could a gambling addict ever be good at poker?
 

I saw an episode of "intervention" on A&E the other day that featured a really badly addicted gambler. He was over $300,000 in debt, jobless, and his parents had sold their home to help him pay his debts. He hid money, drove 3 hourse to play blackjack at a CA casino several times a week, and was clearly on an emotional rollercoaster every time he saw action. Every win was what was supposed to happen, and every loss was some sort of evil conspiracy.

Here's the crazy part - the guy was a certified genius. He taught college biochemistry classes at age 16 with rap at a university and gained national attention for a while. This man obviously has the mental capacity to understand concepts like EV, house odds, etc. Despite his ability to understand these concepts, he would repeatedly bet every cent that he could get anyone to lend him on a -EV game like blackjack! I doubt that he'd ever studied gambling theory though, because in his dreamworld he expect the house to win "once every four or five hands." Holy cow.

So here's the question: if a compulsive gambler were to spend time learning the game of poker, could he ever get over the irrational perspective that he deserves to win enough to actually play the numbers? Would he rationalize raises and re-raises as bluffs by people with lesser hands and call down? Could he control his emotions at the table long enough to not give away his hand?

or, would his compulsiveness cause him to spend countless hours studying his hand and opponents? could his relentless agression eventually work for him in this setting?

any thoughts?

Re: could a gambling addict ever be good at poker?
 

I think TILTING would eventually ruin the compulsive gambler. When he hit a bad run he would just move up in limits to "make it back" quick. Sitting in a game shortstacked until he eventually lost it all.

Thats my take.

Re: could a gambling addict ever be good at poker?
 

I personally know a guy who lost tens of thousands playing blackjack and craps back in college. He went bankrupt and, after supposedly swearing off gambling for a while, got into poker right around the same time as the WPT explosion.

He plays crazy hours at low stakes all the time nowadays, mostly online. He gets the basic idea of playing "good" hands, but is pretty weak-tight in general and will go crazy (emotionally, though not necessarily with his chips) if a player "gets lucky" with a bad starting hand. I'd estimate he's a small winner at the stakes he plays, but would be easy pickings at anything bigger. Fortunately for him, he's intelligent enough to realize this and manages to play within his bankroll.

Re: could a gambling addict ever be good at poker?
 

Can't recall where I saw this, but there's a quote from Doyle where he basically says "we're all compulsive gamblers, we're just really good at it." Referring to himself, Phil Ivey, and others who play the big game. So yah, I think an addict could be good at poker.

Re: could a gambling addict ever be good at poker?
 

One of my friends did exactly that. Very capable player, but no emotional control whatsoever. Lost about 7 grand at 30/60 trying to chase a couple hundred bucks lost at 3/6 and 5/10.

Re: could a gambling addict ever be good at poker?
 

Like TJ Cloutier? Or Archie Karras? Or Stuey? Guys like that you mean? Do you know how many millions were (and are) blown by excellent poker players at games they couldn't win at?

Re: could a gambling addict ever be good at poker?
 

Several GREAT poker players are pathological gamblers. Stu Ungar was just the best known.Some of the people you see on TV are deeply in debt because they can't keep away from negative EV games.

It's very sad, but unquestionably true.

Regards,

Al

Re: could a gambling addict ever be good at poker?
 

There's a difference between being good at poker, and winning at poker. I think that the gambling addict would have a lot of trouble winning at poker due to poor emotional control, an unwillingness to quit when tired/sick/outmatched.

Now, that said, I seriously doubt that most of the big name players are not total addicts. I mean, c'mon. Do you know how rich Ivey must be by now? Why is he still pulling huge marathons? He's a young, attractive guy. Why is he spending all his time playing poker? He's addicted!

When Stuey when his second world series he was asked what he was going to do with his money, and he replied "lose it"
He was asked what he does when he's not gambling. He replied "If I'm not eating and I'm not sleeping, I'm gambling."

He wasn't kidding. This guy died broke.

A lot of big name tourneyment players are BACKED. They can't afford to stake themselves. T.J. Cloutier is still backed by Lyle Berman as far as I know, and he's won more tourneyments than anyone I can think of. So, I think a lot of top players are actually top losers in a lot of ways.

Good gamblers do something more fundamental than betting on their cards or recognizing pot odds. They bet on themselves to win. This also means refusing to bet on themselves from time to time. Greenstein says Chip Reese quits a game when he's not a favorite to win. This is a very important skill.

Honestly, I would rather be Chip Reese and win than be Stu Ungar and be dead with a bad movie made on my life and a bunch of 20 year old kids raving about how I was the greatest player ever to live.

Re: could a gambling addict ever be good at poker?
 

Excellent post!

Re: could a gambling addict ever be good at poker?
 

I too saw that show, pretty sad really...the thing to keep in mind is that gambling is an ADDICTION just like smoking crack or drinking are additictions - as such people by definition do not have control over what they are doing - as such I think that a real compulsive gambler could not be a LONG TERM winner at poker no matter how smart they were, they would always fall back into the 'rush' that drives thier addiction and this would affect their game adversly - however I do think that all good poker players NEED to be 'gamblers' if they plan to truly be sucseful, taking risks is part of the game - however in the show mentioned there is now way that guy would have the self disipline to be a good poker player (you should also watch the Movie Owning Mahony - one of the best movies about the gambling addiction that is based on a true story about someone from Toronto - when that story originally broke in Canada some 20 years ago it was amazing to me at the lengths some people can go to feed their additiction).....

Re: could a gambling addict ever be good at poker?
 

I thnk a gambling addict could definitely win at poker, I'm sure some pros are addicted gamblers.

The problem is that compulsive gamblers crave action and grinding out +EV plays at a poker table doesn't satisfy that need enough. I've read about great poker players who've lost their winnings at the craps table. Other compulsive gamblers might move up to a high-limit poker game they don't have the skill for, looking for the rush that comes from a big score.

But from a technical point of view, yes I think compulsive gamblers can win at poker - although they'll probably lose their money somewhere else.

Re: could a gambling addict ever be good at poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Several GREAT poker players are pathological gamblers. Stu Ungar was just the best known.Some of the people you see on TV are deeply in debt because they can't keep away from negative EV games.

It's very sad, but unquestionably true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Though I've never closely studied Stu, I know how fearless he was at the table. The pertinent question to the whole situation is this: was his fearlessnes a product of his poker skill, or of his addiction to action?

How does an addicted gambler ever lay down a hand?

Re: could a gambling addict ever be good at poker?
 

My guess is that Ungar's fearlessness was a product of his addiction and his lack of respect for money.

I think Stuey could lay down hands when necessary because he hated losing so much. Although he made huge -EV bets all the time in other games, he did not stand the idea of losing versus other poker players, so he forced himself to stay out of action when he knew that was the right thing to do. At least I have got that impression.

Don't know about other addicted poker players, most of them obviously does not fold enough, but still don't play EVERY hand to showdown. I guess that even a guy who bluffs far too much realizes that he can't bluff at EVERY pot, and a even a guy who can't let go of a poor draw can lay it down when he does not even have a draw.

However, Barry Greenstein's comment about Stu is something to think about: BG wrote on his website that he had heard about many great calls Stu made, but never of any great laydowns.

Also, Ciaffone wrote in his column on Stu in Card Player that Stu lacked the ability to switch from his regular run-over-the-table playing style and tighten up when sitting at a very tough table at the WSOP with many top notch players. Stu won the most pots by far, but the pots he lost was much bigger, so his stack size decreased. I guess that weakness might be a product of his addiction.

Anyway, I don't really know that much about Stuey, I'm just speculating. He's a damn interesting persona though. Isn't there a book on him by Nolan Dalla that is supposed to be out soon? Does anyone know about this?

Re: could a gambling addict ever be good at poker?
 

Id go as far as to say most good live no limit players are gambling addicts. Great players but horrible gamblers. They continually pay no attention to table selection and piss winnings away in massive losing sessions and craps.

Re: could a gambling addict ever be good at poker?
 

Nolan's book will be out very soon.

Many of us are waiting eagerly. Stu was a fascinating guy, and Nolan is a great writer.

Regards,

Al