at even 50 percent.

Am I supposed to feel bad about it? [censored] that. [censored] him; [censored] everybody who looks down on me for saying so. I'll change my tune when someone writes me a check for every cent that I've tilted away over the years. Without tilt I'd be retiring by now.

~Duke

[bad beetz]

it can be sad, but mercy and sympathy don't mix well with poker.

"there's no crying in baseball."

[bad beetz]

I'm with the klingon. I have no sympathy for this behavior and will take their last penny if they sit at my table.
and I volunteer at a local soup kitchen, so I don't want to hear anything about being a heartless bastard.


I don't consider even worm to be a sociopath. I actually admire his character

[bad beetz]

I wouldn't say he had a "distaste" for society, in fact I think he thought they tasted quite good.

[CEO]

More valuable than any amount of money is time. Since we only have a limited time on this earth, wasting time is far worse than wasting money, in the eyes of most people.

Many people look at poker players when they walk into a casino and think how sick and pathetic they are for wasting time, and wasting their lives. Whether or not they are winners or losers they make a value judgement about it. I feel they are wrong.

In the end, each individual makes their own choices and lives their own consequences, both good and bad. That is what life is about. You can't make value judgements about someone else, certainly not someone as far removed as an unknown player on the internet, any more than I should be able to make value judgements about you.

If this keeps up, I suggest a good therapist would be a wise investment, to help you come to terms with your own issues.

[comic2b]

I'd like to play with them.

[Al Schoonmaker]

This is a fascinating thread, and it relates directly to another recent one on conscience. The critical question is whether we should take advantage of weakness when that weakness is clearly pathological.

If we can't take advantage of weakness, we should play Old Maid, not poker. Poker is a predatory game, and all predators select vulnerable prey.

But what if they are especially vulnerable because they are drunk or mentally ill? Do we players have a responsibility to protect them? Does a casino?

Let's take the casino's responsibility first. A lawsuit has been filed recently by a pathological gambler demanding reimbursement for all his losses plus damages for emotional suffering, etc. Similar suits have been filed in the past, and I don't know how they have been decided. If anyone knows, I'd appreciate a report or a reference to a publication with information.

This lawsuit is potentially as devastating to casinos as the tobacco suits were to that industry. If the courts decide that casinos have a responsibility to protect people from their own weaknesses, it could have a massive impact. Lots os people will be watching this lawsuit as it works its away through the courts.

Do we, as players, have a similar responsibility? I'll talk only for myself. If a friend is drunk and throwing away money, I'll do whatever I can to get him out of the game. Ditto if a friend is severely on tilt.

If a stranger or even someone I know, but have no relationship with outside of poker is drunk or on tilt, I'll enjoy taking his money.

I must make one last comment. The word "sociopath" was used in an earlier post. I believe that name-calling is inappropriate and inconsistent with the norms of this forum. One reason so many of us come here and avoid RGP is that we're more civilized. Let's disagree without being disagreeable.

Regards,

Al

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I won't. I've been called worse /forums/images/icons/cool.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Worm's tragic flaw is that he doesn't understand how to push the envelope until it is just short of the breaking point. He always pushes it until it breaks.

Well, I'm certainly not saying I have any problem beating drunk, tilted or bad players. I want to stress I am a WINNING low limit player. But when I see someone playing in a truly depraved fashion -- ie. the player I cited who was playing EVERY hand -- I do feel compassion for that player. In a live game, especially at the lower limits I play (1-3 through 5-10) I do think some players might try to talk with the player. On the Internet, that's less possible. For example, the player I'm speaking of never chatted a word during the 90 minutes I played with him. Those posters who feel "everyone is equal at the table, just take his money" are, in my view, lacking in perspective and decency. There are two sides to the game -- playing hard and winning is one, sharing the game with others who play it is another. Obviously, this site is an example of the latter. I think trying to help severely sick gamblers deal with their problem is another.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I'm going to challenge you on this, if for no other reason than your post has a self-righeous sound to it.

How do you know that that person in the online game was hurting himself? In my view, you are basing a very strong opinion on a shaky premise.

I say again, there are $1,000 slot machines at Bellagio. That's $3,000 per spin. They aren't there for show, there are people who play them. For those people, $3,000 per spin has the same impact on their finances as 15 cents per spin does for nickel slots players.

The point is - money does not have an objective value. Yes, the person online COULD be gambling his grocery money, but he just as easily could be throwing away an insignificant amount of pocket change. You don't know, yet you use this flawed preminse to flaunt your moral superiority.

Fine. I believe in freedom. You're free to leave the table for whatever reason you choose. As far as I'm concerned, when a person with free will CHOOSES to sit at the table, their problems are their responsibility.

Wow. Individual responsibility. there's a unique concept. But, then again, I'm a sociopath. What'd you expect from a guy who uses a Klingon screen name?
/forums/images/icons/cool.gif

Kurnson, I did not call you a sociopath. And I earlier agreed that it was possible that this particular player is a wealthy eccentric. If that is the case, I wouldn't be concerned. But I think you must concede that there are problem gamblers in the poker world who lose their homes and families. It's interesting -- and disturbing -- to me that so many people reject any concept of compassion for these people.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I know it wasn't you who called me a sociopath. Someone else did, so I'm running with it.

I am not at all rejecting the idea of compassion for people with a gambling problem. I am rejecting the idea of showing that compassion at the poker table. I am all for providing people with the proper counseling for addictive-compulsive behavior, but at some point, those people MUST make the choice to change their behavior. Like alcoholism is not caused by bars, gambling addiction is not caused by casinos. Those people for whom we show compassion spit in our faces by rejecting attempts to be helped and returning to the addiction.

Treating addiction as a disease only and not addressing the character issues inherent in recidivism does not help addicts. At some point, any addict must take responsibility for his/her problem. Just as welfare does not solve the problem of poverty, reinforcing the "it's not my fault, it's a disease" mentality does not help an addict.

If a friend of mine had a gambling problem and said, hey, Kurn, let's hang out this weekend, I'd go to a ballgame with him, go to a club, etc. I would not say, "hey. let's go to Foxwoods."

But if I'm sitting a a poker table and he comes in on his own. I might ask him if he was sure this was what he wanted to do, but the minute he sits at that table, he ceases to be my friend and becomes an opponent. Maybe the only way he'll ever get the message is to go bust, I don't know.

One last question at the risk of sounding like a broken record. Do you at least accept the fact that you have no idea whether or not the person at that online table was doing himself harm?

To answer your last question first, I certainly don't know if that particular person was "doing themselves harm". But I'd say it's more likely than not that they are. Let's face it, for every rich loon there are probably 10 sick gamblers. It's hard to envision a scenario where playing every hand and losing $750 in 90 minutes can be a happy, fun time for the person involved.

I think that your statements are fine as far as they go. Individuals must ultimately help themselves. But there is a bigger issue -- if we know gambling is addictive for some people, if we decide to sanction it in our culture, then we inevitably must develop a response to addicted gamblers. In other words, for each individual, gambling addiction is a "choice". But for society, gambling addiction is a certainty. Just as sentiment is moving towards holding cigarette companies responsible for damages to smokers, I expect that ultimately casinos will begin to bear some responsibility for the damage addictive gamblers do to themselves. As an individual player trying to win, I agree it's every man for themselves. But as part of the group of poker players, I feel sorry for those who play in a way that has no chance to win and that, for some, costs more than they can afford to lose.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Then we disagree philosophically. Specifically, you state:

>Individuals must ultimately help themselves. But there is a bigger issue -- <

Here is where I disagree. There is no bigger issue than personally responsibility and accountability. The concept that there are "bigger issues" that trump that is the failing of the liberal, social-democratic point of view.

But this forum is about poker, not politics or philosophy, so I will let it rest.

We probably do differ politically. But I would respond to your comments with two well-known quotes:

"No man is an island"

"Love thy neighbor as thy self"

[bernie]

"I certainly don't know if that particular person was "doing themselves harm". But I'd say it's more likely than not that they are."

was this the first time you ever played with someone like this? i think youre making a snap judgement about this person. im with kurn, once their on the table it's war. if i dont take their money someone else will. the only thing 'you' can do to 'help' them, in reality, is to leave. what are you going to do? go up on a soapbox for them against the table, hold up the action telling everyone to show compassion? i know this sounds ridiculaous, but think about it...

im also not trying to sound insulting, but i certainly dont believe in protecting people from themselves. theyre over 21, they can make the choice themselves.

i remember a time where a gal busted out of the game around 11:30p. and she was tilting pretty good. she kept saying she'd have to wait til 12 to get more money. thats when the cash machines reset your daily withdrawl limit. she was obviously jonesin. now should i have stepped in and said something? i have no idea who she is...

i just played tight til 12 for when the game was going to get good again... /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

sound harsh? poker is a harsh business. and no one will show you compassion on a table if you needed it.

i agree it's sad, but it's part of playing the game. eventually you WILL run into some of these types. i think it's a fairy tale to think you can save them much less help them...

cya...

b

Bernie, in the case of the woman you mentioned, yeah I might have tried to take her aside and say something. No I don't think I can save everyone or even make a difference most of the time. But knowing that does not absolve me from the responsibility to behave ethically and compassionately. The kind of "whatever is, is right" thinking that most of the responders seem to champion seems to me to be an agrogation of personal responsibility, not an embrace of it.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Well, I was going to let it rest, but I can't. Your last sentence suggests that personal responsibility only applies to the strong and not to the weak. That personal responsibility somehow presupposes a carte blanche to impose *morality*, however you define it, on those unable to discern it for themselves. But I digress.

Gambling is what it is. For pete's sake, man, what kind of people do you think it attracts? You can't make gambling available and then sanitize it to make it safe. In case it hasn't occurred to you, poker is a zero sum game (well, it's actually a negative sum game when you factor in the rake). It's like the balance between freedom and equality. You can't maximize both.

Different people come to the poker table for different reasons. Some come totally unarmed for the battle and are guaranteed to bust out from the start. What do you want? Someone to screen everybody before they come to the table? Should I have raised my hand when the tourist family (young guy, his wife & mother-in-law) came to the 4/8 table at Bellagio two weeks ago and said "Mr. Floorman, don't let these people play, they're going to lose all their money." What am I, nuts? It was sort of like the scene in rounders where a few people at the table exchange subtle glances of restrained glee at the sight. And guess what, they did lose all their money. Re-buys, too. And I'm happy to say that I got the right cards in the right situations and pretty much had my A-game that day and walked out with a good chunk of their money. I should feel the need to dissuade them from playing poker? Not in this lifetime. And you want to know why? Because the next time I go to Vegas, I may sit at higher stakes, and somebody like Dynasty or Clarkmeister or Balt might be at the table and if I don't have my A game, I'll get my clock cleaned. But that's the way it goes.

Maybe you're not cut out to be a gambler. The world of poker is a lot like a free society. It isn't always pretty, and it isn't always safe, but it's better than a completely secure world where there's no chance of failure or triumph.

You gave me some quotes before. Here's one for you:

"Any man who would trade a portion of his freedom for a small measure of security deserves neither." - Benjamin Franklin

[Jeffage]

I consider myself a nice guy...away from the table. In this spot, I would simply never say anything. What this woman does is not my business...I play poker to win money, and a sick person's cash spends the same as a rich recreational player's. I've tilted before...back when I was barely 21 I lost about 1200 in a gambling binge at 15-30 hold em. You think anyone at the table pulled me aside and said, "Son, You really think this is wise?" Hell no, and frankly they shouldn't have. Poker is a brutal game and it is very tough to win...you have to exploit every edge that is legal in the game framework. If not, you may not be cut out for this game to be honest. I used to feel bad, but now I don't because these people would take my last cent and laugh about it later. Screw Em. Here's an anecdote...woman playing 10-20, seems like she is very stressed about the money she is losing and on tilt...we're on the rail at Taj, against the glass...her 10 or so year old kid keeps coming by looking at her like..."can we go yet?". She was stuck like two racks. This one hand, I rivered a flush....she had 30 bucks left. I checkraised her all in. Oh well, so it goes. You can FEEL bad, but ultimately adults can make their own decision. When I'm at a poker table, it is sport...I'm trying to accumulate as many chips as possible and play the best I can while having fun with people who also play hard at the table..chips have no face.

Jeff

[Ulysses]

It's hard to envision a scenario where playing every hand and losing $750 in 90 minutes can be a happy, fun time for the person involved.

I can. Before I address that, my thoughts re: this thread in general. I agree in most part with the sociopath. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif I agree with MRBAA about helping people w/ problems, but the time to do that is outside the poker room or definitely before they sit down and start playing. In large part, this thread is just rehashing the "Conscience Factor" thread of a little while ago, where I gave my opinion on this issue.

Now, as for the scenario of a happy fun time losing $750 in 90 minutes. Well, weekend before last I took a friend to Vegas for his birthday. Played $100/hand blackjack at Hard Rock w/ a female dealer I know well and two girls from LA we met earlier. I (well, me and the two girls) lost about $3000 in 90 minutes. Just basic strategy and bad luck. Luckily, it was time for dinner at Nobu then. Was losing fun? No. Was playing blackjack, drinking, and partying with these girls (and my dealer friend who we met up with later) a blast? Absolutely, and since I had given myself a $10k bankroll for "fun" gambling (blackjack and craps) I didn't sweat this loss at all. Ended up down $1k for the trip. It was also clear that the other guy at our table was sweating each of his $25 bets far more than any of my $600-800 split/double-down hands. And when I play at Bellagio there are often guys at my table tossing around $5-10k in chips like I do $100.

What's my point? It's all a matter of perspective. While losing in and of itself is never fun, gambling and having a good time can often be a blast (win or lose) as long as you stay within your comfort levels. And I never presume what the next guy's comfort level is.

Kurnson, you have chosen to respond to a scenario of your own making, not to my example. The family you cite (and ulysses, your scenario of someone obviously having a good time gambling) and most other situations where people are playing badly or unluckily are very welcome. Just last night I was sitting 2-4 he online with several horrible players and was relishing taking their money. I'm talking very specifically about people who are sick. Jeffage, the example of the woman with the kid is another where I might say something. Now granted, I'm a recreational player. I don't do this for a living, and that affects my perspective. But Jeffage, having read some of your rather despairing posts elsewhere, I believe there is a connection. You get out of the game what you put in. If you treat the other players only as chip stacks without faces, you may find the game is pretty cold. I actually think it takes more mental toughness and more independent thinking to assess each player as an opponent and as a human being and treat each situation individually. Of course, that is likely to include showing some compassion in those rare cases where it is warranted. For a solid winning player, this should have essentially zero effect on win rate. In the long run, I think it's a big positive for me in that (as Roy West has written) it's vital to "play happy".

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Well, I can at least agree with you on one point: Each person has to do what makes him/her happy.

Jeffage hits the nail on the head. It's possible to be a nice guy in life and a stone killer at the table.

Is there a place for nice guys at the poker table? Sure, just like there's a place for herbivores in the food chain.

To paraphrase a Klingon in a STNG episode, "your compassion is a human trait, I'll overlook it." /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[riffraff]

I recently started working as a blackjack dealer and was forced to watch a video on "problem gambling" during my orientation. The video basically went over several real-life stories of problem gamblers, described the different stages of problem gambling, yadda yadda yadda. Were the stories of these people sad? Indeed they were! Did the people have a legitamate disease? Absolutely. And you know what the casino wanted me to do if I thought someone might have a problem? If you guessed "nothing at all".. you are correct!

If someone at my table asks for help in the matter, I am to give them the problem gamblers phone number. That's it! Sure, this is the casino. They make their money off other people losing theirs. But wait - sounds a lot like what winning poker players do. To me there is little difference. Both the winning poker player and casino operate with an overlay to win over the long term. Both are doing so with their "customers" knowing in advance that the odds are stacked against them.

I don't understand why it would be the responsibility of the winning player/casino to try to break up this happy marriage. The percentage of casino patrons who are actual problem gamblers is extremely small. I'm not going to worry about who isn't going to be able to pay their rent or not based on what kind of cash they drop at my table. When the lady who "always plays her 2 cards when they're hearts" flops a straight vs my KK and beats me out of a pot, she's not feeling bad for me thats for sure.

Same thing at the BJ table. I'm routing for almost everyone who sits down, but am I going to offer advice about getting help to the guy who loses $1000 in 5 minutes of cold cards? Hell no! Not only is this guy helping to pay my salary, but he would probably get very angry if I suggested that he had a problem.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is just because someone might be losing money (a little or a lot) that doesn't mean that they have a problem with gambling. It's not up to me to determine weither they do or not, as a dealer or as a poker player. They make their decision as soon as they step into the casino.

[Fitz]

Unfortunately, we live in a stretch and break society. Stretch and break is what the mob has been accused of doing to poeple who owe them money. They keep loaning the guy money until he was in so deep he couldn't possibly pay. At that point they would break the guy. If he owned a business, they would bust out the business. Take the assets and leave the poor SOB holding the bag. The mob, loan sharks, and old time casinos were known for these type of tactics.

Who does this now? Citibank? Chase? Bank of America? Think about the realities of the credit card world. How many people carry a balance on their credit cards? How many have a balance they can never realistically reduce? Some of these people will refi their home and spend 30 years paying interest on interest on fees and long passed dinners.

I do feel sorry for someone who gets in over their head gambling. I have an old friend who's wife blew over 50k from their IRA in slot machines at riverboats here. Of course, she looked and talked like a winner. On two different occasions, she hit jackpots over 10k, and when you talked to her about it, she always had a great story about the latest big hit. In the final analysis, she was a net 50k loser, and she ended up having herself barred from the boats to save her marriage.

Another true story from my travels. I sat down at my regular $4/8 game, and a kind of dirty unkept guy at the other end of the table had a huge stack of chips in front of him, and he was blasting away with both hands. He was running the legs off the cocktail waitress, and he was losing a ton. He probably dumped $500, and reloaded, and lost that much again. It was a typical maniac session, and he was having a ball, but losing a ton. Was he a guy with a problem? No, I found out from a floor that he had just won $8000 in the bad beat. He took a check for 7k and decided to take a grand in chips and have some fun.

If it were someone I really knew was in trouble, I'd pull him aside and say something. If I were unsure, I would probably leave it alone. Things aren't always as they seem. I like to think I'd personally never stretch and break anyone, but I'm not in too big a hurry to tell a person how to spend his money.

Good luck, and interesting discussion.

Fitz -- interesting response. I think you and I are pretty much in the same place. It's interesting that you, Kurnson and I all play 2-4 on Paradise a lot. I play more stud than he, but I've played 2-4 hold em with both of you. (Not often though, you aren't the opponents I'm looking to knock heads with!)

You've posted that you've won a good amount (think you said about $5,000) in many hours of play. I've won about $1,800 in about 600 hours over the last two and a half years -- which includes my learning period, the first 200 hours or so in which I was negative $1,000. So I've won about $3/hour playing poker overall, about $4.50/hour for the last 400 hours. This is a mix of all games. I'd actually estimate my expectation at 2-4 stud on paradise (my best game) to be perhaps $8 or 2bb/hour. I'm sure others have done better, but I doubt anyone is making much over $12/hour at 2-4. I'm basing this on the many published estimates that top players can earn 1.5 bb hour in live games and factoring in the greater number of hands per hour online.

Any way you look at it, at these limits, the game is pretty much a financial waste of time, even for the winners. Of course, compared to my other hobby, golf, poker is a bargain. But compared to spending the time on working more, it's a huge financial loser.

The reason I play is because I enjoy the game immensely. That enjoyment, for me, would be seriously compromised if I behaved in ways I could not justify morally or ethicially. Similarly, when I go on golfing trips with the guys I don't join in the over-the-top drinking or whoring around that some do. (I'm married and a "social" drinker). I don't judge others for their fun, but I'm not going to suspend my own moral beliefs. The same goes for playing poker.

For those who play for a living, I can understand that the pressure to get the money would be greater. On the other hand, when something is your livelihood, I'd also think the pressure to set your own moral and ethical standards would be greater as well.

I really appreciate the thoughtfullness of most posters here, including Kurnson who's taken the trouble to articulate his opposing point of view extremely well.

[Ulysses]

Similarly, when I go on golfing trips with the guys I don't join in the over-the-top drinking or whoring around that some do.

Obviously, here's the problem. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

Yes, but for who -- them or me?

[SunTzu68]

Jeff,

Just for the record, you are a nice guy! But, you are a good player also.

Look forward to seeing you at the Taj.

[Fitz]

I think we are pretty much on the same page. You are right about the levels we play at; it would be nearly impossible to win enough per hour to make it financially worthwhile. I'm with you, but I do love to play the game, so the money is a nice bonus.

Good luck,

[CEO]

I have many times watched my friends go on tilt playing poker, one of them recognized as world-class published expert. Even though I consider a couple of these friends as extremely close, at the poker table, there is no such things as "friends", to me.

If they want to go on tilt at the poker table, or even drink, so much the better. Sure, they can come and cry on my shoulder later on, after the game is over, but at the game, I would only encourage their self-destructive behavior, and try to direct their chips to me.