[Sparks]

[ QUOTE ]
You wrote:"upwards of 30% [of players] are living sad gambling-addicted lives of misery in casinos." Where did you get that number? Even the most severe critics of gambling claim the percentage of gamblers who are addicted ranges from 1.5 to 6.5. See, for example, Robert Goodman, "The Luck Business," P. 42. I must add that Goodman was the director of The United States Gambling Study (see page vii of that book), and the book is extremely anti-gambling.

Since your number is ridiculous, your claim that the general public thinks that way is absurd.

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

My 30% number is certainly not based on any study or scientific data; it is just my impression based on my own observations and experience. Over 90% of the players in the casino I play at are losing players I would guess, and of those, many are what I would describe as consistent, significant losers. And of those significant losers, many are there at least 5 days a week, if not every day. THOSE are addicted gamblers. If you can't see that poker is addicting, and that many are in fact hopelessly addicted, then you are in denial.

A while back I considered quitting my job and playing casino poker full time. One of my house-player buddies talked me out of it, saying "Look around. How'd you like to have THESE people as the ones you see every day when going to work." He was making a point, and he was right. Presuming you've spent lots of time in poker rooms, you know what I'm talking about. Poker rooms are filled with people who are living miserable poker-addicted lives.

My estimate of 30% is a percentage of players in a poker room at any one time, which means if they are playing much more often then non-addicted "healthy" poker players, then they of course would make up a smaller overall percentage of poker players -- perhaps much smaller.

Big caveat: I play in Southern California which is nortorious for having disgraceful, rude, dealer-bashing players. And I can say that the first thing I notice when playing in Las Vegas is how civilized it is. Now that I think about it, that might put a quash on my whole argument.