The psychology/EV of drinking in live games?

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
NO. They do not DO them better. They just THINK they do them better, except for "behaving less inhibitedly." And inhibitions are very useful, even essential, for living and working and relating to other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know; I'm a fairly introverted guy who is also fairly sociable, if that makes any sense. I find that there are contexts in which I absolutely have an easier time relating to people after a relaxing beer or two. I tend to be a little less preoccupied with whatever particular stresses I might be dealing with that day, and a little bit more willing to devote my full attention to conversation and so forth. I set aside time for relaxation and I try and have fun.

I also don't agree with the implication that inhibitions are a good thing a priori. I'm not suggesting that we'd be better off in an anarchistic society in which everyone dropped their pants at will and generally behaved like a Tourette's Syndrome patient. But I do believe that the typical character of social interaction that occurs between Americans today is incredibly facile and inauthentic, especially in many workplace settings, and that people tend to behave more humanely toward one another after a couple of beers.

[ QUOTE ]
The small talk of drinkers often annoys sober people. The flirting is frequently ludicrous. The uninhibited fool who thinks he is impressing someone is probably alienating him or her. And the idea that alcohol makes people more tolerant of annoyances would make any cop laugh. Cops frequently have to break up fights between drinkers over extremely trivial issues. At times these fights end up with a killing, and the drunk doesn't even know he did it.

[/ QUOTE ]

As blackaces suggests, I think that you're blurring the line between social drinking and problem drinking. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people who drink suffer from only some fairly benign consequences and on balance it enhances their quality of life.

[ QUOTE ]
The same denial of reality that makes people think they can play poker better drunk than sober is the cause of your position.

Go to any search engine and look at the literature on the effects of alcohol on performance. The picture is absolutely unambigous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Success in poker relies on a fairly unusual combination of skills, ranging from picking up on social cues to complex logical thought procesees to maintaining a certain level of psychological resiliency. I could google the subject to death, but I don't think that any of the articles I'd find would provide me with much in the way of a definitive conclusion about the impact that mild alcohol consumption would have on the EV of a winning poker player. I also think that it's perfectly acceptable if a poker player were willing to accept a slight decline in his win rate if he enjoyed his experience more overall. Your position seems a wee bit puritanical from here.

[comic2b]

A very passionate arguement by both sides. I'll take the side of drinking. "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontallabodamy."

There are several facts I think we can agree on
1) Don't drive drunk or operate heavy machinery
2) There are varying stages of drinking or drunkeness
3) While one might play well on a certain level after to much alcohol can begin to play bad.

Let's talk about the mental taxation of playing poker. I don't think it's that taxing. Compared to taking a test or configuring a telecom network its fairly easy.

Most thinking is automatic. Fold, fold, and fold. You should know the odds. They don't change. I play Omaha if Im'm drawing to a low and there are two low cards on the flop low will get there 70% of the time.

There are some tough decisions when you are trying to figure out if your play has EV of plus $1.05 vs. .95. Those marginal calls come up infrequently.

There are two specific statements that I would like to comment on "Drinking can annoy sober people."

I absolutely agree with this statement. That is where the EV comes from, at least potentially. I want to say that it is listed on one of the two plus two essays talking about different skills. One of them was to get your opponents to play worse. In SuperSystem I though the best stuff was Mike Caro's and I can't even remember the draw strategy but I remember laughing when he talked about some of the things he said at the table. Just to get information and make other people play bad.

The other statement was drinking can make people less tolerant. I think the arguement can be made either way. Most of the time you are correct. However the little things like people not showing their hand on the river after all the bets have been called etc. A local player Jerry, at the game is always annoyed by this. You can tell by his behavior that if he is drinking he is not as annoyed and he certainly is not vocal because he has something to do.

My final point is that it really does depend on the individual. Most people will play worse while drinking however I believe it can be beneficial for certain individuals.

The biggest factor is can you make it work for you. I know I can make it work for me. I try to put people on tilt and alcohol can help in that regard. I think tilt is the biggest factor for the individual if drink will help keep you off tilt then drink. If not........

[eggzz]

[ QUOTE ]
if you study stoned or drunk for an exam you are better off taking the exam in the same state. This seems preposterous but I wonder if someone can answer this that would certainly know about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can answer this question sort of.

Now I did not study for this test while under the influence of any drug, I did drop a hit of acid once before school. I got to my advanced physics class and realized we had a test. I concentrated better for that test than I think I ever did in four years of college that followed.

I remember closing my eyes and visualing the chapters in my head. I remember needing to figure out something that had to do with the specific heat of copper or something, and I was turning the pages of the book in my head, got to the part I was looking for, and actually saw the formula on the page!! No kiddin, I was trippin.

I turned in my test, and the next day found that I had scored a 93. All my answers, my stoichiometry (sp?) equations were just as neat as could be, which is odd too, because normally I would be a little sloppy with my math problems.

The interesting part of this whole story is that when I went over my answers, I really didn't think I could duplicate what I had done the day before. I couln't figure out how I answered some of the questions, it was really wild. I got straight Cs in that class, but on that one test, I scored one of the highest grades of anyone in the class.

I know that didn't answer your question to the fullest, but in case you are thinking about experimenting, I would not advise it with marijuana. I think that drug makes it too hard to fully concentrate on intellectual studies. I would recommend though, that if you are going to experiment, try the LSD. Hey, a Harvard professor can't be all that bad of a role model (Timothy Leary)

Turn on
Tune in
Drop out

LSD really makes you focus. Hocus pocus

[MMMMMM]

It is. Even half drunk is fun.

[MMMMMM]

"If you play poker cause you enjoy it, why not have a coupla beers when you do it?"

Because I like wine better.

[Paul2432]

This thread is interesting.

Dr. Al says personal experience is not reliable. So what happens? Everyone tries to refute his argument with personal anecdotes.

If someone shows you an optical illusion and then explains that it is an optical illusion, it makes no sense to then say, "no, you are wrong, I can see it with my own two eyes".

If you don't believe Dr. Al, show us the contrary studies, or if you think his studies are flawed or do not exist say so and why.

(Note: not picking on you eggzz, just a convenient place in the thread to reply)

Paul

[Al Schoonmaker]

I agree that not all people are negatively affected by a few drinks. However, the ones who are most negatively affected are often the ones who are least aware of it. That's why I urge caution.
Regards,
Al

[Al Schoonmaker]

You said you drink more in Las Vegas because it's free. Why do you think it's free?
Because the casinos have found that free drinks cause people to gamble more. And people who gamble, tend to lose at poker.
I must add that Barry Tanenbaum has coined a term, "the home court advantage," for local pros. They are used to being served free drinks by sexy, "half-naked" (his term)women, but most tourists aren't. The local pros ignore the women and refuse the drinks, while the tourists are distracted and drink too much, which gives the locals a huge edge.
Regards,
Al

[SunTzu68]

If you like drinking, go ahead......that doesn't bother me as much as the statement about image. I agree with Malmuth that the best image to have is a tight aggressive one because of the free cards it can buy you and it makes your bluffs/semi-bluffs much more effective.

Personally, when I play live I usually have a beer and I keep it to on beer an hour or less. I can't drink coffee or tea, and if I start with water I end up drinking about 5 an hour and end up spending more time in the bathroom than the poker room. But that is just me...

[turnipmonster]

I'm a jazz musician as well. I used to not be able to drink while playing, but I found out last year that I could and it didn't really affect my playing (I heard a recording preparing to be disappointed, I was surprised). I still rarely drink on a gig though.

the more intuitive something becomes for you, the easier it is to do while impaired. I do think drinking impairs your judgement somewhat, but this may not negatively effect your game if you have enough experience.

--turnipmonster