Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

[ QUOTE ]

So, hypothetically speaking, you're for restricting performance-enhancing drugs, including caffeine... And as an example to support your point, you mention a quantity of caffeine that few humans would drink and that also has a decent chance of having a negative effect on poker performance unless someone has built up a fantastic tolerance to caffeine--and if someone had, why would it be fair to not allow them to imbibe enough caffeine to see its positive effects.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose it would be there to prevent players from taking caffeine pills (which are way, way more effective at caffinating oneself than coffee). Either way, I don't think it's that necessary.

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

[ QUOTE ]
But, where mental stamina is a significant factor in performance, it does not seem unreasonable to restrict drugs if you want to make sure the playing field is level.

[/ QUOTE ]

So no more alcohol at the table?

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

I agree with you about the pills being better at increasing blood caffeine concentration.

Seems like the amount of caffeine that would be useful would be less than a gallon of coffee's worth. Coffee probably has like 80-90 mg of caffeine per cup. Since a gallon of coffee is like 16 cups, we're talking ~1.4-1.5k mg of caffeine. From what I've heard about others, it sounds like more than 3 cups unless you drink a lot of coffee has exponentially diminishing returns. I've heard the LED50 for caffeine estimated at about 10k mg for the average person. So, I think regardless of form, a player's useful blood caffeine concentration probably isn't going to exceed the amount someone could get drinking a few cups of coffee.

You should hassle someone from overdoing caffeine for being stupid, but it's probably a detriment to poker so it might make as much sense as penalizing that Canadian snowboarder that won a medal for smoking pot. And I'm not saying pot couldn't have aided him in some way, just that it didn't in the traditional performance enhancement manner.

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

I could see Modafinil giving an advantage.

It's a treatment for narcolepsy. It keeps you awake without many side effects that many stimulants have. It's been touted as a wonderdrug in this regard.

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

I just read about it as I was previously unfamiliar. Seems to have both mechanisms of action similar to amphetamine and sort of the opposite effect as alcohol.

Maybe it's the one to worry about in terms of unfair advantage. It has the same action at some axon terminals that amphetamines do, but since it seems to have a different mechanism of action as well (involving GABAergic systems) maybe the dopaminergic activity is less so there are fewer problems. Too much dopamine at the wrong receptor subtypes (and many substances have no specificity for receptor subtype) can cause the serious perceptual issue that is amphetamine psychosis (though it is much worse for methamphetamine than other amphetamines).

I have trouble believing this drug would help performance overall in the long term unless one had some serious issue that the drug treated effectively. And in following the reasoning in Better Sex Through Chemistry, I tend to think that any substance that negatively impacts health will eventually negatively impact poker performance. I'm a little suspicious of this attitude as it's a bit fundamentalist, but it makes sense to me.

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

I just read the interview. He says he spent six months in jail for drug related charges. Anyone know what he did exactly??

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just read about it as I was previously unfamiliar. Seems to have both mechanisms of action similar to amphetamine and sort of the opposite effect as alcohol.

Maybe it's the one to worry about in terms of unfair advantage. It has the same action at some axon terminals that amphetamines do, but since it seems to have a different mechanism of action as well (involving GABAergic systems) maybe the dopaminergic activity is less so there are fewer problems. Too much dopamine at the wrong receptor subtypes (and many substances have no specificity for receptor subtype) can cause the serious perceptual issue that is amphetamine psychosis (though it is much worse for methamphetamine than other amphetamines).

I have trouble believing this drug would help performance overall in the long term unless one had some serious issue that the drug treated effectively. And in following the reasoning in Better Sex Through Chemistry, I tend to think that any substance that negatively impacts health will eventually negatively impact poker performance. I'm a little suspicious of this attitude as it's a bit fundamentalist, but it makes sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's action is pretty distinct from amphetamine.
Also, it doesn't seem to have a lot of the problems other psychostimulants have. And it seems like it has a low abuse potential.
From what I read it seems like your focus and cognitive abilities remain high for some sick amount of time (when compared to cocaine, amph, etc.) so I was thinking it could be useful for fighting the fatigue.

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

There are some drugs that would be usefull in poker. Beta blockers, such as Acebutolol, would help to limit tells by blocking the "fight or flight" response. Studies of poker players have shown the biological responses we all get when we get the best hand, for example. Many of the top players who pride themselves on being able to "read" people are probally picking up on some of these responses.

Taking a beta blocker would give a good edge for many players. I wouldn't be surprised if many players are allready doing this.

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

It's all in the post. I shouldn't have said "it seems" because as far as research has shown, it does. I think I was tempering my statement to be nice. I could get into more specific molecular neurobiology about this issue, but I don't particularly see the point. I was clear before and a little bit specific, but you obviously found it uncompelling for some reason. If you want to know about that stuff you'll read about it and I already know about it.

I basically said maybe you have something here so you should be happy. :P