My lack of ability to psychologically condense events

[Rolen]

Example. I have a poker bankroll of 5K. I double it in a day playing limits I shouldn't. I drop half of my profit during the next day leaving me with 7.5K. Here is the eventual outcome of my hypothetical two days as I see it now, without having recently experienced it ..

A) I have won a large (for me) amount of money in two days
B) I have been lucky enough to win at limits with huge variance considering my bankroll
C) I now have a bigger bankroll than I previously had.

Now, here is the outcome as I see it of my hypothetical two days if I have just experienced it ..

A) I JUST LOST 2.5K. THIS IS A LOT OF MONEY TO ME. [censored].
B) ..

I find it impossible to 'look at the long term' in these situations, and see that this was in fact a positive outcome. Is there any way I could go about training myself to do so?

I suggest you quit playing poker. If you don't understand and/or can't handle ups and downs (some of them extremely severe), you're going to spend the rest of your playing life totally screwed up in the head.

You've got choices. The glass is either half full or...

Live with it or muck'em.

[ODB72]

Here is part of an email that my friend (by the way he is not a poker player) sent me, that applies to your situation.......

Here is another psychological result. This one isn't something you'd
necessarily realize a priori, and so (unlike the previous case) I suspect it's
not as well known among poker players.

Question #1: Suppose I give you $300. Next, I give you the following choice.
You can either
(a) Play a game of chance (like tossing a coin) where there's a 50% chance you
will win an additional $200 and a 50% chance you will win no additional money.
(b) Instead of playing a game, you get $100 guaranteed -- it's a sure thing.

At this point, really think about which of these two options you would prefer.

Now, Question #2: Suppose I give you $500. Next, I give you the following
choice. You can either
(a) Play a game of chance (like tossing a coin) where there's a 50% chance you
have to pay me $200 back and a 50% chance you don't have to pay me back
anything.
(b) Instead of playing a game, you just give me back $100.

Again, really think about which of these two options you would prefer.

In question #1, most people (72%) say they would take option (b), the sure thing
of $100. In question #2, most people (64%) say they would take option (a), the
game of chance. But if you think about it, this makes no sense. Notice that
in Question #1 option (a), there's a 50% chance you will have $500 (given the
$300 you start off with) and a 50% chance you will have $300. The exact same
is true in question #2 option (a) -- again, you have a 50% chance at $500 (give
the $500 you start off with) and a 50% chance at $300. Similarly, Question #1
option (b) gives you a guaranteed $400 while question #2 option (b) also gives
you a guaranteed $400. So, if you prefer option (a) in #1 you should also
prefer option (2) in #2; and if you prefer option (b) in #1 you should also
prefer option b in #2. What's irrational here is not either that you would
prefer (a) or that you would prefer (b) -- a rational risk-taker might prefer
(a) while a rational conservative might prefer (b). What's irrational here is
that you would *switch*, preferring (b) in #1 and (a) in #2. And the data
shows that a lot of people are "switchers", and so a lot of people are
irrational in this way.

Here's the standard explanation. When it comes to "gains", people want sure
things rather than risk. That's why in #1 most people take (b). When it comes
to "losses", people are willing to take risks that would help them minimize
their losses rather than taking sure losses. That's why in #2 most people take
(a). But, whether something gets *counted* as a gain or a loss often turns on
subjective matters of how people perceive a situtation, not on something
objective. Since I only "give you" $300 to start off with in question #1,
options (a) and (b) feel like a decision between two gains. When I "give you"
$500 in question #2, options (a) and (b) feel like a decision between two
losses. Because #1 *feels* like a gains-decision while #2 feels like a
losses-decision, people respond to them differently, even though they are
objectively (mathematically, etc.) the exact same decisions. I haven't
completely thought through how this fact can be exploited in poker, although I
know there are certain corporations, like insurance agencies, which try to
exploit it in their domains. I have a few guesses as to how one might try to
do so, but this e-mail is already awfully long.

[Rolen]

That's very interesting.. As you probably would have guessed, my choices were a for the first and b for the second. I think it can be applied to poker in that, as in example A, many people after winning to start off a session will 'quit when they are ahead', taking the gain they have just attained, rather than risking it. As for example B, this can be likened to the roulette player. If he is $100 down, the pain of going to $200 down is less than the positive he will experience if he gets to break even again. A loss is a loss whether it be $100 or $200, so most people want to have the chance of losing 0.

In reply to the second post in this thread, I wasn't kidding when I said this is a hypothetical situation. I am more concerned about how this concept applys to (my) life in general. I thought people here would appreciate it being 'translated' into language they most certainly understand.

Ohhhhh, excuuuuuuse me, most learned one.

Perhaps this is a bit beneath your exalted thinking, but I'll try, nevertheless...

Substitute my reference to/use of Poker, with LIFE.

I stand by what I said. You've got choices. You take one road or the other. You do something or sit on your ass.

I'll forgo the hundreds of cliches that come to mind and leave you to ponder the great mysteries of life. (Lord, please let this donk sit at my table!)

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

[Rolen]

'You've got choices. You take one road or the other. You do something or sit on your ass.'

ha..

[ QUOTE ]
ha..


[/ QUOTE ]

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!

Brilliant! Such depth of thought! Bravo! More!

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

[Rolen]

'ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!'

ha..

Come on, Rolen. That is so lame. I expect much, much more from such an erudite person as yourself. Now, take a few minutes to apply your talents, get those thought processes going and gimme a really good shot. Right here (pointing to chin). Come on, bay-beeee!

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

BTW, and elipsis is ..., not ..

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