John DalyThe guy is not buying the idea that he must now do complete abstinence, which makes me think he didn't go the Gambler's Anonymous route. Expressing some regret, not much, and a claim he quit the high roller bit. We'll see.
He is definitely the guy who nearly broke the bank at the Greenbrier a few years ago [but a loser overall I don't doubt in the slightest]
I don't think he has anything to high roll with.
I agree, he is not a guy with control over such a thing any other way. Beloved golfer though.
One Field Sobriety TestONM's blogpost got me thinking about the one field sobriety test I took in my "career" ... my career of driving under the influence, now over. There's 'somebody up there' who was looking out for me, and he's probably in trouble, as there has to be up there as well those who would say I richly deserved the opposite treatment.
There is one, one!, solitary time I got pulled over. I had made a two lane change to get to an exit I almost missed, and it was a bad place to pull that stunt. I was leaving a racetrack* that was new to me, and it turns out the state police had a station near the track. That's a bad situation, and yes I was later quite mad at my friends who forgot to tell me that; of course the gendarmes naturally decide that they want to nail each and every drunk driver who exits the track.
And I had put away plenty. Martinis. Yet I knew I was OK, and passed the test, including the breathalyzer. The cop was slowly realizing it all along I guess, and when I blew into the tube he said "you've had maybe a couple of drinks" or somesuch, and let me go. Today I feel I can say that the thing that saved me has to be, has to be!, that the bar there was serving watered-down booze. I certainly had more than two in a short enough period of time too; I should have blown something close to the limit on the basis of how many I had.** Somebody looked out for me.
PS: people say 'zero point 8' but it is actually 0.08 and actually I suspect a % sign belongs there too. Looking it up now, of course, and having trouble confirming the % thing. But 0.08 without the % sign means 8 percent, and I think that would kill you.***
*going to racetracks for me back in the day resulted in a bad experience nearly every time. It finally turned me against gambling generally for the longest time. Somebody up there was giving me a message.
**edited - ... depends on time and your weight, one drink being equal to another, and a lot of things, but 4 every hour is more accurate apparently [don't quote me]. My edit is to say I think now that 4 per hour, the first hour, will get you to 0.08 'depending' on this and that, but after that only 1 drink per hour will maintain you at 0.08 That's putting it away. I hear some states are tightening up the 0.08 thing too
*** Edit: yes the % sign belongs there. And 8% is what a strong beer is, so of course it would kill you, as would 1%.
Everyone thinks they were so bad driving after having a few, but I'm beginning to think we're pretty much lied to about what really drunk driving is, and we've probably never done it or just once or twice. Of course then, there is the statistics, but beyond just drunk driving, I don't think they ever subtract bad driving. In other words, the people are drunk, but the drunken part never really played a significant factor, but took all the blame. Some day I'll waste money on a portable breathalyzer device, so I'll presumably never worry again. Accuracy matters though, I'd hate to just assume .07 is good, when the police instrument might read .08 or .09.
I think if you think you might blow 0.07 it's time to take the advice of those who say "don't take the field sobriety test, or blow into the tube"
I'd say though if you've had, say, 4-5 drinks but over a period of hours [not just one hour], and you were eating too, a guy can assume he'll do OK and take the test and blow into the tube too, but that depends on your weight as well, and being aware some drinks that count as two for one, like the way martinis generally are made
Lying, Mendacity, and Justifiable DeceptionIt always stuns me a bit to come across a gambler who would condemn all deception but the the types where virtually everyone gives license, such as telling a Hatfield on a killing spree you are in his family when you are in fact a McCoy. It just seems a gambler automatically is thrust into a world of at least some degree of deceit as gamesmanship - to offer or accept a bet means to expect to win the bet, those not fitting that description belonging to some other category than "gambler", even if the expectation is based purely on wishing for luck. And to be sure, if some element favoring his side of the bet can be hidden, all the better almost universally. After all, someone winning a poker hand because he was bluffing is held in admiration by other poker players, perhaps excepting the victim.
So if there are types of deception, one can not look at it as a black or white thing.
Here I'll skip any further examination of Justifiable Deception other than to say there's no guarantee there's agreement in all cases.
Mendacity is a difficult gray area. Although when you look the word up, you usually find a pretty simple definition, perhaps just "lying", I have found it usually is used for cases where people use deception in the conduct of their business. And it seems it is always used to condemn, yet there also usually an underlying implied admission that such is normal or partly accepted, thus the choice of this word rather than "lying". For example, accepted sales practices have the seller pretty much only mentioning the positives and none of the negatives. If a realtor selling a house were to include statements such as "the roof hasn't been replaced in 25 years" "all the appliances convey but are truly ancient" "we all know this type of siding is the worst kind" he might not have excluded a thing else bad there is to say, but is guaranteeing a terrible reaction from the buyer. One of the reasons for that is in fact that the buyer expects the opposite; if anything at all negative comes to light from the seller, he assumes he is only viewing the tip of the iceberg and that the truth is much worse!
I have always said the insurance business is so steeped in Mendacity, for centuries now, that there is no hope that this can ever change. Yet all their practices are completely accepted by society, with little push today for changes. Most of the financial world has the same problem as well, even your local banks.
So when a gambler says he deplores lying and will have none of it, I say I have to admire the person; if he deplores all the gray area and condemns all of it, whether he is involved or not, I have to wonder. Just saying.
A man who lies over drinks has many friends.
A man who lies about drinking does not.
As a Ranger, you learn this simple creed. You can lie all you want ABOUT the Rangers to others but never lie to a Ranger or an Officer.
As Judge Judy says, telling the truth means its okay to have a bad memory.
A mendicant's views on mendacity.
YouTube womens channel features professional poker player having bad luck at cards and with babysitter. Finally its five in the morning at high stakes game in Beverly Hills and her kid gets dropped off for poker daycare by fed up babysitter. Amid usual disputes host says get out of my game, that's a forfeit but players prevail upon him to let her finish the hand. As is the little kid's habit he wants to peek at her hand prior to being set up in the corner with coloring book and orange juice. She whispers to him briefly. Then after going all in on her final bet he host thinks she is bluffing rather than slow playing and she asks permission to go take a pee during which time the host asks the little kid to draw thecards he saw in her hand with the other players generally criticizing him. Kid draws two aces and host surrenders his two kings to what is actually he
r single ace. She anticipated the cheating and prompted the kids response. So who was more honorable.
AI poker programs learn to bluff....but not consistently.
Tuscany had website saying 'the odds are in your favor'...I threatened to go to the gaming board. Website was down in two days. lying??
More Home Poker ThoughtsWe get a friendly game going about once a month, very low stakes.
In this kind of game I usually drink, many times not caring too much if I'm not playing all that well as long as I'm having a good time. In the September game I was well buzzed though, and wound up losing my buy-in plus a bit more, which really shouldn't happen considering the caliber I'm up against. So I had to wonder how much it had to do with the boozing. Clearly not drinking at all is the best way to go generally, however, the dynamics of poker can be weird and in a strange way the drinking can help in some of the factors too, specifically, others' ability to 'read' you. Daniel Negreanu blogged about this once, though that would be hard to find now.
In any case I decided for the October game that I would hardly drink at all and see what happens. I was really focused on staying alert and applying all I knew to do. When I did finally have a beer it was one of those really strong ones that are almost as strong as wine, and I could tell just this one 12 oz beer was having an effect on how well I was playing. I was in this strange zone where I knew I had to focus and could tell exactly the degree to which I was distracted. Overall I still had it together and wound up not quite doubling my buy-in; maybe even I hit it just right, with people finding me hard to read.
Some say not drinking to excess the night before is even more important, but in any case I think I can say for me the closer I stick to one beer the better.
This is why I like to drink when I gamble... I have enough willpower to know that stupid decisions are made when drunk, so when I get tipsy enough it's a sign to walk away from the table and take a break. If I never drank I would just sit at the table until all my money was gone.* The alcohol gives me built in rest periods.
*By "all my money" I just mean my bankroll for the trip, not my life savings.
With friends and low stakes, I'd say the booze is a must. For real stupidity, you want to try gambling online deep into the night while glugging stupid amounts of JD. It makes for some interesting OMG moments when you wake up an realise what you did the night before. ( Fear not, I'm still in budget and have accounts locked up tight as a drum with deposit limits )
yes, which night of the two was most fun? I swear a poker night is one hell of an argument for what's good about drinking ... one that goes counter to the idea that you don't have to drink to have fun. And I have fun playing poker sober too, depending on what my luck is like undeniably. I've counted and a player can expect to see maybe 40 hands in our particular game - there is socializing, eating, and a long cigar break too - and definitely it's not an all night thing. With that many hands it's possible to have crap for starting hands each time. Sober, I just fold instantly, but drinking ...
I think most of these nights you'll see me plan to only have one or two drinks with a frequent lapse into something past that
In poker, I am a strong believer in the importance of Awareness and Adapting. If you drink and get a buzz in a social game (where lots of other people are drinking) then I think that it is not a big problem as long as your are aware of your loss of persistent focus and adapt to it as well as adapting to the impaired playing of everyone around you.
In regards to doing poorly in your September game, remember that even the best players in the world do poorly in a significant fraction of their tournaments. Lady Luck is a bitch.
I assume its normal variance.
Is this just one table and all guys or is this a monthly home poker night with multiple tables? Too much booze will slowly make the females stop showing up.
If you want to slow your booze intake but not be obvious, try a different type of nachos/chilli/etc.
Thanks for all the comments
fleastiff, it's one table, up to 8 guys [and at least 5], women welcome but none have given the idea the slightest consideration, I don't believe.
Nope. Unless you've scrubbed the table, the kitchen, the bathroom, the ash trays, etc. women are not welcome and that is fine. Guys poker night. The sandwiches are either 'green' or 'brown'. That's okay.
But withloout fresh fish, how do you sustain the game. Don't you learn each others tells etc.
Anyway, we all think the incident you described was normal variance but if indeed something has been happening with your metabolism and alcohol, it is certainly best you find out about it at home in a fairly friendly game rather than in a casino or a casino's poker room.
Zinc and Bvitamin status is important, so of course is water intake. It can affect your response to that 'one beer'.
We all know someone like thisGamblers especially all know someone like this
My dear friend, sadly I have to conclude you are that guy, the guy who screws everybody he ever dealt with. I hope you don't take satisfaction from it, as it will be your Ruin. Nobody who matters will ever trust you. Dishonesty is your calling card, and Failure is your domain. You're young, you could turn it around, but you won't. You're main-lining the Wrong Set of Values, the addiction to which it seems few ever kick.
I was reflecting on that this morning.
I think it comes down to what the gambler is trying to achieve, and how much control he has towards staying steady on that goal.
I used to play to win - all that mattered to me. I won a lot for many years, then I started to lose. When I started to lose, I quit - I had no interest in gambling if it didn't mean winning. I quit for over a decade, I mean didn't even gamble a nickel, literally no gambling at all.
I very recently started getting back into it, partly I suppose because I wanted extra excitement, partly I suppose because I have more money than I know what to do with these days. I reopened some large casino credit lines, just as large as the ones I used to have, but my goal these days is just to have fun and play for comps. I am not trying to hit a home run, just trying to stay even or a little ahead. Even if I lose a little I don't chase it, I just stop for a day or two, and when I go back I tend to win it all back with relative ease, because I am coming back from a small loss, not a large one, and in a clear state of mind, not a loss chasing one. Plus my attitude is that even if I lose some, still it would be a free trip given all they are comp'ing me.
I maintain the large lines because the casinos are more apt to comp me with a large line even for the identical play if I did not have such a large line.
So far, it has worked out.
There is a difference between wanting to win and being the type of guy who induces everyone to check their rings and wristwatches after a handshake.
Shot takers and outright liars are never trusted, but they are often rich.
I'm certainly not talking about a guy whose only fault is he just wants to win