On Gambring

Recently I read a couple of poker books - The Professor, the Banker, and the Suicide King by Michael Craig, and The Biggest Game in Town by A. Alvarez. They're both exciting, well-written, and fun to read. The first describes the ultra-high stakes games that went on for a few years recently between Las Vegas pros and Texas billionaire Andy Beal. The second captures the world of Las Vegas poker pros circa 1980. There are a couple of characters that have roles in both books, such as Doyle Brunson and Chip Reese. 

One of the characteristics of most of these players that the authors strove to capture is that they are degenerate gamblers. They will gamble large amounts of money on almost anything. For these guys, they are the lucky few gambling addicts who managed to find a game they can win at: poker. But since they are gamblers at heart, they frequently play stakes they can't afford on their bankroll, and/or leak money by playing games in the pit such as blackjack or craps. As a result, they are all frequently broke.

Many of them, and sometimes the authors give this sense too, believe that such instincts are necessary to be a good poker player. They seem to turn up their noses at players who grind out lower-stakes games. Well, personally, I'm not too much of a gambler. I don't really enjoy playing craps at the casino. I don't really enjoy seeing the cards flipped over when I'm all-in on a coinflip for a bunch of money. I don't have a desire to play stakes that are out of the reach of my bankroll, even if I'm stuck on the day. Does this limit me as a player?

So far, I don't think so. I'm defiitely not scared money in the games I do play in. That's part of why I like to play games I'm very well rolled for: I don't want the stakes to affect my play. But I'm not sure yet what my eventual goals are in poker. Do I want to challenge myself to be the best player I can be, and play Phil Ivey heads up for $100k in a couple of years after making enough money to afford it? Or do I just want to build up to the 5/10 or 10/20 games and settle in as a regular there, eating up the buy-ins that the random donks donate to the game? 

I think a vast majority of people, with enough dedication and patience, could become winners at $1/2 poker games. But it takes a special kind of person to play with $10k or more on the table and succeed, no matter how rich they are. Not only does it require talent and knowledge of the game, but you have to be comfortable with the idea of losing a massive amount of money on what you know to be the right play. I don't know yet if that's something I'd really enjoy or thrive in or not.

I don't think it's a good idea, either for my game or my overall emotional health, to try and push myself to move up to higher stakes before I feel ready to go there. If that makes me a nit, so be it. I'd really rather not go through the boom and bust cycle that huge gamblers such as Doyle or Jack Strauss or others have undergone.

Both books talk about successful, big name players who are more prudent. Craig's book describes Doyle's son Todd Brunson as this type. Rather than always playing the biggest (i.e., highest stakes) game he can find, he'll just play the best (i.e., most profitable) game. To be clear, this means he'll play a $400/800 game with some bad players rather than a $2,000/4,000 game full of sharks. So it's not like he's playing for peanuts. But exercises some caution, invests a lot of his poker winnings in non-gambling endeavors, and generally behaves like a sane human being. He's also one of the most successful cash game players ever.

Anyway, I have now logged nearly 50,000 quite successful hands at $1/2 full ring, and feel like I'm ready to bump it up to $2/4 sometime soon, maybe within the next month or so. Hopefully I will win a monsterpotten off Brackchips and post about it for weeks.

-BRUECHIPS