Do you enjoy gambling?

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont enjoy gambling neutral situations. i think that the people who do find pleasure in gambling have a significant edge in poker than those that dont assuming that they can control their emotions. they will naturally find enjoyment playing the game to greater extents than those that dont enjoy gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really like a good game of Craps or Blackjack, but I don't agree with you. Poker doesn't feel like gambling to me. I don't get the same rush or excitement.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont enjoy gambling neutral situations. i think that the people who do find pleasure in gambling have a significant edge in poker than those that dont assuming that they can control their emotions. they will naturally find enjoyment playing the game to greater extents than those that dont enjoy gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is exactly the discussion I had in mind when I posted this. Is it to your advantage to enjoy / not enjoy gambling when playing poker?

I personally do not get much enjoyment out of gambling. I love playing games and competing, but really don't care to gamble for the sake of gambling. It isn't a rush for me, or at least, it's not a rush I enjoy.

I think this works in my favor. I don't feel the need to play pocket deuces UTG, hoping to flop a set and win a big hand. I could easily see an argument though that you need to enjoy gambling to become a really good player. I certainly think that I am unlikely to ever find myself in a really big game because I don't enjoy taking those kinds of risks with my bankroll. I think I can beat the 100/200 at party, but I won't play it because I'm not willing to take that kind of risk. If I enjoyed it, I'd be much more likely to win big... or lose big.

-eric

[Alex/Mugaaz]

Some numbers out of my a$$.

Players who do enjoy it are 95% likely to be worse than average and 5% to be much, much better. The only real difference between addiction and ambition might be success there. They're jsut addicted to the action, and their intelligence/discipline forces them to at least win.

[brick]

In the long run, the Barry Greenstein types will tend to do much better than the Stu Unger types.

Kinda overblown example but you get the idea.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
if you wont go to war and gamble you are destined to win at a reduced rate in casino poker

- Zee

[/ QUOTE ]

[TStoneMBD]

if you were going for a polar opposite ungar/greenstein is not it. i think its pretty obvious that a barry greenstein temperament is better than a stu ungar temperament. however, if i had to guess i would assume that barry greenstein enjoys gambling considering that he made $250k off of phil ivey at the 10k turningstone tournament by betting on whether red or black would hit the flop.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't feel the need to play pocket deuces UTG, hoping to flop a set and win a big hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what game you play in, but if this is a +EV move I don't know why you wouldn't take it.

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly think that I am unlikely to ever find myself in a really big game because I don't enjoy taking those kinds of risks with my bankroll. I think I can beat the 100/200 at party, but I won't play it because I'm not willing to take that kind of risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

If you have a big enough bankroll there shouldn't be any risk.

[TStoneMBD]

he "thinks" he can beat it. meaning that he realizes that he might be wrong and would actually be a loser in the game. as a result, it may be +ev to stay at his usual limits because it assures profit. if he moves up not only may his expectation be in the red, but he also sacrifices the earn he would have made at the lower limit. therefore, if his expectation is $200/hr 50% of the time playing 100/200 and -$10/hr 50% and his expectation at his normal limit is $100/hr 100% of the time, it is actually a losing proposition with extra variance to move up. there is more risk then just bankroll measurements and i assume that is what he was talking about.

[elindauer]

You're right that part of my concern is the risk that maybe I'm not good enough to beat the higher limit games. I'm also factoring bankroll considerations though.

For example, there's a popular saying that all the great poker players have been broke at one point or another. I take this to mean that to really succeed in poker, you have to play above your bankroll and get lucky at some point. You have to take a leap of faith that you can beat the game, and you have to actually beat it quickly.

I assume that the reason "all the good players go broke at some point" is that they are ready and willing to take risks with their bankrolls. I further assume that the reason they take these risks is because they just enjoy gambling, and would be totally busted by it if they weren't so damn good at poker.

I'm just not like that. I can't put my life's fortune on the line. I'm not going to put 60K at risk to play the 100/200, and I'm certainly not going to put whatever I'm worth at risk to play the "big game". I see all the angles, but I don't have the stones to play 'em. And I think that means I'll never be considered one of the greats in this game.

I'm ok with that, and happy with who I am. It's just an interesting thing to ponder. Hence the thread. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Good luck.
Eric

[brick]

or, Maybe he was just getting phil, the gambling type, all worked up! [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Of course I'm guessing, but BG does not strike me as the gambling type.