Question for those with psychology backgrounds about poker addicts

[fimbulwinter]

what is is about poker that makes the thing so addictive to a certain type of person?

I discussed this with two friends and came up with the following, both of which i don't like:

1. the money aspect. The fact that someone can do something that normally would not involve the gain of money (like playing video games, solving puzzles etc.) and which would normally be a free-time activity and have a positive expectation makes poker so incredibly drawing for so many people.

2. the competition/respect aspect. 95% of people i play with or talk to i would not develop a friendship with. winning poker players are not otherwise socially successful people. I talk to them because i want to win money playing poker, not because i like them. these people do not, in general, succeed in the social realm, except sometimes through the accumulation of massive amounts of money, and are in general not so smart that they dominate the academic realm. they're usually the cut right below, those smart enough to succeed, but not be "successful." These people find an alternate rubric by which they can win, namely time spent obsessing over a game multiplied by innate intelligence gives them the score by which they like to judge themselves.

niether argument really fits as in the former case, people do the same with things like online video games and chess and in the latter there is a huge contingent of people who fit the description but are not drawn to poker at all as well as the fact that many very competitive, successful people are some of the worst, least enthusiastic players.

any thoughts?

fim

[PokerProdigy]

I relize that this is long, but I think it will be of help to your question, and it's pretty interesting.

I took a biopsychology class a couple quarters ago, and I intend on being a psychology major. My teacher said that a psychologist named DAMASIO (that's his last name you should look him up) has studied addiction. Basically, Damasio's theory is that the amygdala (a brain structure/region involved mostly in emotion) of drug and gambling addicts is abnormal.

A summary of Damasio's experiment was that he compared a group with brain damage (the experimental group) and a group without brain damage (the control group). He had four decks of cards lettered A, B, C, and D. In decks A and B there were rewards of $100 (fake money, and this was the only reward, no more no less in decks A and B). But approximately 10% of the time you'd lose $1250 fake money. In decks C and D there were rewards of $50 (fake money, and this was the only reward, no more no less in decks C and D). But approximately 10% of the time you'd lose $250 fake money. As you can see, it's better (in terms of EV) to select cards from decks C and D.

After letting both groups play this game for quite some time, an interesting thing happened. Both groups would start out picking cards more-or-less at random from decks A, B, C, and D. But after awhile the experimental group would start selecting mostly from decks A and B. And after awhile the control group would start selecting mostly from decks C and D.

Demasio's conclusion was that the experimental group (because of damage to the amygdala) would be less likely to remember/consider the "bad experience/feeling" of losing money. And that the control group would be more likely to remember/consider the "bad experience/feeling" of losing money. He also concluded that with drugs the addicted person is probably less likely to remember/consider the "bad experience/feeling" that happened as a result of drugs, but that the non-addicted person is probably more likely to remember/consider the "bad experience/feeling" that happened as a result of drugs.

Damasio does not claim to know, why these people's amygdala is abnormal. Because it's possible that it results from drug overuse or other things in the first place (which is basically just another question which falls under the nature-vs-nurture debate).

[TStoneMBD]

wait did you just call me dumb?

[heropretend]

i've been thinking about this and i think the gambling aspect of poker and the chaos of it (2 outers all week!) gives us pleasure. We have many, sometimes repetitive decisions to make that have usually reliable outcomes. But, just because someone only has a 2 outer on the river doesn't mean he wont be catching it enough to surprise you. Likewise, just because you've never been caught hitting 80 on the freeway doesn't mean you wont be ticketed tomorrow. (we never talk about the times we sped and got somewhere 2 minutes faster, but we love retelling how some cop needed to fill his monthly ticket quota).

So lately I'm beginning to think that the unpredictability of cards combined with our learned ability to make the 'right' decision makes for a powerful lure. We're unlike maniacs, in that we favor being skilled and improving, but if you were a party poker employee and had the patterns down, the gambling aspect goes away, we rake in cash, and there's no bad beat story to tell, no impression left on us that the pokerworld is a chaotic thing. what I'm saying is we don't savor being dealt pocket aces, but we savor playing rockets the correct way.

So yes, we're all masochists! escaping life one hand at a time!

[Jazza]

[ QUOTE ]
wait did you just call me dumb?

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahahahahahaaha

[bkholdem]

Organized and ritualized activity that also provides unpredictability and excitement. Ability to be independent, making one's own decisons. Sadism and masochism. Manipulation and control.

p.s. cocaine addicts and gambling addicts have similar brain chemistry. Another way to look at the abcd decks is the gamblers/addicts seek out the 'highs and lows' cycles. Emotional stimulation (BOTH highs and lows), adrenaline rushes.

When the goal of winning money is more important people will go to c and d. It doesn't matter if the memory in the brain is sufficient to remember. The body does.

Rats, given a choice of hitting a lever to get food or a lever to get a hit of cocaine keep hitting the cocaine lever until they die lol.

[texasholdemnut]

I don't have a background in psychology, unless you count lots and lots of counseling.LOL..anyway, I find this post interesting for one reason, my own behavior. I have always excelled in everything I've ever done. Golf, shot a 73 when I was 13 years old. Basketball, started on Varsity team as a freshmen. Guitar, wrote, recorded songs, was highly sought after in my region as a studio musician. Tournamnet Bass fishing, went to state finals 3 years in a row, spent endless hours on the water. I set endless records in football, dominated a ping pong tournament at the age of 12. Now it's poker, my 1st X wife, which I'm living with right now as I go through a divorce with my 2nd wife, says I'm obsessed with poker, I don't see it, but I have always buried myself into whatever it was that peaked my interest at the time, and right now poker has my interest. I figure I will burnout on it, just like I burnout on everything that I do. I'm a winning player, small stakes, maybe up $1,000 over a year and half playing single table .50/1.00 limit. Now I've bumped up to $1/2, and am still winning. I guess I'm asking am I the typical type of personality that will get hooked? I don't bet on horses, or ballgames, or anything, I don't like gambling, I'm a tight ass who hates losing money, hence my poker game is pretty solid. Any idea's from you psych guys/gals would be appreciated.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have a background in psychology, unless you count lots and lots of counseling.LOL..anyway, I find this post interesting for one reason, my own behavior. I have always excelled in everything I've ever done. Golf, shot a 73 when I was 13 years old. Basketball, started on Varsity team as a freshmen. Guitar, wrote, recorded songs, was highly sought after in my region as a studio musician. Tournamnet Bass fishing, went to state finals 3 years in a row, spent endless hours on the water. I set endless records in football, dominated a ping pong tournament at the age of 12. Now it's poker, my 1st X wife, which I'm living with right now as I go through a divorce with my 2nd wife, says I'm obsessed with poker, I don't see it, but I have always buried myself into whatever it was that peaked my interest at the time, and right now poker has my interest. I figure I will burnout on it, just like I burnout on everything that I do. I'm a winning player, small stakes, maybe up $1,000 over a year and half playing single table .50/1.00 limit. Now I've bumped up to $1/2, and am still winning. I guess I'm asking am I the typical type of personality that will get hooked? I don't bet on horses, or ballgames, or anything, I don't like gambling, I'm a tight ass who hates losing money, hence my poker game is pretty solid. Any idea's from you psych guys/gals would be appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Question: How many psychologists does it take to change a lightbulb?



Answer: Ony one, but the lightbulb has to want to change.



Do you (want to change, that is?)

[texasholdemnut]

No, I see nothing wrong with the way I live, I was just wondering if this type of behavior is classified as "something"??

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I see nothing wrong with the way I live, I was just wondering if this type of behavior is classified as "something"??

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it's obsessive (welcome to the club lol). A lot depends on how it is impacting other area's of your life (strains on family and social relationships).

On the brighter side a psychiatrist named William Glasser has written a book called: Positive Addictions. He goes on about how star athletes practice obsessively, etc.

[PokerProdigy]

[ QUOTE ]
On the brighter side a psychiatrist named William Glasser has written a book called: Positive Addictions. He goes on about how star athletes practice obsessively, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds interesting because I have been pondering this thought for awhile. I played basketball my whole life and was sort of "obsessed" with that, but nobody cared, in fact, they say "hey good for you," "way to go," etc... Now I am in college and at times I've been sort of "obsessed" with school and grades, and once again people "cheer me on." Then there is poker, something I am also sort of "obsessed" with and people will say "he's addicted" if they knew how much I thought of the game and played.

So why is it that people are so quick to judge poker, even though it is no different for me, meaning that I am just as serious and committed to poker as I was with other things in my life. But for some reason people think that the other things are "justified, healthy, and good" but NOT poker. It really doesn't make any sense to me where people come up with these justifications, explanations, thoughts, etc... /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

You are on the button with A /images/graemlins/heart.gif K /images/graemlins/heart.gif. Two players limp in, TAG in LP raises. You re-raise and all call. TAG would cap with AA or KK, so you are even or ahead.

Flop comes Q /images/graemlins/heart.gif J /images/graemlins/spade.gif 2 /images/graemlins/heart.gif. Limpers check, TAG bets and you raise. Limpers both call, and TAG checkraises. He has never done this without a hand, but you call with a pile of outs to the nuts. Limpers call.

Turn is the 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif. All check to TAG, who bets. You call, and limper #1 checkraises. Limper #2 goes away and TAG calls. You call.

The river is the T /images/graemlins/heart.gif...

-------------------------

If you are like most, you will experience a release at this point, and a sudden rush. This is why poker is addictive. Like other addictive substances/behaviors, over time you acclimate, and require higher levels of the stimulus to acheive the same "pop." When George "ISLAND OF CRETE!" the Greek of WPT fame said his first love is to "be with my wife" and his second love is to play poker, he was very close to the truth.

[dancraw]

The two aspects of poker that, I believe, make it so addictive, and potentially dangerous, are the amount of control that you are allowed, and the fact that it CAN be beat. It probably intimidates the passive slot type player, but you can bet that there are a million bad blackjack addicts who are going nuts over the amount of control you have in poker. This probably also explains why there are so many more men playing poker than woman. The fact that it IS possible to be a long term winner in poker is probably creating a whole new wave of non-traditional gambling addicts, people who realize that you can't beat the casino and are not self-destructive to the point of losing their ass in a game they KNOW can't be beat, but ARE self-destructive enough to lose their ass in a game they know CAN be beat.

[kelvin474]

"people who realize that you can't beat the casino and are not self-destructive to the point of losing their ass in a game they KNOW can't be beat, but ARE self-destructive enough to lose their ass in a game they know CAN be beat. "

Hey, just like blackjack!

[MLerra]

Google the terms:

fixed ratio
fixed interval
variable ratio
variable interval

I can't speak of pathology here, but reading about these terms (and how casinos apply them to slot machines to maximize their profits) will give you an interesting insight into how the "average" person views gambling, and why it seems "addicting" to them.

[Hoopster81]

Yes, it is completely arbitrary.

[Dan Mezick]

Poker is very attractive to non-money-motivated, non-winners because of "the drama".

The opportunity to act out in dramatic form (playing the victim, delivering and mostly receiving dramatic beats, berating others, table coaching, promoting conflict with others etc) is irresistable to many people playing this game.

In the end, all the players get what they want. Those seeking drama find it here. The very few committed to the task get the money long-term.

It's interesting to note that this latter group does not act out very dramatically at all while playing.

The reaction of a player when eliminated in a tournament is a clue on why that player was there in the first place. There is usually alot of emotion involved. That's self-generated drama.

Poker provides a great cover story ("I'm here to get the money") when the opposite is often quite true ("I'm here to beat myself up").

Players must jump through a hoop to set up an online account, and they must plan and drive to a table game. No one puts you there playing; you set it up yourself.

So how can anyone else "put a beat" on you when you are responsible for being there? According to this definition, all poker beats are self-inflicted.


This key part of poker is generally not discussed openly, especially by entities with a vested interest in the game's continued growth.

[Dale]

I'm a lot like texasholdemnut. I immerse myself in my interests. When I started running, I got myself to where I could run every day, multiple times per day in my 40s without injury. When I started playing the trumpet again, I began accumulating instruments and literature. Same with poker -- I've got all the good books and have worked carefully to improve my game. I've never been interested in any other gambling game.

There'a addiction in my family background, and I've had a fair bit of counselling. I went on Lexapro a few months ago for chronic depression (dysthymia). This drug acts on the amagdala.

My poker game improved immediately and dramatically. I don't think this is a coincidence.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a lot like texasholdemnut. I immerse myself in my interests. When I started running, I got myself to where I could run every day, multiple times per day in my 40s without injury. When I started playing the trumpet again, I began accumulating instruments and literature. Same with poker -- I've got all the good books and have worked carefully to improve my game. I've never been interested in any other gambling game.

There'a addiction in my family background, and I've had a fair bit of counselling. I went on Lexapro a few months ago for chronic depression (dysthymia). This drug acts on the amagdala.

My poker game improved immediately and dramatically. I don't think this is a coincidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds about right to me.