It's just putting risk-reward assessment together with impatience - something our society's practically built on doing - so why pretend it doesn't or shouldn't exist?

Because, without a doubt, it's potentially dangerous - that's why..
No.. Really..? So's doing 70 miles an hour inside a 2 ton metal box
on wheels but we all do it and cars are cool so that's ok.

I love driving. I do it all the time and depend on it to get around. I'd get withdrawal symptoms if I didn't do it too..

Chronic fatigue from running everywhere, not as much time in the day, general boredom, plus I might get flattened by someone smart enough to actually use a car.. Pretty sure I'm addicted to it but it's ok, I'm safe because it's socially acceptable. Phew.

We rely on loads of stuff we don't really understand. Electricity, computers, phones, even food! What if any of it just stopped? When was the last time you raised cattle, launched a satellite or built a power station?

I'm gonna be honest - I don't know a huge amount about getting metal dishes into space that float around, pointing at the planet so I can send my voice anywhere I want in half a second whenever I feel like it.

But I can! Because some smart mother hubbard's gone and done it already!

If addiction is a dependence on or a compulsion to do something, then I'm putting my phone and those other things on my list too, way above poker.

But they're so engrained in our way of life, they don't count, aren't worth worrying about and/or so what? Wtf are you on about? - Good question..

All of those things have an easily observable purpose. That's why we do them and that's why it's "OK" to be addicted to them because we can see that purpose pretty clearly.

The purpose of playing poker isn't as obvious..
But it's there and I'll get to it in a bit.

It's in your head, that's the problem..

Unless you're one of those people that can see inside their heads - a liar - it's harder to spot. The only time you really can see it is when you're not doing it.

Addiction's a massive part of technological life. Everyone's addicted to something. And if, by some miraculously balanced behaviour, people manage to be addicted to nothing, then they're either addicted to avoiding addiction, Buddha, or asleep.

No, we're not all heroin addicts. I don't think the world's doomed. There's different levels and definitions of addiction – I've read about it on my internets and Wikipedia hasn't lied to me yet. It might start telling porkies for a laugh once we make A.I. and it's conscious but apparently we're not there yet – so says Wikipe.. /gasp

There's nothing wrong with playing poker. And more importantly,
there's nothing wrong with us if we enjoy playing poker.

Poker puts us in a free, competitive and above all active state of mind. And that's a cool feeling. You're switched on and engaged in what you're doing and the people you're doing it with. Compared to something passive like watching TV, your brain activity's off the chart.

It's an intense experience.

Unfortunately that intensity's addictive - it's really easy to want more without thinking about where it really comes from. And knowing that is hugely important but I don't think it's a reason to avoid poker altogether. - Incidentally, I'm pretty sure I learned this by playing too much poker..

You've got to keep it in perspective. The further into poker you get,
the more difficult it becomes to see why you're doing it.

But keeping a balanced point-of-view is always difficult when money's involved.

There aren't many things more addictive than money..

And poker offers a unique and undeniably attractive opportunity to make some extra cash by enjoying yourself and not putting any monumental - physical - effort into what you're doing.

That's why we start playing. It might not be the wisest reason but it's a good one.

It's not lazy or immoral. If anything it's smart and opportunistic but it still isn't wise. Why not? Because money's the biggest distraction there is from the real benefits of playing.

When you go to watch a film, do you sit there thinking about the money you just 'lost' to the cinema? Or do you watch and engage in the film..? - But poker's better than the cinema, right? You might get your ticket-price back. With interest. And enjoy the "film"..

The film isn't always good though. Sometimes it's a bag
of shite - a complete waste of time and money.

Then what do you do? Run back in and watch other films until one of them's amazing? - Great plan. Even if you find a good one, you probably won't watch it properly or enjoy it as much.

Purpose is basically “what can be gained from doing it”.
I (now) consider money an incidental bonus.

I don't play enough for it to be anything else.

I don't really want to. I've played routinely before and I can go back to it whenever I feel like it but it's almost a job that way. Bankroll-watching replaces the things which are actually worth caring about like the people and, frankly, me.

What people are thinking and how their actions are affected by yours is infinitely interesting. Agonising over your next move having a positive long-term expectation isn't.

Poker's an exercise in understanding people,
self-awareness and decision-making.

Three things I reckon it's worth being good at.

It's a place you can freely practice balancing them. Everyone's focused on the same thing and the environment's so simple - nothing but numbers. You're plugging yourself into a really pure and precise model of competitive human interaction that you can learn a lot from.

Mainly because, according to evolution, the reality of life isn't massively different. Poker's artificial and our planet isn't but "survival of the fittest" is the mechanism for both. Even though half the time in poker it seems like "survival of the most coincidentally fortunate.."

Philosophy question: Is there any difference?

Some people think there isn't - that there can't be any real free behaviour and that choice is an illusion. They might prefer the second definition because "fittest" implies unique abilities or something truly 'creative' that we've done or thought.

"Which is impossible because we're only another
(really complicated) logical part of the same system."

I can never bring myself to accept that view entirely but for those that can, good on them, that's their choice.. Or is it?

If any of that sounds vaguely familiar or you've already started thinking 'that sounds Matrixy', that's because it does. The concepts of causality - cause & effect - and choice are
a pretty major point of those films.

It's something you can write about forever because there's no real answer, only points-of-view - think that's what makes it philosophy - so I'll stop because I've gone on way too long anyway. Might go play poker.