If you play poker every day there is 0 chance you don't have some form of addiction. Let's be real with ourselves here. That's like saying you shoot dope every day but because you make money hustling you dont have an addiction. It's absolutely ignorant

Edit: close to 0 chance. Something doesn't have to be a "problem" for it to be an addiciton

Also what werbear said. Negative word association makes people live in denile

It seems that you can't tell the difference between addiction and working hard. If someone you knew was working 60-70 hours a week to get a new business off the ground, would you call him an addict?. For some reason, if your job is playing cards, working the same number of hours is an addiction. I guess the world class bridge players out there better get some counseling.

I once had a job as a men's supervisor in a rescue mission. I had been between jobs before that, and money for our family was tight. It turns out that the mission had a very small staff, so if even one person was missing there were hours to be covered and I scooped up all of the voluntary overtime that I could get.

I worked a couple 60 hour weeks at the mission. I had some weeks where i covered so many shifts that I wound up working first, second and third shift all in the same week. Was I addicted to that job? I don't remember any withdrawal symptoms when I had a day or two off.

At another point in my life I was going to college, I was in an elite National Guard unit that met once a week and I had a full-time job. Hard work, not an addiction.

When I decided to make poker my job, I approached it with the same work ethic. I study at least 10 hours every week, I play online tournaments for at least 30 hours, and I add to that whatever administrative hours that I need to put in. And yes, sometimes I work all seven days in a week.

If you think about it, there are a lot of people that work long or strange hours. Why should poker be any different?

The psychiatric definition of addiction includes:
There is a big difference between this and the secondary definition of addicted:
Both winning and losing poker players could fit one or the other definition. The amount of time spent at the activity, nor the amount of money won or lost, is not determinant of which definition applies. You are not an "addict" in the first sense just because you love an activity and are enthusiastically devoted to it. On the other hand, imo it is unlikely that someone suffering from the affliction described in the first sense will be a winning player (but not impossible).

I agree with everything that you wrote, but there is a option that hasn't been considered. Someone could be addicted in the sense that they lost control, or they could love what they do. The third option is that they aren't addicted and they don't like their job--but it's more money than they could make doing anything else.

Because you generally would not lose your house, your soul, your family, your dignity, your self respect or even your life by working a normal job.

Great analogy though. SMFH

There are very few people who can do something addictive every day and not get addicted... Hope that denial taste good

Your analogy is so ****ing bad it's hilarious. Makes no sense

If you're this fooled by negative word association how can you even be self aware enough to beat the game?

A great way to determine if you have a gambling problem is if anybody you love or is very close to you thinks you have a gambling problem.

Okay, yall can stfu now.

Thank you.

Very few people and I mean like VERY few in the entire world. Can do addictive things every day without forming an addiction to the point of assuming you're one has only one cause.... you being an idiot. Whoever "you" is

Something does not need to be a problem for it to be an addiciton.

I agree with everything that you wrote, but there is a option that hasn't been considered. Someone could be addicted in the sense that they lost control, or they could love what they do. The third option is that they aren't addicted and they don't like their job--but it's more money than they could make doing anything else.

When I told my brother-in-law and his wife that playing poker was my job, SIL told me that they don't have a computer because she used to be addicted to online casino gambling. That was really awkward.

There are a lot of people out there who don't know, or don't want to know, that poker is a competition where skill is necessary to be a consistent winner. When someone has seen problem gambling up close they often don't want to hear or believe that a card game can be a legitimate way to make an income. Someone with that experiencet might assume that I am a problem gambler, but that doesn't make it true.

I was a men's supervisor at a rescue mission for several years. At least half of the men that I saw had a problem with alcohol (sometimes along with other drugs.) That doesn't mean that if I see someone drinking a beer or buying a bottle of wine I'm going to assume that he's an alcoholic.

Your statements assumes that playing poker (or any gambling for that matter) is inherently an addictive activity in the same way that drugs are addictive. I disagree.

Drugs have a physical effect on the body that cause a physical addiction. Behavioral activities such as gambling do not. Behavioral addiction is emotional and not everyone is susceptible (just a very small percentage of the population per gambling studies), regardless of how much time "you" spend at the activity.

It's the one compulsory behavior that almost anyone can get addicted to, that is the widely considered truth of it not my opinion. Where as something like exercise is far rarer. All denial looks the same to me.

Problem gambler doesnt mean addict. They are not interchangeable terms

Being an addict itself is not inherently negative

Np question. Huge difference between a big drinker and an Allie hall ic.

Again, if a family member thinks you have a problem you probably have a problem.

If the player himself thinks he has or may have a problem he probably has a problem.

There are many other signs and 20 questions whether you may or may not have a gambling problem.

The Op's premise of can a winning player be addicted is really a non starter to begin with.

Inherently, it is a ridiculous premise

Whether or not "people" think a pro poker player is always a problem gambler has nothing to do with whether or not any particular poker player is a problem gambler. I fail to see the point you are trying to make here.

Everyone knows that many pro poker players make a living playing cards...that is not what is being disputed here.

Another thought is many pro poker players do not exhibit their true addiction and gambling problem at the poker table.

They save that behavior for dice and baccarat. Many of these players are well documented and talked about.

Excellent summary and a clear distinction between people who play very often vs those who would be labeled a compulsive gambler.

If you tilt you are an addict.

I believe most people that make money can get addicted to what they're doing, no matter what they play.

Is it addiction if you're making 6 figures a year? 7 figures a year? Is the threshold for addiction how many hours per week you play? Or the lifestyle choices that accompany your job? (ie no exercise, fast food, staring at screen for 24 hours straight) Society paints a thin line betwseen a problem gambler and a professional gambler. IMO that line is whether you win or not. I think a lot of non poker players could sympathize with someone who puts in 60 hours per week whilst making poor lifestyle choices but makes a few hundred K per year. I wouldnt call that addiction, some may tho. OP I often wonder the same things. Because I think that most players need to be at least somewhat addicted to the game in order to get really good. Or at least it helps alot. That raw desire to outplay your opponent can be a game changer

I agree, especially with your reluctance to call serious poker play an "addiction." Yes, if you want to get really good at just about anything, you have to be committed and put in the hours. You could say that of poker, baseball, playing the piano, or becoming a surgeon.

That said, we don't call surgeons or piano players who rise to the top of their fields "addicts," even if they put in as many hours as someone listed in the Global Poker Index top 100.

Hi, my name is Noz.

I need help.

Perhaps, as I sometimes confess to being, "pathologically obsessed with winning" is what really delivers results if one wants to win at most games of skill.

Even Monopoly has math roots and math decisions if played optimally. Plus a little "play the player" if, as serious players play, trading among the players happens.

Chess, for example.

Bridge.

Poker.

Throwing coins against the wall to see who comes closest. (no math but whatever...)

Anything where there is a winner and a loser actually.

Why play unless you want to optimize your satisfaction?

I'd say no. Becuz any WINNING player would after a few years winning, utterly hate the game. There's nothing addictive about having to work through the same ****ty downswings and break even stretches with zero social aspect to it.

Perhaps exceptions are lifetime sunrunners like Fedor and Carrel who couldn't actually lose if they regged 100 million tournaments then logged off. Who wouldn't get addicted to that riggedness?

Why and what do you need help with? To stop winning?

.


Phil Hellmuth, Daniel Negreanu and Mike Sexton have all played poker at a high level for 20 years or more. As far as I know they are still winning--Sexton is in his 60s and still making final tables on the WPT. I don't think that any of the three hate poker. Perhaps you are projecting.