Tuesday, Sept 19: "Poker Chose Me"
Whew, the last few posts were a bit of an emotional drainer; needed a bit of a break, hence the 10-day layoff.
Thought I'd go back to a few interesting nuggets from "The Professor, the Banker, and the Suicide King" which I recently read. Don't worry: no spoilers here, although it's not really the type of book with twists that can be "spoiled". But if you want to go in 100% fresh, you can stop reading now. Here are a few bits that I found pretty interesting.
1) Inside the mind of Andy Beal
I've always liked reading biographies and autobiographies of successful people, and I found this Andy Beal character just fascinating. Now one of the richest men in the world, he didn't take the 'traditional' route to get there -- there was a great chapter in the book that describes how, at the age of 22 (I think....it was definitely at a remarkably young age), he found himself sitting at a real estate auction, about to bid a few hundred thousand dollars on an apartment building that he figured he could fix up and re-sell for a profit. Now, before you think that he was some sort of real estate prodigy, he had never done anything like that before, and in fact was surrounded in the auction room by middle-age men, most representing huge investment funds and real estate corporations. And there he was -- just a 22-year old college dropout who had never bought so much as a tool shed, with no more sophisticated a thought than "hmmm...seems like this apartment building is worth more than they're asking". He candidly admits that he had no idea what he was doing, but if there's a common theme to all the biographies of successful people I've read it's that they nearly unanimously agree that "if they had knowns what they know now when they were just starting out, they never would have taken the risks or made the decisions they did." So much of our culture reminds us to "look before we leap" (and god knows I see enough of the risk-averse mindset among my law school peers), but I can't help but find it fascinating that so many of the world's most successful people claim that it was their willingness to diverge from that well-worn mantra that laid the foundation for all of their eventual success.
2) Pros = perpetually bust-o.
This really took me by surprise. Almost without exception, all the pros who were interviewed agreed that evereyone -- that's e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e -- goes broke at some point in their poker careers. Each of the pros freely admitted that it had happened to them too, usually many times. There are even rumors that right now, as we speak, pros like Mike Matusow, TJ Cloutier and others are flat broke and only manage to play some of the bigger games because they're being staked by other pros (sidebar: who in their right mind would stake a broke poker pro!!??) How could this happen? I mean: I can't picture myself EVER going broke. Sure, I immediately lost the first $200 I deposited when I played online, but I don't really count that as being "broke"...what these pros were describing was losing their entire playing bankroll well into their professional careers. I can't help but wonder how (if these are indeed intelligent poker professionals) they could run through their entire playing bankrolls. Greg Raymer weighed in on this issue and suggested that he thought that theories of appropriate bankroll management are relatively new, and have really grown out of the internet poker phenomenon, which has allowed teenagers to accumulate as many hands of poker as has Doyle Brunson in his entire lifetime. That accelerated learning curve, goes the argument, has also accelerated the development of sound bankroll management strategies, which weren't really commonly known to the professionals of yore. Still, though, I really was taken aback by this idea that everyone goes broke from time to time. I guess it also depends on what your definition of "broke" is, and the author of the book does caution the reader that "broke" to a poker pro means something very different than to the rest of us. Hmmm....the above section didn't come out as clearly as I wished it had, b/c I feel like i have a lot of interesting things to say about the topic. Maybe another time...
One story that kind of warmed my heart in a schadenfreude (sp?) kind of way was Jennifer Harman's description of succeeding at the mid-to-high limit games, but always getting her clock cleaned whenever she tried moving up to the really high games. This cycle repeated itself at least a half-dozen times, where she would build up her bankroll, only to lose it all and have to build it up at the lower-stakes games again. Until she finally broke through and never looked back, and is now considered the top female cash game player in the world. I've heard complaints by so many friends and acquaintances that they can't beat a certain stakes level, which typically take the form of: "I don't get it -- I beat the (X) game consistently, but every time I try to step up to the (X+1) game, I give it all back, even though the players seem just as bad, and I'm so fed up with it, and can't figure it out." It was somewhat reassuring to read Harman's account and know that top players are not immune from the phenomenon either.
3) Jennifer Harman: "Poker chose me"
There was one quote from the book that resonated with me far more than any other: When Jennifer Harman was once asked why she chose to pursue poker for a living, she replied "I didn't. Poker chose me." I don't know if any other soundbite has ever summarized my feelings about poker more precisely and succinctly as did this one. Yes, it's true that I didn't really start playing hold'em seriously until 2004 -- I guess that would make me a relative Johnny-come-lately in this world, but I don't lump myself in with this new generation of poker-boomers who jumped on the poker bandwagon post-Moneymaker. Gambling has always flowed in my blood from a very young age. I still remember going to Vegas for the first time when I was about 11, walking through the Mirage's gambling floor and being thoroughly entranced by all the casino games. The flashing lights and carnival sounds, the way people so cavalierly pulled money out of their pockets in thick wads; how that green paper life-force that seemed to wield such power outside the casino's doors -- that people argued, married, and killed over -- could be splashed about with such reckless abandon. Every chance I got, I would sneak from our room upstairs down to the casino floor and stand in the aisles watching women play slots or spin the money wheel, until security inevitably came and told me that I couldn't stand there. Eventually I figured out that as long as I was 'moving', they wouldn't hassle me, so I learned to slow my gait to a pace that would let me watch a few full spins; and I practiced feigning a confused expression of being lost that allowed me to stand in one place with being hassled by security. It was all just so mesmerizing. I learned how to count cards at 18 and would make trips to the casino every couple weeks, and still keep count just by force of habit whenever I play blackjack, which is rarely these days. 5 years later, along came poker, which for the first time ever gave me a sense of "This is it! This is what all my experiences to this point have been preparing me for: A psychology / probability major with gambling flowing deep in my veins, and a stronger-than-usual attraction to 'get-rich-quick' schemes. All the poker boom did for me was bring to my attention this perfect complement for my existing skill set.
All in all, I think the book was a worthwhile read -- my only criticism is that it didn't really get too much into the psychology of the players...I mean, Andy's whole rationale for challenging the pros to very high stakes games was to make the amounts so high, that it took the pros out of their 'comfort zones' and get them to play scared. But we never really got much insight into what was going through the pros' heads when they were playing for amounts of money higher than they ever had before (even if it was pooled among them, hence reducing their individual exposure). Nor did we ever really get a good look at Andy's psyche (but this was a biography, and not an autobiography). The storyline of the book broke down more or less to: Andy decides he wants to challenge the pros to high-stakes poker, he playes them, then leaves Vegas, then comes back later and plays more poker, then leaves again, rinse and repeat. I guess what I'm saying is that if you're already pretty familiar with the poker world, and have played for mid-to-high stakes yourself, then the book might leave you longing for a little more insight into the psychological profiles of the characters, rather than a mere description of Andy's periodic travels to Vegas, and whether he wins or loses.
Thought I'd go back to a few interesting nuggets from "The Professor, the Banker, and the Suicide King" which I recently read. Don't worry: no spoilers here, although it's not really the type of book with twists that can be "spoiled". But if you want to go in 100% fresh, you can stop reading now. Here are a few bits that I found pretty interesting.
1) Inside the mind of Andy Beal
I've always liked reading biographies and autobiographies of successful people, and I found this Andy Beal character just fascinating. Now one of the richest men in the world, he didn't take the 'traditional' route to get there -- there was a great chapter in the book that describes how, at the age of 22 (I think....it was definitely at a remarkably young age), he found himself sitting at a real estate auction, about to bid a few hundred thousand dollars on an apartment building that he figured he could fix up and re-sell for a profit. Now, before you think that he was some sort of real estate prodigy, he had never done anything like that before, and in fact was surrounded in the auction room by middle-age men, most representing huge investment funds and real estate corporations. And there he was -- just a 22-year old college dropout who had never bought so much as a tool shed, with no more sophisticated a thought than "hmmm...seems like this apartment building is worth more than they're asking". He candidly admits that he had no idea what he was doing, but if there's a common theme to all the biographies of successful people I've read it's that they nearly unanimously agree that "if they had knowns what they know now when they were just starting out, they never would have taken the risks or made the decisions they did." So much of our culture reminds us to "look before we leap" (and god knows I see enough of the risk-averse mindset among my law school peers), but I can't help but find it fascinating that so many of the world's most successful people claim that it was their willingness to diverge from that well-worn mantra that laid the foundation for all of their eventual success.
2) Pros = perpetually bust-o.
This really took me by surprise. Almost without exception, all the pros who were interviewed agreed that evereyone -- that's e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e -- goes broke at some point in their poker careers. Each of the pros freely admitted that it had happened to them too, usually many times. There are even rumors that right now, as we speak, pros like Mike Matusow, TJ Cloutier and others are flat broke and only manage to play some of the bigger games because they're being staked by other pros (sidebar: who in their right mind would stake a broke poker pro!!??) How could this happen? I mean: I can't picture myself EVER going broke. Sure, I immediately lost the first $200 I deposited when I played online, but I don't really count that as being "broke"...what these pros were describing was losing their entire playing bankroll well into their professional careers. I can't help but wonder how (if these are indeed intelligent poker professionals) they could run through their entire playing bankrolls. Greg Raymer weighed in on this issue and suggested that he thought that theories of appropriate bankroll management are relatively new, and have really grown out of the internet poker phenomenon, which has allowed teenagers to accumulate as many hands of poker as has Doyle Brunson in his entire lifetime. That accelerated learning curve, goes the argument, has also accelerated the development of sound bankroll management strategies, which weren't really commonly known to the professionals of yore. Still, though, I really was taken aback by this idea that everyone goes broke from time to time. I guess it also depends on what your definition of "broke" is, and the author of the book does caution the reader that "broke" to a poker pro means something very different than to the rest of us. Hmmm....the above section didn't come out as clearly as I wished it had, b/c I feel like i have a lot of interesting things to say about the topic. Maybe another time...
One story that kind of warmed my heart in a schadenfreude (sp?) kind of way was Jennifer Harman's description of succeeding at the mid-to-high limit games, but always getting her clock cleaned whenever she tried moving up to the really high games. This cycle repeated itself at least a half-dozen times, where she would build up her bankroll, only to lose it all and have to build it up at the lower-stakes games again. Until she finally broke through and never looked back, and is now considered the top female cash game player in the world. I've heard complaints by so many friends and acquaintances that they can't beat a certain stakes level, which typically take the form of: "I don't get it -- I beat the (X) game consistently, but every time I try to step up to the (X+1) game, I give it all back, even though the players seem just as bad, and I'm so fed up with it, and can't figure it out." It was somewhat reassuring to read Harman's account and know that top players are not immune from the phenomenon either.
3) Jennifer Harman: "Poker chose me"
There was one quote from the book that resonated with me far more than any other: When Jennifer Harman was once asked why she chose to pursue poker for a living, she replied "I didn't. Poker chose me." I don't know if any other soundbite has ever summarized my feelings about poker more precisely and succinctly as did this one. Yes, it's true that I didn't really start playing hold'em seriously until 2004 -- I guess that would make me a relative Johnny-come-lately in this world, but I don't lump myself in with this new generation of poker-boomers who jumped on the poker bandwagon post-Moneymaker. Gambling has always flowed in my blood from a very young age. I still remember going to Vegas for the first time when I was about 11, walking through the Mirage's gambling floor and being thoroughly entranced by all the casino games. The flashing lights and carnival sounds, the way people so cavalierly pulled money out of their pockets in thick wads; how that green paper life-force that seemed to wield such power outside the casino's doors -- that people argued, married, and killed over -- could be splashed about with such reckless abandon. Every chance I got, I would sneak from our room upstairs down to the casino floor and stand in the aisles watching women play slots or spin the money wheel, until security inevitably came and told me that I couldn't stand there. Eventually I figured out that as long as I was 'moving', they wouldn't hassle me, so I learned to slow my gait to a pace that would let me watch a few full spins; and I practiced feigning a confused expression of being lost that allowed me to stand in one place with being hassled by security. It was all just so mesmerizing. I learned how to count cards at 18 and would make trips to the casino every couple weeks, and still keep count just by force of habit whenever I play blackjack, which is rarely these days. 5 years later, along came poker, which for the first time ever gave me a sense of "This is it! This is what all my experiences to this point have been preparing me for: A psychology / probability major with gambling flowing deep in my veins, and a stronger-than-usual attraction to 'get-rich-quick' schemes. All the poker boom did for me was bring to my attention this perfect complement for my existing skill set.
All in all, I think the book was a worthwhile read -- my only criticism is that it didn't really get too much into the psychology of the players...I mean, Andy's whole rationale for challenging the pros to very high stakes games was to make the amounts so high, that it took the pros out of their 'comfort zones' and get them to play scared. But we never really got much insight into what was going through the pros' heads when they were playing for amounts of money higher than they ever had before (even if it was pooled among them, hence reducing their individual exposure). Nor did we ever really get a good look at Andy's psyche (but this was a biography, and not an autobiography). The storyline of the book broke down more or less to: Andy decides he wants to challenge the pros to high-stakes poker, he playes them, then leaves Vegas, then comes back later and plays more poker, then leaves again, rinse and repeat. I guess what I'm saying is that if you're already pretty familiar with the poker world, and have played for mid-to-high stakes yourself, then the book might leave you longing for a little more insight into the psychological profiles of the characters, rather than a mere description of Andy's periodic travels to Vegas, and whether he wins or loses.
posted by Blog Administrator at 9:43 PM
7 Comments:
last paragraph is incredibly spot on.
Hey man - hope the Aussies are treating you well...
The whole "pro's going broke" thing doesn't strike me as odd at all. Just compare with the professional atheletes, movie stars and musicians who make fortunes and go broke. For some people bankroll management strategies aren't going to make any difference.
For every "Andy Beal" in the world, there are at least 100 others that exposed themselves to the same type of risk early in their lives and will never catch up financially for the rest of their lives as a result. It's kind of like buying a 200k lottery ticket when you only have 5k in your bank account. So be careful about how intrigued you are with most of these people.
Of course there are exceptions where it was a caculated risk, but if they now say they wouldn't have done it then it's not exactly a +EV move overall. The guy begging on the corner downtown could have been a power ball away from being a part of the CNN Money headlines.
I think you should stress "No Limit or Pot Limit" playing pros go broke everytime because the variance in those games are not well understood. I just don’t see how a properly bankrolled Limit playing pro go broke several times in his career unless he keeps sitting with 8 others who are better players. What about Barry Greenstein? He don’t appear to have gone broke multiple times at least not according to his book.
Playing live poker is very time-consuming. 20,000 hands is probably a lowball estimate to be statistically sure you are beating the game. Playing 30 hands/hour full-time, it would take 4 months to get this far. This doesn't include a learning period where you probably aren't a winning player at a new level.
Maybe some of the pros have followed this route, but I'm sure far more have just moved up whenever they have 3-4 buy-ins. Maybe after playing the higher- stakes games for a while they are winners now, but I guess a lot were just losers on a hot-streak when they started out.
The reason a lot of pros go broke, is they are a self-selected group of people with more gamble in them than the general population. It's interesting that another poster pointed out that Andy Beal got his start by taking a huge gamble early in his career. He may have more in common with the pros in this respect.
Hi, I like to read your posts.
I have a question regarding this poker legislation thing. On 2p2, people are saying that the bill is to be passed sooner than expected. Since you study law, can you clarify this?
thx
The Anonymous who said "He may have more in common with the pros in this respect" echoed (but he said it first) my own thought on seeing those two topics from the book in close proximity. If I understand it, a pro poker player may be prepared to put his/her entire bankroll on the line if they think the opportunity is good enough, and "good enough" is a thinner edge for them than it is for us. In part, they are willing to do this because they know (whether they're actually correct or not) that they can rebuild if it all goes wrong as soon as they can borrow a stake.
I suspect that the entrepeneurs, successful or not, have a similar outlook. I worked for a while at a dot-com that didn't quite get there. The founder had sunk literally (and I think I actually mean literally) everything he could raise into the company. While our scheduled IPO - and my options - went West as the bubble burst, my boss did at least come out ahead, having sold a piece of his action for £1m. Many who risked as much as he did came out less happily, but I bet that most of the self-made mega-rich can point to at least one occasion in their past when they bet the farm and it paid off.
Post a Comment
<< Home