I think you’re confusing cognitive dissonance with confirmation bias.

Circle of life. No sorry's. No sympathy. Only war.

You're there to make a living doing what you love and what you are good at. You didn't make them play poker poorly. You gave them odds and they accepted or declined. They gave you odds and you accepted or declined. They wanted someone to gamble with and you obliged. If not you, it would have been someone else. You aren't causing them harm in this world, they are causing themselves harm. If you don't play against them, they will continue to harm themselves. You won't prevent their harm.

You chose not to work to make someone else rich. You are doing something difficult which very few people can do. You risk your finances and mental health in a stressful environment and very few people care. You put yourself (and maybe your family) first. There is nothing wrong with that. Don't feel bad for it.

You can do good things in your free time. You can put your money to good use to help others and give to charity. It's a better use than degerately gambling away at a game you are bad at.

Another way of looking at it: These guys feel like crap for losing their money to you. Did they lose just so that you would feel like crap too? It's like you owe it to them to enjoy their money. They are upset about losing their money and you are over here upset about winning it. Don't feel guilty. Feel proud. Enjoy the money.

I have commented on this before about the morality of taking advantage of inferior players, but my attitude is that I will help anyone and everyone when I am outside of a hand (i.e between hands). If I think theybare too drunk to play, I will ask them if they want to cont6of if they should go home. If I feel they cannot afford the losses, I will gently try and get them out of the game.

100%.

However, when it comes to in hand decisions, I will play as ruthlessly as I can. If someone sucks out on me and wins, they will not give me a refund, so I am not going to slowplay them or feel pity for them. We are both taking our chances with probability. It is too late for external considerations.

It may be a weird line to draw, but mine is in hand. Outside of hands I will regularly tell people to pick up their chips and move on. I don't want to take advantage of anyone until the hand is in play.

where are you guys getting the impression that certain players cant afford to play, are using their kids college fund, rent money, last chip for the dollar menu at McD's?

It's kind of obvious. Telling signs for me or that they're buying in for very specific small amounts, a sort of desperate demeanor at the table. Maybe as a ex heroin addict I have a particularly good eye for compulsive behaviour. I can d we finally spot addiction, and addicts will go for broke, no matter what the addiction is.

It's not a moral failing, but it's not a disease either. A disease is something abnormal that generally has a cure. Addiction is absolutely normal.

Anyone who starts using heroin regularly will become addicted to it. Does that mean everyone is a heroin addict, even if they've never tried it?
If heroin addiction is a disease, then I guess I have that disease, despite having never used heroin. I don't feel sick though.

Back to the OP - when i first started taking poker seriously, and paying some bills with the money (though I still had a regular job), I played mostly 10/20 LHE at the world famous Trump Taj Mahal (where the sand turns to gold). It was full of degens, and some were regular losers who I'm sure couldn't afford the losses.

There was one guy I played with occasionally but didn't know well, whose wife would sometimes come to the table to try to get him to leave, probably hoping to get him out before he lost all his money. I don't know if he was a local or someone who stayed at the hotel, but once late at night he was playing at the same table as me and I saw his wife through the glass wall around the poker room. She was looking at him through the glass with an upset look on her face, with a little girl next to her. Maybe the girl was even crying. I can't remember for sure, I probably blocked that part out of my memory because it was the worst I ever felt while playing poker, and I left to go to bed soon after.

Another time, can't remember if it was before or after that incident, the same guy came up to me in the room and asked if he could borrow money from me, offering his watch as collateral. Remember, I didn't even know this guy well at all, so I must have been a last resort. I was stunned and trying to figure out some excuse, but then he got the loan from someone else.

Not long after that the games started dying at the Taj, so I switched to playing at Borgata, where the clientele seemed to be better off. And since then I moved up in stakes and have played almost mostly with very well off businessmen and retired people who seem to be easily able to afford their losses. I don't think I could have continued playing with people whose families were desperate for them to quit. If you're playing with people like that guy, I understand how you're feeling.

^ This -- Ever so often, you hear about clergymen or nun's running off with the offering and blowing the cash at a casino. Does a Mother Theresa look like a gambling addict?

That's obviously hyperbole, but I was trying to make your point.

The best research I've found on gambling addiction comes from Australia... on average, Aussies gamble more than anyone else in the world, so IMO they have the best data points on this topic.

The AU gov says that 1 in 7 people who wager more than once a week is.... or will become.... a gambling addict.

I think that's probably a conservative statistic. If these stats are to be believed, wouldn't you be playing with a compulsive gambler whether you realize it or not?

I think if you guys want to have this conversation, you have to expand it outside of poker. With the online sports wagering now legal in most states, I've seen a huge uptick of people pulling up their wagering apps and betting on sports during the middle of a poker game...

Am I the ******* for noticing that someone isn't paying attention to the poker game, and punishing them on the felt accordingly?

Conversely if someone is a sharp poker player, but dumping all of their money/winnings at sports... Do you feel the same "Ethical Qualms" about playing against the person, even though they may be a solid player but torching their money right in front of you by playing another game on their phone?

In this instance, the person is performing the same self-destructive habit... but no one at the table gets the money, the house gets it through the mobile gaming app.

Oh, Ive know poker experts who are gambling addicts. I'd even go as far as to say a sizeable portion of them are. Just because you find something you can beat doesn't make you any less compulsive about it. Actually, I know a few compulsive gamblers who are about on par with me skill wise and study as much as I do, but have made much more money then I have because they're willing to aggressively take shots to an extent I've never been comfortable doing.

There are also gambling addicts who have disposable income. Addiction isn't binary, there are many stages to it. Just like with drugs, some addicts are functional, some aren't. My qualms (please don't put that in bunny quotes, that's really **** patronizing. Ethics is a real thing, not some kind of generational meme) aren't about the fact that I happen to profiting off dysfunctional addicts as much as I'm party to an ecosystem that requires manipulating them. I don't feel bad about winning pots against anyone in and of itself. I do feel bad about helping maintain the illusion that the compulsive gamblers I play against aren't any different then I am.

Alot of people replied that between hands they talk to people they're concerned about, possibly warn them away from the table etc. The fact is, if you wanna win consistently, you just can't do that. You have to roll with the ecosystem. Even if the game itself isn't predatory, the ecosystem definitely is.

Malaria is a disease. I dont have it because I've never spent time in a malarial area. HIV is also a disease. Almost everyone exposed to blood on blood will contract it. I'm not gonna say I have HIV, Ive just never contracted it. Same goes with opiate addictions.

OP I just asked the mods if we should shut down the thread.

If you are going to get upset about people quoting you, then what is the point in continuing the thread?

Gambling addiction is a real thing, there's people who need help.

I know you think this thread is about you. It's not.

It's about the countless number of gambling addicts who will read this thread, and hopefully decide to get help.

Caring if the fish will have something to eat after the game is the most stupid **** ever.

Just don't play poker, go to med school. Become a doctor of the Red Cross, save all the children and poor people in the middle of a war.

I do think it's pretty hard to recognize problem gambling in a poker game. In the example you gave, this only hit you when you saw the guy's child, and children aren't supposed to even be allowed in casinos.

As a counter-example:
About 10 years ago, I was playing 20/40 LHE late night at Borgata in AC. I get moved from the must-move to the main game, and notice the player to my left has a very short stack. He quickly gets this stack in, loses, and rebuys for $200 (obviously a very short buy-in at 20/40 LHE).

He proceeds to play very loose/aggressive, almost immediately getting this $200 in, losing it, and buying in for another $200. At some point his wife or girlfriend joins him, sitting right behind him. After about the 4th time, he puts what looks like his last $200 on the table.

He loses this too, and asks his girlfriend for some money. She looks annoyed, ruffles through her purse, and finds a single $100 bill. It's less than the min buy-in for the game, but no one seems to mind. It strikes me that this might be the last money this guy's family has....but the very next hand I get dealt AK, what can I do? I win the guy's $100 getting it in by the flop.

The guy storms off but asks the dealer to save his seat, leaving the girl behind. I doubt anyone at the table really expected to see him again, but he ends up returning about 15 minutes later...and slams two shrink-wrapped bricks of $100,000 each on the table. So what do I know, deal him in lol!

Speaking for myself, poker allows me to do what I want, and for the most part when I want, without answering to anyone (again, for the most part). You have no boss to answer to, and not all the responsibilities that come with owning a business. Being an investor is similar, but requires a lot more smarts, time and money. I'm happy playing once or twice a week. But you're right, it's not very profitable compared to other things.

Poker is a game. But it's not "intended" to do anything but separate others from their money. Poker being entertainment is a recent take on the game not supported by its history.

Lol, great story. How many chips did he buy?

Maybe you never played at the Taj, but their room was at the edge of the building, very near the main hotel desk. People walked right by it to get into the building from one of the parking areas, so outside the poker room was a general area with no gambling where children were allowed.

sound like Limo Manny , he would do this in nyc games , min buy in and then get tilted and buy in for a ridic amount. he had plenty of street money

Got it, so you were just talking out of your ass then, which was obvious. You couldn't equate poker to the first set of examples given to your BS or disprove that they provide value to their communities, unlike playing poker for a living. Instead, you rambled on about some unrelated BS. These may be 'low paying' jobs, but the first 3 have potential for some growth and fantastic benefits and pension plans, unlike a PPP, and they all pay better than 90% of the PPP's and online rake back grinders. That is not taking away from the 10% or so of PPP that do make good money, and give back to society as well.

It is only a small percentage that is sensationalized to the general public and therefore idolized, forgetting about the vast majority that are miserable and broke. There is nothing wrong with playing cards for a living, but it provides no benefit to society and stop equating it to real world jobs and professions. It is ridiculously myopic.

Obviously, it's subjective, even among experts.

I tend to set the bar lower for gambling addiction as most degen gambling is almost akin to self harm. There is nothing positive about it. For some, the objective is to lose money as self punishment. Most people should never degen gamble. It's probably fine to do it a few times in your life, on vacation, but it's really not that fun and you risk a highly destructive addiction.

Poker is more like alcohol, in that it has some positive traits. It can be a social game, though this is diminishing. It is an interesting strategy game. You can even win at it.

Maybe poker has evolved to where it's less like running a winery and more like running a liquor store on skid row.

People having fun and socializing is a lot less a part of the game. 20 years after the boom, the loosing player's who've stuck it out are down massive amounts. They also have less chance than ever of winning.

Some can afford it, in that they aren't going to be homeless. But their lives are quite a bit worse because of poker. Like, instead of having a paid off house, they rent an apartment. Or they have no savings.

Otoh, you can apply this to a lot of businesses. Owning a regular bar, a fast food joint, a gun store, working in social media... all of these are at least as destructive to some customers as poker.

If a gambling addict doesn't have a poker game to play in, he's going to go lose it to a casino instead. Makes much more sense to lose it to me and he might not even lose.

Not upset, more sardonic. I guess things like that don't come across in typing. Either way, your sudden compassion for gambling addicts is surprising. Have t you been elaborating about how whatever they're going through isn't your problem? You did accidentally make a really good point though. They do need help, and unlike almost every other kind of addiction, the help they need is largely unavailable. There's no detox for gambling addiction. Heroin addicts have Suboxone, alcoholics have Librium. The only thing gambling addicts have is cognitive behavioral therapy, and the jury's still out on whether or not that's ******** or not. Even if somebody could avoid literally gambling at casinos, how do you help them manage their high risk behaviour? Take away one form of gambling, they'll likely find another. It's an elusive target because it's so hard to define.

CBT is considered to be one of the most effective talk therapy modalities currently known. Research shows it’s often just as effective as psychotropic medications.

You sure like to rattle off some psychobabble but seem to only have a rudimentary understanding of what you’re saying.

Yeah CBT is considered incredibly effective.... By people on your side of the debate. There's a whole other side that calls it pseudo science. Idk enough about it to have a truly informed opinion. Theoretically it seems sound, so I guess it depends on the therapist and the patient? There still IS a debate though. Lacanian psychoanalysts think it's complete nonsense (as they do with any form of behavioral therapy) as the idea of changing and classifying behaviour goes against their precepts. Some doctors of the RX generation also knock it, but it's hard to take them seriously after all the damage they helped do with the Sackler thing.

So yeah I don't know either way, but I do know it's a controversial practice.

You don’t know what “side of the debate” I fall on. Especially when, again, there really is no debate when it is widely accepted as effective. Sure, you can find naysayers for literally anything but that doesn’t mean everything is up for debate.

CBT isn’t viewed as pseudoscience, all of psychology is. And, frankly, it almost all is if you’re looking at it in the framework of hard sciences. The only exception to the pseudoscience in psychology is probably the assessment component. That tends to be much more scientific in the methodology for test construction.

I'm not talking about the anti-psychology attitudes held by some hard science, I'm specifically referring to the skepticism regarding CBT held by many psychoanalysts. This dates back to debates regarding Skinner and behaviouralism in general, but psychoanalyst groups like Apres-Coup are argued vigorously that CBT is conceptually fraudulent. I l haven't formed an opinion on this because I think the basis of the criticism is misleading - Lacanian psychoanalysis was never a form a therapy in the first place.

Just saying, there is more of a debate going on then you seem be aware of. Maybe not so much in the mainstream of practicing psychologists, but in academia. I assumed you're on the side that advocates for CBT because you commented about it's effectiveness.

FWIW, there's also an anti CBT trend among the 'woke,' types, who generally believe that pretending problems don't exist makes them go way as opposed to facing them. No reason to get into that though, they're not really worth taking seriously. But Lacanians are, and you might just find with worth your time to look into their arguments.