Here are some of the reasons I think poker players are generally nutcases:

-accuse me or others of being a bot... and accept 10 rematches anyways.
-spend the entire game swearing and berating me, and say I'm an a$$hole because I don't reply.
-happily spend $1000's on rebuys, own 0 poker books, watch High Stakes Poker just to hear Gabe Kaplan cracking jokes... and still tell people they can totally see themselves going pro someday.
-Upset when they make a correct play(+EV), and it doesn't hold. But they're ecstatic when they make a horrible play (-EV) and suck out.
-blame magical guys in the sky (God, the universe, karma) for them running bad, whining on forums and to anyone who will listen. You just suck.
-playing a super wide range of cards, and saying "of course" when someones tighter range crushes them, as if calling K4o oop isn't atrocious.
-refer to "XX" as "their hand" and think this moniker somehow causes it to win more than expected.
-telling people you're good at poker, yet really trying to skirt the part about serial redepositing.
-posting in one forum bemoaning your $1000's in poker losses. next post: giving other people advice in strat forum, like a boss.
-posting about how you know what your issue is, and yet you still do the opposite. Kinda like if you see a speed trap up ahead, and you blaze through it even though you know you'll get a ticket. Both cost you money for your own stupidity, but I bet you all pump your brakes at the photo radar van.

I'm sure I missed some, but these were rolling through my mind this week, and I felt like getting them off my chest.

plo playas are insane
others=nit

Yeah its because most poker players suck for the reasons you have listed, among countless others. A lot of it has to do with ego. I'll never understand the ones that go nuts in the chat box either, really what's the point. Being "nice" is so underrated, even more so in a live setting. But the reg fish will continue to flex their e-shanks while we sit back and wait for them to spazz.

LOL Gabe Kaplan.

You sound mad, winnercircle.

Thread title is somewhat misleading imo. I'd expect to read about how many "poker players":

-Are also degenerate gamblers
-Are unreasonably superstitious
-Avoid family, friends and other important things in favor of playing poker
-Can be extremely desensitized to winning and losing large sums of money & just money in general
-Think (and sometimes speak) in weird poker code that other people don't get. i.e. as mentioned in another thread here: "I'm wondering if it would be more +EV to hang out with Michelle this weekend instead of Kristen."
-Will happily spend 100's on buyins or poker related things, but will be incredibly nitty when it comes to other irl purchases.
-Can be introverted and weird (probably applies more to online/younger players) and may not generally be well received by their non-poker playing peers & the public.

I think if you changed the title to: "The vast majority of people suck at poker" it'd make more sense.

Not mad at all, I just have an interest in psychology and it seemed like a funny topic. I'd change the title for you if I could. You added some good ones. I think I am in the minority of poker players who refuse to play any games I don't have an edge in. I don't like to "gamble" in the sense of the word. I definitely catch myself almost talking in poker code on a daily basis. Referring to people in 'EV', or saying 'that's definitely where I'd be getting my money in' in reference to choosing restaurants for example. I don't really think being desensitized to money would qualify a person as insane. Although most people would not understand why we could lose a $100 ipod and dismiss it to ourselves as "standard life variance."

Self-reflection is a dangerous game. As is making assumptions about other poker players from limited observation, and a psychological skill set that may be inferior to the opponent your ego has seemingly perfectly assessed.

The more poker evolves, the more accurate evaluations will become difficult to achieve.

As for sanity/madness - the future versions of DSM 6 & 7 will be ever increasingly dictated by expansionism of the major pharmas (in at least one country); the majority will be deemed to be suffering at least one form of mental illness once in their lives. The only sane people left in 50 years time might only be those living in countries outside the scope of the DSM juggernaut.

Another insane thing that I got reminded of is reg wars. Today I had a guy who simulsat me 3 lobbies in a row. To me it was clear that it was just a random coincidence and I prefer to just play them instead of the lame chopping that many people do. When I wanted to play the games out, he basically freaked out, and sat second for about 25 games today, berating me the whole time. The same thing happened yesterday on a different site with a different reg. The guy today lost 70% of the games over a 25 game sample, and most of it was just him showing up with trash hands. He's online all day like myself, so I have to assume he's playing full-time for a living. The guy yesterday was really close, probably 20-19 either way, with him coolering me about 4 times.

If both are actually pros, how bad must their ego dominate them if they'd rather opensit strong players rather than play fish. Both are guys who I'd consider solid enough to not join their games, but who absolutely aren't what I'd consider students of the game. Jamming like 50-60% of hands 10BB deep for example.

It's akin to having a job where you could make $20/hr to watch tv all day, or take $5-15/hr maximum and scrub toilets.

Last year I bet I played 400 games alone against one reg. And I won 51.5% of the games, so the poker site is happy. I see the same guy 5 tabling anyone who is already open sitting, and in over 10 000 games he has barely $2k profit. With his skill level, he probably could make 5 times that a year imo.

Just played 55 games 3-4 tabling vs yet another reg. Guy made 50k last year, and he was only playing me for 4 straight hours. The result: 35-30 for me, which is barely profitable. At first I thought he was just feeling me out, but even after he was playing foolishly, and down 8-2, he starts adding more games. I play up to 6-7 games at once, so I had a lot of other action. The weirdest part is: He was only playing me. Even if I declined, he'd sit me in the lobby, and even after 4 hours was still willing to keep playing. I did the math, and he lost several hundred dollars. The only thing that I think explains it is, he's a small man. The guy clearly knows how to play well. And if he was owning me, I'd admit it. But he wasn't. k3, 62, 83, 92, 94, Q9. All 3 bet jams he made 20bb deep. At 10bb deep jammed 100% of his range lol. But to make 50k in a year playing heads up you have to be pretty damn good. Does anyone understand this at all, or have some insight as to what this person might be thinking?

Rev, I agree making assumptions can be a slippery slope. The best we can do in poker is play based on population tendencies (stereotypes sometimes too), and adjust our game based on the new evidence of later hands.

I don't know how new you are to the limit you play, but it could be +EV to play a couple games against new regs and analyze what they are doing in order to stay in touch with the game?

It doesn't bother me too much, and I know it's pointless for me to try to wrap my head around it. But that still doesn't stop me from trying to figure out what someone like that is thinking. I mean, if I was tilting, or playing poorly, I could understand being targeted. If I was losing, I'd see it even easier. But like one guy today lost 10 games out of 14, and I wish it wasn't near the tail end of my session. This comes to mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahwSmcZxBAU