Poker is Good for your health...I knew it :D

[Poker Clif]

Originally Posted by usernameslol

Poker Clif,

This was a really great response.

I actually don't think we are in disagreement.

I agree with you that winning players have adjusted there expectations to accommodate for short-term loses.

All I was saying was that, for a winning player - a 'winning player' in its core definition i.e. twice as many wins than loses, they are neither happy nor sad. This is because loses, on average, have twice the impact than the gains or wins, so therefore they stay 'happiness neutral'. The greater the number of wins, the happier the person becomes, as the impact of the loses becomes more insignificant.

I suppose you may argue that because winning players adjust their expectations accordingly, loss aversion becomes inapplicable, as the loses have no greater or lesser impact than the wins, which is what you may be trying to say?

Liam.

I appreciate your comment about my "great response". I spend more time in Beginner's Questions than anywhere else on 2+2. I consider my posts carefully, and often edit them after I read the finished product. I am always aware that more players than the one that I am responding to will be reading it, and I can't say enough about what posters in this thread have done for me.

The bolded part of your response is exactly correct. I'm new to live tournament play (well, new to taking it seriously at least). I had been playing a live tournament once every few months "for fun". I played my first serious live tournament last week and I was thrilled to get the final cashing spot (getting most of my buy-in back).

My expectation is to break even in my first 10 or so tournaments, because I'm learning a lot of the mechanics that I didn't have to worry about in online play, such as keeping track of pot size and bet and stack sizes, and all the stuff that I used to track with a HUD. Plus, I still have to learn about tells and a lot of other facets of live games. And on top of that, the charity rake is 20%, so I'm not going to get rich overnight playing these games!

In case anyone is wondering why I would pay the 20% charity rake, I do not live within 100 miles of a casino that holds poker touraments. Also, I'm carefully building a live bankroll, and driving 5 miles to a $20-$30 "starter" charity tournament is a lot easier on the bankroll than driving 120 miles to play in a casino's $50-$100 lowest buy-in tournament.

I didn't expect to cash my first "serious" time out, and the only reason that I expect to break even after 10 tournaments is because the players are really bad (worse than an average $1 online STT) and the fields in the $20-$30 tournaments are small, usually 30 players or less, and small field size cuts the variance way down.

It's all about realistic expectations. I was hoping to cash in at least 3 of my first 10, so doing it the first time out was pretty exciting. And even though I have a massive edge against the field, I understand variance, and I would have been dissappointed, but not crushed, if I went 0 for 10.

You said it well. The "happiness" issue that you raised is all about proper expectation. It's easy to watch poker on TV and say, "I could do that." You're a killer at play money games, or you crush your favorite home game. You could be poker's next big thing!

It happened to me. I got a couple poker books from the library, and soon I was fake-cashing about half of the time against fields of thousands of players--at AOL World Series of Poker. I often went very deep, and there was a woman that seemed to always wind up at my table (more than once at the final table). So we kept telling each other how good we were, reinforcing our delusions. As we used to say when I was in 6th grade, I thought I was hot snot on a silver platter, but I was really cold boogers on a paper plate.

In 2006 I put $50 on PokerStars, and after three months of being slightly up, I lost it all. I had to admit to myself, and my wife, that I wasn't nearly as good as I had thought. But I kept at it, I kept studying, and I eventually found 2+2, where there were good players that not only told me that I wasn't good, but they also told me what I was doing wrong.

Fast forward to September 2011, and I'm seeing if I have what it takes to be a live pro.

[Poker Clif]

Originally Posted by usernameslol

Poker Clif,

This was a really great response.

I actually don't think we are in disagreement.

I agree with you that winning players have adjusted there expectations to accommodate for short-term loses.

All I was saying was that, for a winning player - a 'winning player' in its core definition i.e. twice as many wins than loses, they are neither happy nor sad. This is because loses, on average, have twice the impact than the gains or wins, so therefore they stay 'happiness neutral'. The greater the number of wins, the happier the person becomes, as the impact of the loses becomes more insignificant.

I suppose you may argue that because winning players adjust their expectations accordingly, loss aversion becomes inapplicable, as the loses have no greater or lesser impact than the wins, which is what you may be trying to say?

Liam.

I appreciate your comment about my "great response". I spend more time in Beginner's Questions than anywhere else on 2+2. I consider my posts carefully, and often edit them after I read the finished product. I am always aware that more players than the one that I am responding to will be reading it, and I can't say enough about what posters in this thread have done for me.

The bolded part of your response is exactly correct. I'm new to live tournament play (well, new to taking it seriously at least). I had been playing a live tournament once every few months "for fun". I played my first serious live tournament last week and I was thrilled to get the final cashing spot (getting most of my buy-in back).

My expectation is to break even in my first 10 or so tournaments, because I'm learning a lot of the mechanics that I didn't have to worry about in online play, such as keeping track of pot size and bet and stack sizes, and all the stuff that I used to track with a HUD. Plus, I still have to learn about tells and a lot of other facets of live games. And on top of that, the charity rake is 20%, so I'm not going to get rich overnight playing these games!

In case anyone is wondering why I would pay the 20% charity rake, I do not live within 100 miles of a casino that holds poker touraments. Also, I'm carefully building a live bankroll, and driving 5 miles to a $20 "starter" charity tournament is a lot easier on the bankroll than driving 120 miles to play in a casino's $50-$100 lowest buy-in tournament.

I didn't expect to cash my first "serious" time out, and the only reason that I expect to break even after 10 tournaments is because the players are really bad (worse than an average $1 online STT) and the fields in the $20-$30 tournaments are small, usually 30 players or less, and small field size cuts the variance way down.

It's all about realistic expectations. I was hoping to cash in at least 3 of my first 10, so doing it the first time out was pretty exciting. And even though I have a massive edge against the field, I understand variance, and I would have been dissappointed, but not crushed, if I went 0 for 10.

You said it well. The "happiness" issue that you raised is all about proper expectation. It's easy to watch poker on TV and say, "I could do that." You're a killer at play money games, or you crush your favorite home game. You could be poker's next big thing!

It happened to me. I got a couple poker books from the library, and soon I was fake-cashing about half of the time against fields of thousands of players--at AOL World Series of Poker. I often went very deep, and there was a woman that seemed to always wind up at my table (more than once at the final table). So we kept telling each other how good we were, reinforcing our delusions. As we used to say when I was in 6th grade, I thought I was hot snot on a silver platter, but I was really cold boogers on a paper plate.

In 2006 I put $50 on PokerStars, and after three months of being slightly up, I lost it all. I had to admit to myself, and my wife, that I wasn't nearly as good as I had thought. But I kept at it, I kept studying, and I eventually found 2+2, where there were good players that not only told me that I wasn't good, but they also told me what I was doing wrong.

Fast forward to September 2011, and I'm seeing if I have what it takes to be a live pro.

[usernameslol]

Originally Posted by Poker Clif

I appreciate your comment about my "great response". I spend more time in Beginner's Questions than anywhere else on 2+2. I consider my posts carefully, and often edit them after I read the finished product. I am always aware that more players than the one that I am responding to will be reading it, and I can't say enough about what posters in this thread have done for me.

The bolded part of your response is exactly correct. I'm new to live tournament play (well, new to taking it seriously at least). I had been playing a live tournament once every few months "for fun". I played my first serious live tournament last week and I was thrilled to get the final cashing spot (getting most of my buy-in back).

My expectation is to break even in my first 10 or so tournaments, because I'm learning a lot of the mechanics that I didn't have to worry about in online play, such as keeping track of pot size and bet and stack sizes, and all the stuff that I used to track with a HUD. Plus, I still have to learn about tells and a lot of other facets of live games. And on top of that, the charity rake is 20%, so I'm not going to get rich overnight playing these games!

In case anyone is wondering why I would pay the 20% charity rake, I do not live within 100 miles of a casino that holds poker touraments. Also, I'm carefully building a live bankroll, and driving 5 miles to a $20 "starter" charity tournament is a lot easier on the bankroll than driving 120 miles to play in a casino's $50-$100 lowest buy-in tournament.

I didn't expect to cash my first "serious" time out, and the only reason that I expect to break even after 10 tournaments is because the players are really bad (worse than an average $1 online STT) and the fields in the $20-$30 tournaments are small, usually 30 players or less, and small field size cuts the variance way down.

It's all about realistic expectations. I was hoping to cash in at least 3 of my first 10, so doing it the first time out was pretty exciting. And even though I have a massive edge against the field, I understand variance, and I would have been dissappointed, but not crushed, if I went 0 for 10.

You said it well. The "happiness" issue that you raised is all about proper expectation. It's easy to watch poker on TV and say, "I could do that." You're a killer at play money games, or you crush your favorite home game. You could be poker's next big thing!

It happened to me. I got a couple poker books from the library, and soon I was fake-cashing about half of the time against fields of thousands of players--at AOL World Series of Poker. I often went very deep, and there was a woman that seemed to always wind up at my table (more than once at the final table). So we kept telling each other how good we were, reinforcing our delusions. As we used to say when I was in 6th grade, I thought I was hot snot on a silver platter, but I was really cold boogers on a paper plate.

In 2006 I put $50 on PokerStars, and after three months of being slightly up, I lost it all. I had to admit to myself, and my wife, that I wasn't nearly as good as I had thought. But I kept at it, I kept studying, and I eventually found 2+2, where there were good players that not only told me that I wasn't good, but they also told me what I was doing wrong.

Fast forward to September 2011, and I'm seeing if I have what it takes to be a live pro.

Really enjoyable read, you write well. It's good to hear you've come so far and that you give back a lot of what you have learnt to the place that helped you to become the player you are.

I actually contacted the author of the Loss Aversion video - John Wray aka Jimmy Legs - on this issue. I think he gives a really good response, which you may be interested in reading:

"Hey Liam -

I must admit it's been almost a year since I thought much about or did research on the phenomenon, but I'll do my best to throw in my two cents.

I don't see any contradiction here, actually. The player in question is in the minority, as most players are losing or break-even players, even in tournaments. And an ROI of 14% is fantastic, so it makes perfect sense that this player is doing just fine in his life and fairly well adjusted. That probably goes for his winning friends, as well. But a long term break-even player is probably frustrated and grumpy, as is a small or moderate winner. I've been there myself, and it sucks.

But I think there's something else going on here as well, and I think it's an even more powerful explanation of his perspective on poker:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_therapy

Highlight quote: " The exposure therapist identifies the cognitions, emotions and physiological arousal that accompany a fear-inducing stimulus, and attempts to break the pattern of escape that strengthens the fear response, through measured exposure to progressively stronger stimuli until habituation is reached."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habituation

Highlight quote: "Habituation, a form of non-associative learning, is the psychological process in humans and other organisms in which there is a decrease in psychological and behavioral response to a stimulus after repeated exposure to that stimulus over a duration of time."

Ta da! Hardcore MTTers play so many games that they become desensitized and habituated to the ups and downs of poker. Loss Aversion can be overcome, and playing a bazillion tournaments has taught these players that the ups and downs are no big deal after all. But imagine how much different this player might feel if he only played one big buy-in tournament per week. He would probably put so much emotional energy into the results of that one tournament that he'd experience the need to avoid losing rather than win.

The trap that most of us fall into is that we invest too much of our happiness and ego in the results of any given session or tournament. But it's certainly a trap that can be overcome, and exposure to many many sessions or tournaments will do wonders for acclimatizing you to the stresses of variance.

I'd ask this MTTer how much different he feels about the game now than he did when he first started player poker. I imagine there's a world of difference in his perspective."

[Shoe]

Players that develop loss aversion just means that poker is not as bad for their health than it otherwise would be, not that poker is good for their health.

[MapOfUrHead]

I don't think poker is good for our health, but for sure it's for the mind. Poker is a great mental exercise and helps us to improve our patience and to take things philosophically

[usernameslol]

Originally Posted by MapOfUrHead

take things philosophically

Can you explain how poker does this?

[MapOfUrHead]

Originally Posted by usernameslol

Can you explain how poker does this?

because of all the bad beats that go on from a day to day basis.

[H_H]

hey this is grand news indeed

[theory21]

Would be curious to know if this applied to playing poker live in casinos as well...

[donkeykong2]

life is unhealthy. i m not sure about poker, i guess it has positives and negatives. the adrenaline it gives will suppress minor pain and enable you to do endure more pain without caring too much. e.g. i was training a lot more and harder when i was playing poker, i m more self-confident when playing poker and i have a stronger libido. the problem is that the stress i feel is not going away over time. i feel stressed at the start of sessions, i feel relaxed within, towards the end and after the sessions but then the stress will build up again as i feel i m not playing enough.

[donkeyshot]

Lol.
In my experience laying in a hammock on a sunny afternoon while listening to Bob Marley is good for releasing stress. Not poker.

[TheLoner]

Ive always found life to relieve poker stress, not the other way around.

[AntonDrake]

Poker is fantastic for your mind... but it can take a toll on your body. I think that, just like anybody who engages in any dangerous sport, pursuit or profession, poker players need to take steps to minimize the danger to their bodies. Just like a mountain climber who locks securely into the wall with a rope for safety, poker players need to be aware of the health hazards of poker and deal with them correctly.

[AntonDrake]

Originally Posted by Heisenberg1

Well said!

Im still playing poker because of the money issue despite the negative side effects. I have been searching for some medicine that might would take out this cortisol and adrenaline production ****. Beta blockers seem to help a bit, but since the body still produces these stress hormones though im not "responding" to them i am not sure it´s the right way to go.

Any thoughts here? Are there any medicine or thinking that might help?

Heisenberg, yeah, there is some more info about this on the poker-isometrics.com website. There are a few ideas there that you might find interesting. Nick Christensen recently reviewed the book for twoplustwo magazine, and I've been getting a lot of really good feedback on this.

To me, it seems that the usually recommended formula for reducing stress at the poker table runs somewhat along the lines of a "re-framing" strategy; players are encouraged to dissociate somewhat from immediate results and gameplay situations, and are advised to make decisions as objectively as possible while focusing on longterm expectation. If you just make good decisions, you'll be getting the best of it in the long run; variance is to be expected; therefore, just remove frustration and emotional reactions from your game.

The problem is that concepts like "money" and "winning" and "losing" seem to be very linked-in to our brains at a low level; some people might describe this as a more reptilian or survival oriented part of ourselves. Regardless, the point is that emotional responses are physical in nature (I would highly recommend Joseph Ledoux's book "The Emotional Brain" for a much deeper look at this subject). Of course, endeavoring to stay detached, and making a conscious effort to "let go" and not dwell on stressful, frustrating events does help, but sometimes the stress is just ongoing in real-time.

If something suspenseful, or punishing, or pressurized is occurring, almost by definition it is triggering your fight or flight response on some level. Ideally you can channel the energy from that constructively, but if you're engaged in a particularly sedentary activity (like casino poker, where some players sit as still as church mice with impassive faces for countless hours) then a lot of that physical energy, in the form of hormones etc, etc, is totally unused. Thinking or re-framing your idea of what is going on is always fighting an uphill battle against actual stress--which is where Poker Isometrics comes in. Consider the fact that nobody has a chronic stress issue when they are out there cutting down trees or swimming the English channel; right? Using isometrics is one way to "unleash" your body at the poker table, while still remaining socially acceptable and in the flow of the game. Good breathing also helps... actually if you were really diligent about breathing correctly that would make a huge difference. And of course, eating right, and trying to get some exercise (or sexercise) away from the table.

I generally avoid drugs and medications as much as possible. Something like beta-blockers... in my view, you're always better off if you can avoid having to depend on something external in your life, especially at such a fundamental level.

[killamindz]

Originally Posted by BadAtMeth

Okay. This is one of two things:

1) A fictional study invented by affiliates who want to help problem gamblers justify losing more money. Or,

2) A study (or a mashup of many studies) taken way out of context.

If 1, then wow -- disgusting.

If 2, then wow -- irresponsible. I found research out of McGill claiming that gambling functions as a maladaptive coping mechanism for anxious, stressed, or depressed people. This works towards explaining gambling addiction and pathological gambling. What it does not do is suggest that online gaming is 'healthy' for you. It may 'reduce stress' in the extreme short term, yes; but that does not mean it is beneficial long-term or healthy for you.

And the only cortisol/gaming link I could find out of McGill was this write-up of a study. The experimenters designed a happy-face clicking game and measured cortisol levels of participants while playing.



Maybe somebody can google better than I can and find this study. I would love to be wrong on this one.

I like the way you think Meth. Empirical evidence only please people, your anecdotal accounts of what makes you feel good and what doesn't prove nothing.

Has anyone found this report anywhere? I can have a look on scopus or psyc info but it would help to know either the name of the paper or the name of the researchers.