% of Players in for the "rush?"

I don't play poker for the "rush", in fact I find it annoying,it makes me feel weak when it happens. Some people I know love it though, and will play in games that are above their ability and/or bankroll just to get it. Which player is more typical in a Casino?


CV

The way I stated it seems dumb now. I should have narrowed the question down to the Casino Poker players who play Middle Limits at the Mirage (or like casino).


CV

The challenge of coming up with the decision that is optimal for the particular situation gives me a rush. I don't get a rush from the "action", I get a rush from this challenge. I get this rush playing for toothpicks (or push ups) as well as playing 30-60, or a 30 buy-in tourney. The stakes don't matter.

Yeah "we" do, but are we the minority? I hadn't really thought about it till the other day. A friend and I were talking, and he said, "Chris, if you had a spare ten-grand would you put yourself up against the best poker players in the world?"


I said,"No way, I'd just be throwing my money away. I'd much rather be playing a mid-limit game with some of the best players in the world sweating my action."


The conversation went from there. The point was that he would play against those long odds just to say he played against the best players in the world. But it was more than that, he would also take those long odds just to get that adrenilin rush that happens when you are in sheer terror (as I call it)of losing your stake.


I have always wondered why my friend kept playing cards eventhough he obviously (to me at least) doesn't have an edge in most games. It is finally becoming clear, he plays for the "rush" not for the win. To him, he told me, the "rush" actually feels *good.* I had always thought since the "rush" felt bad to me that it must feel bad to most other people, but maybe I'm wrong. This would start to explane why poker games are better than I would first think. For some people (most maybe) the "win" comes secondary to the "rush."


CV

We all know that the primary reason for playing poker is to win in the long run. Whenever an otherwise KNOWLEDGEABLE player keeps sabotaging his success, it is usually because there is a part of him that is trying to achieve what's called a "secondary gain".


When this happens, there will be an INNER CONFLICT between the part(s) that is/are trying to achieve the secondary gain(s) and the part that is trying to achieve the PRIMARY gain of "playing poker in order to win in the long run".


Some very common examples of secondary gains in poker include: playing for excitement (or as you call it, the "adrenaline rush"); playing in order to socialize; playing "to get away from it all"; playing for the "action", etc. Side note: all of these intentions are postive and are appropriate in the right dossage and especially in the appropriate context.


I think the biggest reason why most players lose in the long run is simply that they are "ignorant" - that is, they lack the knowledge and skills nescessary to enable them to grind out a +EV in the long run. But, IMO, the second biggest reason (a very close second) is inner conflict between parts. This is especially true for those who know how to win but can't.


Inner conflict is a very common problem. It is also a very expensive problem. Fortunately, it is a problem that is not a problem at all due to the fact that it is very easy to solve....provided one knows how.

i think i play too high a lot of times just because i like the short term gratification when i win.


as a pretty novice poker player im beginning to realize the virtues of making 25/hr playing raked games against atrocious opposition and only risking a downside of maybe 5k, if even that.


brad

We all know that the primary reason for playing poker is to win in the long run.


That may be your primary reason. I'm not sure that it's mine. It's a significant factor these days, as I currently have no other source of income, but it's certainly not the be-all and end-all. Most players' primary reason for playing has nothing to do with making money. Their primary reasons might be some of the things that you've listed under secondary reasons, or they might be something else. If everyone's primary motivation were making money, games wouldn't exist, because most players lose.

Good point. As long as one plays at a level, duration, and frequency in which one does not hurt himself, his family and friends, and others, there's absolutely nothing wrong with playing poker for any of the secondary gains that I mentioned. When I'm playing tennis, I don't play to win. I just do it for the cardiovascular exercise. As long as I keep my heart rate up, I've won even if I've lost the match.


Getting back to the point of my post. If a player is playing to win and knows how to win but nevertheless has not won, he should seriously consider doing a win/win negotiation process between the part of him that wants to win (and knows how to win), and the part(s) that are preventing him from achieving his goal of winning money.

You wrote: " We all know that the primary reason for playing poker is to win in the long run."


I disagree very, very emphatically. You have committed the rationalist fallacy, which has been messing up economic theory for centuries. Economists often assume that people try to maximize their profits, but that assumption ignores the enormous evidence that people very frequently act in ways that reduce their profits.


This difference between assumptions of profit maximizing and what people actually want and do is particularly clear at a poker table. As you and other posters have written, you play poker and do lots of other things for a variety of reasons, and some of them directly conflict with the desire to win.


YOUR primary motive may be to win in the long run, but it is most definitely not the primary motive of most people. If they really wanted to win in the long run, they would not do all the stupid things they do. And we all know that casino poker is a negative sum game because of the rakes and tokes. The winners' profits are much, much less than the losers' losses, and the overwhelming majority of poker players are long term losers.


To maintain that people are primarily trying to win when the evidence says that most of them lose is illogical.


The cause is NOT ignorance. It's the desire for "the rush" and other feelings. People do not gamble to win money. They gamble for fun, and they deny the reality that they are going to lose.


If you doubt it, just think of all the times that you and I and virtually every other player takes actions which we KNOW are foolish.


Our task as winning players is to control those other desires and keep the goal of winning in the long run uppermost in our minds. We must also understand the other motives and recognize when they are affecting our own and other people's actions.


Al Schoonmaker

"Our task as winning players is to control those other desires and keep the goal of winning in the long run uppermost in our minds."


Assuming a player is a full-time professional (who already has the skills and knowledge to be able to grind out a long term win at an acceptable limit), and has to have winning as his primary motive for playing (or else he cannot eat), How specifically can he control those other desires from conflicting with his uppermost goal of winning in the long run? What specific physical, emotional, and mental actions and procedures can he take to keep those other desires from interfering and conflicting with his nescessary goal of winning?

I'm afraid my answer will be incomplete and unsatisfactory, but it's the best I can do at the moment. There are certainly other useful steps, but I'll list three of them.


1. MONITOR YOURSELF. I regard this step as the most essential. You must constantly examine what you are doing and your reasons for doing it. You will almost certainly see that MANY of your actions are taken for foolish reasons. For example, you may play in a less promising game because it's more fun, a greater challenge, you want to get even with someone, or because you're just too careless to look around or too impatient to wait for a seat in a better game.

If you ask yourself, "Why did I make that play?" you'll see the same sort of errors. You called with a sub-marginal hand because you're bored, or irritated or impatient or just careless. You didn't raise [one of my weaknesses] because you don't trust your read or you're afraid of being raised, and that timidity cost you a large pot. Once you know why you're doing stupid things, it becomes easier to avoid them.

2. TALK REGULARY WITH PEOPLE WHO PLAY BETTER THAN YOU DO. For example, I had lunch today with Jim Brier and Barry Tanenbaum, and we discussed lots of hands. They pointed out several specific weaknesses in my play. More importantly, they pointed out the patterns and the likely causes for those patterns. That is, instead of just seeing specific mistakes, I learned about underlying weaknesses. I've done the same thing many times with Mason Malmuth, Matt Lessinger and my poker discussion group. Of course, I'm lucky to have opportunities to talk to such talented people, but it isn't really luck. I've worked hard to develop these relationships, and I've made sure that the relationships are not just one way. You can do the same, but it does take work.

3. KEEP YOUR MIND OPEN. People will not help you if you don't respond well to criticism. When someone criticizes me, I naturally want to defend myself, and that's exactly the wrong thing to do. First, it turns off the people whose help I need. Second, it prevents me from learning from their remarks. I have to regard that learning as more important than embarrassment. The embarrassment is temporary, the learning can pay off indefinitely.

Hope this helps.


Al

This is an excellent post with down to earth advice that should be taken to heart. Advice that would require a good amount of intellectual and emotional maturity on a person's part to be implementable. Thank you for taking the time to respond.


...and may the Force be with you. /images/smile.gif

Since your friend said that his motivation to sit with a world-class player is simply for bragging rights and an adrenaline rush, he probably isn't potentially world-class himself, but what if he answered your question by saying that he wanted to learn from the best? Is it necessarily bad to sit in a tough game to improve on your skills? I think that this point relates to what Dr. Schoonmaker refers to as "paying tuition".


Overall, I think that it isn't always bad to play a game that is a little too tough for your skills. It all depends on what your goals are.