Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

Check out the interview in the latest Card Player magazine. Sorry it's not on their website last I checked.

He talks about his total disregard for money including his $500,000 a season football betting habit. He also mentions his medication for his ADD/Manic Depressive disorder and says it helps him play better poker.

Will we need to start drug testing at major tournaments?

He also mentions that he saw a big tell on Fossilman in the WSOP in 04 and that's why he felt like he pwned him. Has Greg figured out what the hell he was talking about?

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

[ QUOTE ]

Will we need to start drug testing at major tournaments?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eeyore, you tested positive for Zoloft and Paxil. You have been banned from tournament play.

And get that nail out of your ass.

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

You're making a sloppy leap of logic here. Just because Mike's ADD meds help him play better poker doesn't mean it will help everyone. Being less ADD at the table would certainly help one's game.

Should we test for drugs in poker? No. I can't think of a single good reason why. And I can imagine a ton of problems doing such testing including how much any particular drug actually helps someone's play.

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

[ QUOTE ]
Will we need to start drug testing at major tournaments

[/ QUOTE ]
What a horrible idea. This is quite possibly the single most retarded sugestion ever made on these forums.

On a related note, I really like Mike. Yeah, the guy's got some problems, but I've always been impressed with how honest and candid he is about his faults and opinions about other players.

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

[ QUOTE ]
Will we need to start drug testing at major tournaments?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll stop taking adderall before a poker tournament when the guy next to me turns off his friggin insulin pump.

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

Walking down the long hallway in the RIO to the WSOP there was some other 'convention' taking place.

I walked past one of their rooms and the sign out front said "Borderline Personality Disorders". I'm sure I wasn't the only one who thought they should have been holding their meeting a couple hundred feet further in the main playing room.



In chess a few years ago there was drug-testing in many tournaments as part of the international chess federations' drive to get into the Olympics.
Most in the chess community thought it was about as retarded as anyone here would think.
And it wasn't JUST a suggestion. It was reality. They actually had drug-testing in chess tournaments.
Thankfully it ended when chess realized that trying to get into the Olymics was a pretty stupid idea.

As I recall...the US Chess Federation went public in their disagreement with the International Chess Fed's olympic-drive and drug-testing which sparked a bit of contraversy as well.

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Will we need to start drug testing at major tournaments?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eeyore, you tested positive for Zoloft and Paxil. You have been banned from tournament play.

And get that nail out of your ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

potd ... nh sir

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

[ QUOTE ]
In chess a few years ago there was drug-testing in many tournaments as part of the international chess federations' drive to get into the Olympics.
Most in the chess community thought it was about as retarded as anyone here would think.
And it wasn't JUST a suggestion. It was reality. They actually had drug-testing in chess tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]Same thing happened in bridge. One woman was disqualified from the World Championships in Montreal 2 or 3 years ago. From what I understand, she was taking a physician prescribed diet medication.

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.

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

[ QUOTE ]
Will we need to start drug testing at major tournaments

[/ QUOTE ]
If they started drug testing in casinos there wouldnt be any players there [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

I don't know about the drugs part, but after reading his Card Player interview, I have to believe this guy is certifiably nuts!!

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

[ QUOTE ]

He also mentions that he saw a big tell on Fossilman in the WSOP in 04 and that's why he felt like he pwned him. Has Greg figured out what the hell he was talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's true, then why mention it in the interview? Does he want Greg to beat him the next time they run into each other?

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

[ QUOTE ]
If that's true, then why mention it in the interview? Does he want Greg to beat him the next time they run into each other?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure he'll be kicking himself the next time he steps through the doors at burger king

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 ]

It's still nonsense. I think your comment, despite its ostensible reasonableness, ignores the reality of drugs that could aid mental stamina.

You're living in some sort of weird ideal world, not this one. Are you going to ban caffeine? You get a similar edge in the short term from caffeine that you get from amphetamines. It might even be better because caffeine doesn't have the issues involving dopaminergic pathways that are involved in schizophrenia. Are you going to ban cocaine? That helps people stay awake too? Many of these stimulant drugs affecting noradrenergic neurons are only effective in the short term and their intermediate or long term use can cause problems which would impair one's ability at the poker table in addition to any issues related to mental clarity. So then you may be punishing people who are already punishing themselves.

If you don't allow older players to use caffeine, could that be construed as age discrimination since older players (Harrington claims this at least) don't have the energy needed to play for long period s of time and pay attention? Are we going to discriminate against people addicted to cocaine or methamphetamine? Are we going to discriminate against addicts now too?

I'm a little surprised that your response came after someone mentioned a person taking a drug prescribed to them by a licensed physican. Obviously, context matters (such as whether the drug was taken as prescribed and for a real medical condition, not just for the tournament). Are we now going to discriminate against people with medical conditions treated by stimulant drugs?

Our society is unbelieveably hypocritical about drugs, largely based on misunderstanding about them and an irrational fear of addiction. Addiction rates, even after drugs were made illegal and even following many major drug law changes in the US have stayed about the same.

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about the drugs part, but after reading his Card Player interview, I have to believe this guy is certifiably nuts!!

[/ QUOTE ]

do you have a link

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Will we need to start drug testing at major tournaments?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll stop taking adderall before a poker tournament when the guy next to me turns off his friggin insulin pump.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a HUGE ASSHAT comment to make....

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

It's still nonsense. I think your comment, despite its ostensible reasonableness, ignores the reality of drugs that could aid mental stamina.

You're living in some sort of weird ideal world, not this one. Are you going to ban caffeine?

[/ QUOTE ]I didn't say it was prectical, but rather that the objective was not unreasonable.

I also said "restrict" rather than "ban", caffeine being a perfect example of a drup which would likely be acceptable in limited quantities. There was an uproar in the bridge community about testing for caffeine until it was realized that to go over the allowable level one would have to drink something like a gallon of coffee in an hour.

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

[ QUOTE ]

Are you going to ban cocaine?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's illegal in most parts of the civilized world, as far as i know...

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

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. Now we're penalizing the very caffeine tolerant. I see you talking hypothetically, then mentioning a largely inapplicable example to allay concerns I had about the situation.

Let's just completely cast aside practical issues about discrimination, whether any drug would significantly help, and the difficulty of enforcement.

Your goal here is to "level the playing field" apparently. Well, the playing field is not level and it never will be. I'll try to consider what you meant, let's say about one player not having an major advantage over another (beyond luck and skill). You're looking for a strong analogy with anabolic hormones and other performance-enhancing drugs like erythropoeitin (also a hormone). It's noble in a way, but still based on the a priori assumption that drugs are bad. This case doesn't even consider how poorly defined a "drug" is.

What it boils down to here is basically a strong moral position against some exogenous substances, but apparently not caffeine because our society has made it legal (even though I'd rate it at or near the top for the performance enhancement that concerns you. There is no inherent reasonableness or unreasonableness to this position, but it sure sounds like a sloppy, unsophisticated argument to me. That's without even considering the practical world where the argument breaks down in an even worse manner.

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

Red herring. A drug's legality has not yet been discussed and was never part of either argument here. If you're saying you're going to ban cocaine because it's illegal, do you now ban all other substances that are also illegal? Would it only be when people were playing or are you going to try to deal with people's use of substances when they're not playing as well?

Re: Mike Matasow is a raving lunatic
 

[ QUOTE ]
What a horrible idea. This is quite possibly the single most retarded sugestion ever made on these forums.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or it would have been had it not actually been phrased as a question.

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