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.
|