Gambling Addiction

[Vinetou]

[ QUOTE ]
I really find it hard to believe that any winning player is addicted. I'd put the number at 20% tops.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the opposite is true. I am certainly addicted.

[WhiteKnight]

I think the opposite is true as well.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
I really find it hard to believe that any winning player is addicted. I'd put the number at 20% tops.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then explain how it is that guys like Brunson, Negreanu, Ivey, Lindgren, et al basically gamble on everything they do?

[Henry17]

[ QUOTE ]
Then explain how it is that guys like Brunson, Negreanu, Ivey, Lindgren, et al basically gamble on everything they do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because people gamble that doesn't mean they are addicted. I've played cards almost every day for the last 15 years but I'm not an addict. Addicted implies a lack of agency or control over their choices. I enjoy gambling. I gamble a lot. I don't feel any compulsion to gamble though so I'm not an addict. This last Sunday I did not like any of the NFL games so I had zero action. An addict would have forced a bet on something.

Anyone who is an addict is, by definition, not in control. Someone who is not in control can never be a long term successful gambler. I don't know the people listed personally so I can't be 100% certain, but everything I do know about them, implies that they are in full control of their choices.

I had been playing at a B&M with a group of guys and then we decided to go out to a bar. While we were getting cleaned up and pre-drinking at one of their houses we started playing fooseball for $1k a game. Guy #1 lost $11k to Guy #2. After 2 games it was clear Guy #1 had no chance of winning vs Guy #2. Both were doing the same act but Guy #2 was a smart gambler while Guy #1 is an addict.

[Actual God]

100%

[Milo]

The word "addiction" is the problem here. Psychologists (including me) don't diagnose "Gambling Addiction." The official disorder is "Pathological Gambling." This is not just semantics, it is a meaningful difference. The key elements are loss of control and harm to your life in some way.

This means that PG can be diagnosed even in a once a month gambler, but also means that many daily gamblers who can't wait to get back to the table may not have PG (although undoubtedly some do).

It is also possible to have a PG problem in some aspects of your gambling life, but not others. The are MANY cases of solid, +EV poker players who gamble pathologically on craps or sports.

[Belok]

[ QUOTE ]
The word "addiction" is the problem here. Psychologists (including me) don't diagnose "Gambling Addiction." The official disorder is "Pathological Gambling." This is not just semantics, it is a meaningful difference. The key elements are loss of control and harm to your life in some way.

This means that PG can be diagnosed even in a once a month gambler, but also means that many daily gamblers who can't wait to get back to the table may not have PG (although undoubtedly some do).

It is also possible to have a PG problem in some aspects of your gambling life, but not others. The are MANY cases of solid, +EV poker players who gamble pathologically on craps or sports.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hey Milo, I think your avatar is a big buff bug flexing - am i a pathological gambler? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Albert Moulton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I really find it hard to believe that any winning player is addicted. I'd put the number at 20% tops.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then explain how it is that guys like Brunson, Negreanu, Ivey, Lindgren, et al basically gamble on everything they do?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are skilled professional gamblers who have sufficient skill to give them a "vigorish" over their competition in the games they play. And since they have a sufficient bankroll to cover the variance, they eventually win money in the long run in just the same way that the house wins money at roullette, craps, and similar house games with a built-in vig.

You would need to define what you mean by "addiction" to get a good response to your question. Problem gambling generally involves lack of control of some kind. A problem gambler plays at games and at levels in which he is virtually guaranteed to lose - but he steals or borrows to continue gambling anyway. None of the pros you mention seem to be problem gamblers. On the other hand, a guy like Stu Unger was obviously a great poker player who was addicted to drugs and other forms of gambling at which he was less skilled. He died busto in a hotel room. I'd say he was an addict.

On the other hand, if by "addicted" you mean "someone who plays many hours, thinks about gambling all the time, and puts his personal relationships at risk because of the time he devouts to gambling," then many pro gamblers are probably "addicts" to some degree. But that is a poor definition of "addiction," IMO.

[underthesky]

I was definately born as a gambling addict - I used to get my parents to buy me lottery cards all the time. I remember crying in the back of our car as an 8-year-old because they wouldn't buy me this big new expensive scratch card. I always had the urge to gamble after that but I was too young to be able to.

Then I was introduced to poker. This was the game I'd been looking for - every hand and every street was a gamble. I was truly addicted. I'm still addicted to gambling today, though only if I think it's +EV.

[OnYourBike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then explain how it is that guys like Brunson, Negreanu, Ivey, Lindgren, et al basically gamble on everything they do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because people gamble that doesn't mean they are addicted. I've played cards almost every day for the last 15 years but I'm not an addict....

[/ QUOTE ]

You're addicted. It's a game of cards.