Would it still be the right decision if it took decades off of his life and his appearance matches Gollum form lord of the rings or would that have been caused by something else?

The obvious hasn’t been stated yet so I’d like to point out that it’s not really the lack of social interaction or exercise, sleep, w/e that causes issues in people…it’s the swings of money that you deal with, the act of gambling itself. If you’ve ever felt a sense of satisfaction after a good session of poker, which 100% of players have, you’ve felt what a drug user has felt after they have taken a hit of their favorite stuff. Gambling being on par with drugs is basic basic stuff they teach in elementary school. And there are studies that show that winning while gambling fires your brain neurons the same way hard drugs would. It’s funny how this forum really does a good job of ****ing up peoples perspective on gambling and poker, like pursuing poker is some path of enlightenment. Nahhh, it’s really not.

Not lack of sleep, exercise or social interaction.....next you're going to say water and food isn't important either. It's losing money that hurts the most. I think you underestimate sleep, try going a week without it and repost that inane drivel

A combination of these things seems like a likely culprit for both causing health issues or affecting existing health issues negatively. It's not a competition whereby pointing to one cause or factor means the other are invalidated.

Swings in outcomes can affect the sense of control, which could lead to stress. Stress isn't necessarily bad, it is healthy in manageable doses. But over prolonged periods, a sense of little control is a likely contributor to negative stress, where the negative outcomes can fill a book. Back in the day of unethical research experiments, researchers managed to stress mammals to death (heart failure). Exactly where the lines are drawn for how much stress we can manage in a healthy way is different from person to person.

Lack of social interaction could be a contributor to anxiety or strengthen existing anxiety issues. Lack of exercise can contribute negatively to mental health and quality of life.

Lack of sleep over longer periods is known to cause a plethora of problems, from concentration problems, memory problems, mood swings, make physical activity more exhausting. Chronic sleep deprivation is a known contributor to depression, weaker immune system, life-style diseases and can also negatively affect sex drive and sexual function.

Of course those other things matter and most people deal with that in small-medium amounts. But normally your body can kinda self correct so you want to sleep, exercise, socialize…naturally that is, when you’re not regularly playing poker. When you are playing, your main focus is to squeeze out $EV in many different ways, and the focus tends to drift away from health, so I find a lot of players (judging from interviews, the poker goals section of this forum, etc.) try to logically force yourself into a healthy lifestyle structure. I’ve also been there myself. It’s a flawed way of going about it.

I know this next concept is totally not going to hit since I’m talking to poker players about poker players, but you guys are just a ****ing drag to be around. Boring, no humanness to you, just turning yourselves into complete mind-numbing zombies for the sake of a card game. Please stay away from everyone else who is trying to enjoy life.

Nah, he's just humble bragging that he banged a lot of hookers.

This isn't 2007. Very few active posters in the politics forum still put significant time into poker.

Every addiction recovery program (GA, NA, AA) talks about HALT (hungry, angry, lonely, tired) as basically being the four horseman of active addiction / relapse.

I remember reading some study where it showed that a large non-trivial % of men will go their whole life with <= 1 sexual partner. This just boggles my mind but it make sense.

Ya it is sad.

I have guy friends who are good looking guys with game who use Tinder and are just running numbers. They want to **** like a Rock Star does and numbers are all that matter. They almost never say no to any female willing for just sex, even girls they would never be seen in public with.

I meet girls a lot who the first thing they say 'oh these Apps are just for hooking up and not for serious relationships'.

No, that is not accurate. But if you are not that attractive and you are only selecting the better looking guys you are certainly swiping on a percent who will **** you but not date you. If that is all you swipe on then you will only get ****ed and you will hold that misconception.

If those same girls instead swipe on the type of guys they typically more would have been likely to engage with in a bar setting who are their peers in terms of looks and options, then they might find a partner.

But what the dating Apps have done is get that top 'want to have sex with everyone' percent of good looking guys, endless easy sex and any girl who wants to only sleep with those good looking guys easy sex.

For the guys who are dumpy and without game there is no pool of ladies for them, outside the few girls who know to look for a peer if they want something more serious.

I somehow missed cuepee's post the first time around. I met my wife before the explosion of dating apps, so I don't have much basis to agree or disagree. But a lot of what he wrote feels correct. And that's sad.

Even worse in Japan.

Computers are to blame mostly.

I bet there are tons of interesting trends which will have an enormous impact on society which are known currently only to data scientists at dating websites. Probably some of the juiciest consumer data ever generated.

Mathematically, women have the same number of sexual partners on average as men (assuming that everyone is straight and all that). If you don't believe me, check it out in a toy game, it works.

By "average", I obviously mean arithmetic mean, and it assumes that there are equal numbers of men and women. If you put a bunch of red and blue dots on piece of paper and start randomly joining them up, as long as there are equal numbers of red and blue dots to start and each line connects a blue dot to a red dot, on average, there will always be the same number of lines going from and to each colour.

Could be possible.
Its bad in China too where one child policy lead to more guys which ****ed up the ratio. That lead to generations of men without a partner. They have to travel and seek women from other counties or end up with none.

Check out South Korea. Imo it is now on top of the leader boards, in suicides/s. They are rich and advanced now, but also f depressed.

Agree.


But we should also agree that we have all known a percent of guys growing up who just want meaningless sex every night if they can get it and while they would prefer someone hot, anyone willing will do.

One of my better friends from high school friends used to pronounce loudly and as crude as it is a percent of guys think this way "9 out of 10 girls are ugly and while you guys are all chasing the one good looking one, I am ****ing 9 ugly ones'. And he meant it. He was a good looking guy with lots of game who had great looking girlfriends but when single just wanted easy sex and found unattractive girls would give it to him the easiest. At bars in Uni he would go home with a hot girls one night and one of the least attractive girls the next. For him the only filter was the word 'No'. All 'yesses' were taken.

There really is no female amalgam for that where good or even decent looking girls are trolling for easy sex with ugly, no game, guys. And even the unattractive girls don't have to do it as long as they will accept sex only as there are enough good looking or decent looking guys, like my buddy, searching for easy sex.

So while theoretically the numbers match up, App's have given the more unattractive girls easy access to trade up for easy sex and many do and thus why you hear so often from them 'oh these Apps are just for hooking up'.

NO, but that is obviously how you use them.

QP, I get your point, but you don't need to "agree". It wasn't a subjective statement, it was a mathematical proof. There is literally no way you can draw lines between those dots where number of lines / number of dots is not the same for both colours.

Cuepee, you obviously were making a point about medians, not averages. Or at least I thought you were.

No.

I might well be missing the context of what d2 is saying.

The way i took his reply was one of 'technical accuracy' (thus I 'agree') but that missed the context and point.

A mistake commonly made when people think just because something it technical accurate it is therefore a correct answer to the context.

So simply saying if you have 10 girls and 10 guys and mathematically that means we have the same amount of options for sexual partners going in both directions is technically correct but very wrong in the context of this discussion.

You throw those 10 guys and 10 gals into some closed structure and have a somewhat normal mix of each (1 great looking, 2 good looking, the rest generally unattractive with no game) and you will see all 10 women getting lots of available sex. You will see the 7 less attractive guys with no game rarely, if ever getting sex.

But I may have missed d2's point.

Nah, you got it cueps. I was being technically accurate, but obviously, there is more to the story than the pure maths tells us.

Although, Rococo, it is not the median. Probably more like a harmonic mean or something.

There aren't equal numbers of men and women. Slightly more males are born. They start dying at a higher rate due to jackass style antics and other risky behaviors, and I think the ratio equalizes around high school IIRC, after which the proportion of males keeps lowering. Then you have China's one child policy which, because there are so many people in China, probably skewed the whole world's sex ratio and, by extension, fertility rate.

I don't know. If one guy has like a house and no other guy does that guy is getting some ass regardless. All other things equal, I get what you are saying, but I don't think all other things are ever equal. The model is too simplistic to be of much value.

Historically there have been bottlenecks on Y chromosome diversity. Some of these were severe bottlenecks, like some small percentage of men were literally fathering all of the children in a decent sized region. It's thought that this was the result of certain ruling clans just totally dominating primitive societies and creating caste systems filled with dudes who never got any. It obviously had nothing to do with looks or game. I think some semblance of this dynamic is why guys join frats. It's like I'm not really **** but I'm in this clan and the clan is strong so drop them panties or your family will get no grain this winter.

I am not sure what you are saying with the bolded tbh?

Anyway to be clear. Amongst men there will always be a certain percent of guys who will take sex from any women, even if they find her totally unattractive, if given no other option.

When I was in my Uni bar years, if a girl was just looking for sex and she did not manage to get picked up and leave during the business hours, all she would have to do is stick around after the bar did last call and wait. As the bar was shutting down the remaining group (mostly guys) would be all over any straggler girls still lingering hoping to get someone, anyone to go home with them. That last hour before the bar kicked you out was known as the trolling hour, and for more than one reason.

There is no similar dynamic for women. They don't have to set their sites on the most unattractive, left behind men at the bar with no game in the hopes of getting laid. They just have to say 'yes' and be open to it when it presents.

The Apps like Tinder just supercharged the good looking guys with game in their access to sex. In the prior bar setting they can only take one girl home a night and when they get that girl they go home with her even though there may have been 20 girls there who would have went with him had he been able to talk to them all.

In the Tinder age that same guy goes after all 20 of them.

My friend would open the Tinder app and never even look at a profile. He would just do his max hindered swipes 'yes' a day as the only thing he was interested in was 'who was interested in him'. If a person matched with him, he then moves to close the deal. That means the unattractive girl in the bar who may have seen him and liked him and would rarely get a chance with him at the bar, as he seemed to always get a better looking girl prior now just has to schedule a day and time, as he is taking them all.

She doesn't think of that way. She may be hopeful it could be something real that leads to a relationship or more. It may be an ego boost for her that a better looking guy wants to be with her. And that is why so often the first thing you hear from so many women who use the Apps is 'oh those sites are just for hooking up'.

No, no they are not. But it sounds like that is what you got cycled into by chasing the same 20% or so of guys who are just running numbers while ignoring the rest of guys who are not.

interesting and worthwhile topic considering I'm a mentally ill addicted to poker and alchohol. but why is this in the politics section?