So you win some serious money.

[Talking Poker]

But if you started with a $100 deposit that you were going to lose for fun and this happened, wouldn't you need to lose the entire $65k in order for it to be fun?

I'm being serious here - I totally don't get you. When you turn $100 into $1000, you have to lose the $1000. So, what's the difference here? When you build your roll up to $1000, you go sit in the 3/6 NL games until you lose it all, so if you built your roll up to $65,000, I have to assume you would be playing at least 25/50 NL until you blew it all, right?

If not, what' the difference? If it's that $1000 is meaningless to teamSWA and $65k isn't, where does teamSWA draw the line? $10k? $50k? At what point are you able to set aside the gambling problem and treat money as if it's actual money, and not "found money" that is not only ok to lose, but MEANT to be lost?

Again, I'm not trying to be a jeark here - I'm trying to understand, since you are contradicting yourself so much.

[BrianSwa]

I said in the thread is was very bad judgement in my part what else do you want?

[Talking Poker]

Wait, what?

All I remember was you going on and on about how you deposit money for fun and it's fun to lose and when you win you need to lose what you won and so on and so forth.....

[BrianSwa]

and I still agree it was horrible judgement, what can I say?