![]() |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Well, frankly, I don't know if this is necessarily a bad thing, but I've been especially cognizant of it, of late. While poker (gambling, in general, actually) used to give me a thrill (objectively speaking), I now find that it has the opposite effect, in that I actually find it soothing. Here's a dumb, but relevant anecdote: I recently took the NY bar exam, which required 8 to 10 hours / day of studying the most mind-numbingly boring material you can imagine for 6 to 8 weeks. To be blunt, I wanted to kill someone at the end of each day (usually myself; sometimes others); I would fly off the handle at the slightest provocation, and threw plenty of temper tantrums that would have made a 4-year old proud.
And what did I find most soothing at the end of long, frustrating study sessions? Why, opening up a few tables, and putting a ton of money at risk. And after a big losing session, I found myself asking how on Earth I could possibly feel relieved after just suffering 4-figure, sometimes 5-figure losses. Yes, that's right, I actually felt more at peace playing some of the highest stakes poker available than when reading a big fat book of corporate law. And it got me to thinking that I never used to feel like this -- e.g. I remember being a 3/6 grinder not too long ago, and I'd get really excited opening up 6 or 8 tables...and it's a bit strange that as I've moved up in stakes, that sense of excitement has been somewhat replaced by a soothing calm...I guess a little bit like a heroin junkie needs higher and higher doses to get his 'fix'...not a perfect analogy, of course, but one that concerned me a bit, and got me wondering whether, despite my protestations that I haven't let gambling negatively affect my life, it might be working its effects at a more subtle level >> e.g. by muting my emotional reactions to various life events...I made a related post here about how I felt like I was becoming somewhat 'emotionally sterile' because of my progression to high-stakes. And I wonder if it's needing to feel the "high" that has contributed to it... What I guess you could say "concerns" me most about it, is that it's a classic problem-gambler mindset. In fact, while we're on that note, the fact of the matter is that I exhibit a TON of the classic "compulsive gambler" traits (which was turned into a 2+2 poll here .) The only thing that keeps me from assigning myself the label of "problem gambler"? The fact that I'm a fairly substantial winner. If I were a losing player, I don't think there's any doubt that I'd easily qualify as a classic problem/compulive-gambler. (Then again, if I were a demonstrable losing player, I'm pretty sure I would have quit long ago.) So doesn't this all beg the question: should the mere fact that I'm a winning player allow me to escape the pejorative "compulsive-gambler" classification? The reference to someone as a "problem" gambler shouldn't really be contingent on whether or not he's a winner, should it? Oh well, that's another Q for another time...don't want to stray too far from the original topic, which is about the "high" I derive from it all... Comment at will. |
|
|