someone has a gambling problem

[defyodds]

I play at a casino and in some home games and we see many of the same people several games. There is one gentleman who obviously is in over his head and heading for a crash. I have a conflict of interest because I want to win his money but I feel bad about whats happening to him. He is not a good friend. I see the crash and burn coming. Should I speak to him about it or keep my mouth shut. Even when I write this I feel like a hyprcrite because I know I like his play.

[cobalt]

Here's the thing. Addicts hate to be told they have an addiction. In fact, they get extremely upset and will hold a grudge with you.

So, if you tell him, then he'll be really mad at you for suggesting he has a problem (unless he has admitted it to himself already), and he probably won't play anywhere near you and he'll still go bust at someone elses hand.

You have two options.
1. Continue playing him and taking his money. And possibly feel guilty about it.

2. Tell him and not win his money even though he'll keep playing. But you won't have the guilt.


How guilty you feel about something is totally up to your personality. It seems that you have some compassion in you already.

If poker is your job, then you have to treat it like a business. A company wouldn't tell it product supplier that they could be charging double, that's just bad business. So if poker is your business; telling your easy money that it shouldn't be there is bad business.

[wonkadaddy]

my poker karma guide says
don't seek him out as an opponent, but be willing to play him

and if he ever comes to you for help you have a responsibilyt be open an honest with him. but if he doesn't you shouldn't approach him, as he likely won't be receptive to your message anyway.

(it's funny how we can want to dismantle, humiliate and destroy some of our opponents, but still feel pings of sympathy towards others)

[ QUOTE ]
If poker is your job, then you have to treat it like a business. A company wouldn't tell it product supplier that they could be charging double, that's just bad business. So if poker is your business; telling your easy money that it shouldn't be there is bad business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there's business and there's business ethics. If this is someone he knows or cares about in the slightest, then there should be a tactful way to do something. Even many business competitors go this far, because what is bad for one could become bad for the other. For example, what if all of the sudden, local governments got a major hard-on about all the gambling addicts in their state, then what happens? Boom, everybody is out of business.

I'm no expert on the subject, but if this is clearly self-destructive behavior, and especially if there are young dependents involved, then the best course of action may be an intervention. Sucker the guy to a location where everyone he knows is there to tell him about his problem and they are there to help. Then you have done what you can.

I know a middle limit player who is in the middle of a lifetime losing streak. He's actually a pretty reckless player and I don't like playing against him. I consider him somewhat of a friend, though. I've never tried to tell him to stop playing; however, I have attempted to convince him to improve the way he plays through studying books and forums, and through constant self-criticism. He always changes the subject whenever I bring it up.

Gamblers at the poker table are encouraged more than at other games, because there are so many poker pros that show that the game can be beat. This particular person may be confusing himself with one of those pros.

You may want to ask yourself if you really know why he's playing. It could be that poker is his entertainment. Some people can spend hundreds of dollars on a single bottle of wine; I would much rather put this money in play strictly for entertainment. Because he's not your friend, you don't know enough about the situation to make a judgement call.

If this is something that worries you often then switch games. It doesn't help you to have mercy in poker, as this could constitute a big leak in your game and cause YOU to lose money. If you intervene, you are removing other players' source of income, so you may want to discuss it with other regulars before you do anything rash. They may not appreciate the gesture as much as you do.

Of course, your other option is to just bust him permanently.

[ QUOTE ]
Gamblers at the poker table are encouraged more than at other games, because there are so many poker pros that show that the game can be beat. This particular person may be confusing himself with one of those pros.

[/ QUOTE ]

No doubt, right on the money.

I'd like to have a minute fraction of the billions that casinos won from punters, after small groups of highly skilled pros and teams proved that 4 and 6 and 8 deck shoes could be cracked.

Once casinos moved to shoe games about 30 years ago, they continued to win the same amounts from players who always played and lost by making the same basic mistakes, like taking insurance with a blackjack.

However, they made loads more from "intelligent" players who mistaken believed they were playing with a nice edge and were in fact only breaking even, winning slightly or losing slightly, all the while way overbetting their bankroll, in short working with a very high risk of ruin. These kinds of players often have only a miniscule chance to dig out once they get stuck heavily and the casinos make a fortune from them.

The basic gambler, whether very intelligent or only modestly intelligent, has no concept of the level of effort required to get that good, stay that good, adjust to changes, and perhaps most importantly, effectively manage their bankroll and psychological temperment to withstand the frequent -1SD swings and rare but possible -2SD and -3SD swings.

This current poker boom is no different than the big blackjack card counting boom of the 70's and 80's, in terms of how "easy" the games are to beat.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

However, they made loads more from "intelligent" players who mistaken believed they were playing with a nice edge and were in fact only breaking even, winning slightly or losing slightly, all the while way overbetting their bankroll, in short working with a very high risk of ruin. These kinds of players often have only a miniscule chance to dig out once they get stuck heavily and the casinos make a fortune from them.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is nonsense.

You can't make money on average by having a large bankroll and playing a 0 EV or -EV game. If someone overbets his bankroll against you, you don't win on average.

[anduril]

[ QUOTE ]
I play at a casino and in some home games and we see many of the same people several games. There is one gentleman who obviously is in over his head and heading for a crash. I have a conflict of interest because I want to win his money but I feel bad about whats happening to him. He is not a good friend. I see the crash and burn coming. Should I speak to him about it or keep my mouth shut. Even when I write this I feel like a hyprcrite because I know I like his play.

[/ QUOTE ]

someone is going to take his money. Why not you?

[ QUOTE ]

However, they made loads more from "intelligent" players who mistaken believed they were playing with a nice edge and were in fact only breaking even, winning slightly or losing slightly, all the while way overbetting their bankroll, in short working with a very high risk of ruin. These kinds of players often have only a miniscule chance to dig out once they get stuck heavily and the casinos make a fortune from them.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
This is nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[ QUOTE ]
You can't make money on average by having a large bankroll and playing a 0 EV or -EV game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I say that you could? Zero EV is a break even game in the long run, although there will likely be large + and - swings between point A and point B

Same for negative EV. A losing player will be a net loser in the long run. But he could easily be ahead after even a year's worth of play just due to random statistical fluctuation.

[ QUOTE ]
If someone overbets his bankroll against you, you don't win on average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this is real nonsense. The size of the bet in relation to the bankroll has no statistical impact to whether or not the player is going to lose or win over the long run. It only determines the ruin probability that he is constrained by, whether he realizes it or not.

In a nutshell, the main thing that overbetting the bankroll means is that the player will be less likely to have sufficient resources to dig out if he gets mired in a large negative swing.

A simple corrolary is in no limit hold 'em going all in with AQo v A9o. If this occurence were to happen 10,000 times, there is little doubt that you would end up being ahead. However, for the single instance, you are a statistical favorite but have exposed yourself to a very high risk of ruin (i.e., getting knocked out of the tournament) because by going all in versus a bigger stack, you have overbet your bankroll. In other words, when you are all in, you have no additional resources to "dig out" if the laws of probability don't work in your favor.

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

However, they made loads more from "intelligent" players who mistaken believed they were playing with a nice edge and were in fact only breaking even, winning slightly or losing slightly, all the while way overbetting their bankroll, in short working with a very high risk of ruin. These kinds of players often have only a miniscule chance to dig out once they get stuck heavily and the casinos make a fortune from them.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is nonsense.

You can't make money on average by having a large bankroll and playing a 0 EV or -EV game. If someone overbets his bankroll against you, you don't win on average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blackjack, when you count cards, is a +EV game.