I’ve been involved in some emails from a couple of poker players and recently, I received an email that really got me thinking of the existentialist side of the poker world. The email was initially about dealing with downswings, but it got me thinking of another topic, namely what makes a “great” player and how that coincides with the land of professional poker.
The basic question that I cannot seem to answer is: If a poker pro is broke, is he still a pro?
In a larger sense, the question expands to: If a decent number of the well-known poker pros are actually broke or make the majority of their money from something other than poker, then are they still pros? (Let’s assume that pro = a player who earns a comfortable living playing poker).
And then: If the big names are actually broke and playing on others’ dime, then what is there to strive for?
These thoughts cause a cloud of doom to appear over my head. After all, how can I wish to pursue a field where the elite are often actually failures. Guys like Mike Matusow and Gus Hansen are constantly rumored to be broke (with some actual confirmation from time to time). Jean Robert-Bellande is another example, albeit one that embraces the lunacy of playing high stakes while broke. Sure, there are true success stories like Phil Ivey and his $18M in winnings on FT, but arguably, poker is an afterthought, financially speaking, to a guy like Ivey who probably makes most of his money from his FullTilt affiliation and other ventures.
Now, I suppose there are a myriad of online guys who might qualify as a pro who made it on their own and continue to do well, but I don’t know that much about the online poker player scene, and more importantly, that’s not the goal I aim to achieve. Plus, online poker has been around for all of maybe 10 years or so, and certainly less than 15, so who is to say that the big time online poker player is anything but today’s flavor of the month, or a guy who just happens to be extraordinarily lucky. Plus, even from our own little poker blogging community, there are examples where people show their wins but not their losses, or show their successes but omit that their volume is such that a big win mostly offsets their losses. If you play 30 tournaments a day and final table one a day, isn’t that the same as me playing one a day and final tabling one per month? “Success”, much like with guys like Matusow and Hansen, is not always what it seems.
I can acknowledge that there are true success stories out there. Doyle Brunson is an easy and quick example. I think Durrr is a prime candidate from the online world, albeit one where the staying power must still be proven. But I don’t count the self-made millionaires like Jamie Gold or whoever the WSOP ME champion is on any given year. That is not a success story, at least not the kind I’m looking for. That is a lotto story. That’s a luck day story, or an amazingly skill-filled day story. But millions of dollars for one day’s work, while a success financially, is not a poker career. It is not something attainable by everyone. It is attainable by a very few people per year who had good days at a particular tournament, and often is never attained again by those same people.
My quest is not about money, per se. It is about the quest for greatness. It is about being competitive and being the best there is.
Its just a shame that there is a dawning realization that most of the success stories are false or short-lived. Why strive to be top of the mountain when its a mountain of lies and disappointment? Why strive to be the best when the best is bullshit?
Oh, and lest anyone get confused, this rant is not going to change the fact that I will likely dabble online tonight and will definitely be playing in AC on Wednesday. I may be suffering a crisis of conscience about what it means to be a great poker player, but I am dead set on one thing. I love poker.
Until next time, make mine poker!
August 19th, 2010 - 7:03 pm
Actually, no, you playing one a day and final tabling once a month is not the same thing as playing thirty on one day and cashing in one. Volume decreases variance, plan and simple.
While I can see that in your train of thought the math seems accurate, you are simply spreading the eventual variance over a longer span of time, thus eliminating your profitability, assuming you are playing optimal poker at reasonable stakes.
In the span of time in a month, it is also possible that someone could go on a hot streak in either scenario…but given a certain volume of tournaments, isn’t it MORE likely that in that month span, someone playing volume is going to hit that hot streak and do much better than cash in just one tournament? My case in point for july: I had a relatively light month in July (173 tournaments – normally I play around 350-400) I paid $377 in buy-ins and had $640 in profit, for a total profit of $263.48. 8 1st places, 5 second places, 6 third places… And I was doing this only grinding SNGs from $1-$3, 27, 45, 54 and 90 mans. about 3-4 hours, 20 days a month..two months ago I had built it to 3K in a three month span due to a great streak, and I cashed it out to pay off a credit card. Rinse, repeat. This is simply not something you can accomplish by playing one a day.
August 20th, 2010 - 1:48 am
Few can beat the rake. Plenty of named pros with $1-$3 million in winnings in tournaments must surely be losers over the course of 5+ years on the circuit. I would bet that several players with winnings in the $3-5 million range aren’t even ahead given the massive number of WSOP/WPT events they’ve surely played.
Net winnings would be a much better stat than lifetime winnings …
August 20th, 2010 - 10:11 am
Brunson himself has said he’s been bankrupt more than a few times. I believe it was him who said something along the lines of, “If you can’t handle being broke, don’t be a professional poker player.”
But his longevity, history, and most importantly – consistency – has made him a great. Look at his contemporaries and where they are. Asking for buy-ins, blowing what few bucks they have at the craps table, bumming drinks and taking advantage of free food. Doyle not only learned early on how to parlay his poker success into a career (books, poker rooms, becoming a brand himself), but how to adjust his game to stay competitive with his opponents. When the Fergusons and Lederers showed up, Doyle held his own. Negreanu and Lindgren? No problem. Online whippersnappers? Can still take ‘em.
August 20th, 2010 - 11:04 am
Jeff:
You make a good point about the difference between playing 30 games on one day and playing one game a day for 30 days. That doesn’t really address the main point of the post, though, which is that the poker stars that I have held in high esteem are, in fact, often not the big time money guys they appear to be. And if those guys are often broke, then what does that mean of my or any amateur poker player’s aspirations? So, your points on variance are well taken, but my point was that sometimes what appears to be impressive (final tabling every night) is not when you get the full picture (so many tournaments per night that even with a final table, the player is break-even or losing overall).
Fuel, you get it. And that means particularly a lot coming from you, since I’ve previously held you out as one of my “role models” so to speak, because of your great success and insight back when you blogged regularly (I’m sure you are still kicking ass and taking names, but I just don’t get to read about it). So, coming from a guy like you who has had some success and clearly has skills, it is very sobering to look at the reality of poker profitability.
Astin, good point about Doyle. I guess you are right. Going broke in and of itself is not the sign of a failing poker player, since Doyle has gone broke several times. But longevity in the face of those difficult times is key. I still don’t ever want to go broke, though.
August 20th, 2010 - 12:19 pm
Well, your thing at the bottom says to ‘comment’. It doesn’t say ‘address the main point of the post.’
August 20th, 2010 - 3:51 pm
HAHA! Okay, Jeff, you got me there. I did acknowledge you made a good point. You know I enjoy ANY comment from you. Even snarky ones. Maybe ESPECIALLY snarky ones.
August 24th, 2010 - 11:03 pm
If what you are after is huge fame and fortune, then yes, it’s stupidly hard. On the flip side, there are tons of low limit/mid limit grinders that make a perfectly good living playing poker… and deal with a whole lot less stress…. Some folks get off on the fame, and are willing to go broke to get their face in the mag, mug on the boob tube etc… (matasow et al). Going “Pro” almost always means branding yourself…. it has nothing to do with actually playing poker past getting you to the point you can sign your deal. If you want to sign bigger deals, keep playing your best. If not, just ride the wave (I’m looking at you Phil Gordon).
So my friend… what do you want to do? Sign the deal for the big check, or play for the “purity” of the game?