Home
(8 votes) 
November 22, 2013
Offline
I've been thinking about this recently. The bios of the best pros in history: Doyle Brunson, Stu Ungar, Phil Ivey etc. seem to indicate that they love to gamble, not just on poker, and were willing to take absolutely huge risks. There are also a lot of stories about other pros like Ted Forest who play what he called a “death match”, which was a high stakes, heads-up, freeze-out where both players agreed that they would play until bust for a minimum of 96 continuous hours. If one of them busted before then they would be mandated to keep rebuying until the 96 hours was up. There are also stories of them losing millions on ill-advised golf bets and sports bets. Their creed is “you have to give action to get action”.
On the other side of the spectrum is Todd Brunson, who is known to only play poker 20-30 hrs per week. Whenever he books a big win, he “takes the money out of the poker economy” by investing in other ventures outside of poker. Supposedly, he is also a prudent investor, and has made more money from real estate than from poker. There are many other players like this who see poker as too high risk, and although they play, they see poker more as a means to get capital to invest in safer investments, than a lifestyle. He was also one of the few pros who consistently beat Andy Beal and I believe the reason for this is because he was better rested, more centered, and less reckless than the other pros.
As for me, my wife and friends don't think I play enough hours, and think I should move up in stakes faster. I was a very successful 1-2 grinder until moving up to 2-5, then 5-10, which is the highest stakes in my area. My rule was to have a 1000 hours of solid positive EV before moving up in stakes. It also took me a couple of years to go from the low buy-in local tournaments to the 1K buy in tournaments and finally to the 10K buyin tournaments. I never play unless I feel I have an edge. If I am playing cash and several tough pros sit down I will just ask for a table change or go to a lower stakes. My attitude is I may be able to beat them, but I dont have to try if an easier game is available. I also dont play tired, or if I dont feel like it, which my wife thinks is leaving money on the table. However, my belief is that while my A game may have an edge over other people's A games, my B game certainly loses to their A game. I also hate gambling and have never spent even $1 at any casino game other than poker. I also kept my full-time career and play poker 30 hrs per week despite the fact that I'm pretty sure I could make a living playing professionally, given my win rate over the years. I'm more Todd Brunson than Doyle.
My question is in order to become a pro is it better to be risk tolerant, risk adverse, or do you think either can be successful? My personal belief is that some risk tolerance is necessary but that in general it is better to be risk adverse. A lot of the pros I mentioned were great poker players but were horrible at life and basically ruined their own lives through their recklessness. Had they “toed the line” just a little they would have been much happier. While in the game you must be indifferent to the swings and be non-attached from the outcome. Many of the pros I see seem very attached to the outcome, and generally love to gamble, which I think would be a negative. Perhaps its the case that they love gambling, which led them to poker because at least it is positive EV gambling. Yet I always thought it was better to approach poker more like a Zen Chess Master, playing correctly strategically without being attached to the outcome, not loving gambling but realizing certain risks are necessary. Thoughts?
TPE Management
April 6, 2010
Offline
good question for discussion. My short answer wouldbe that I dont think you have to have “gamble” in you. I, like you dont really mess with the pits. I cant say ive never spent $1. But what I do spend I assume I will lose and it is always really small wagers. Like I might sit down and play roulette with a buddy and have a few cocktails while putting $1 on my favorite numbers. But is pure entertainment and nothing else.
That being said, what I do think you need to have is a bit of a healthy disregard for money. This comes with proper bankroll management. Losing $1k at poker is not uncommen, but when non-poker players ask you how you did and you say “oh, I lost a thousand dollars” they are usually shocked. Probably not shocked that you lost that much, but that you dont really care. Variance gonna variance.
Money is just the tool we use to make more money.
It sounds to be like you have a healthy approach. Sure, if you were a pro you probably could not be as selective as to how much you play. But you don't rely solely on poker for your income, so I see no reason you cant game select like you do and simply not play when you dont 100% feel like it.
TPE Pro
December 6, 2012
Offline
I can say I've never spent $1 in the pits. It may well be true that the absolute highest stakes players have more “gamble”, because to get up the bankrolls to play those games most made some, let's say, aggressive bankroll management decisions. Basically they took shots that panned out. Who knows how many other potentially great players took shots that didn't pan out and ended up stuck in the small stakes or leaving the field entirely?
I think the majority of people who make a living from this game consistently over a lot of years aren't so gambley, and that includes a good number of people with very respectable, if not seven-figure, incomes.
To be clear, that's not the same as being irrationally risk averse within your bankroll. I don't consider it remotely gambley to make a big thin call, value bet, or bluff that you believe to be +EV – that's just good poker.
November 22, 2013
Offline
I understand and agree with what you are saying. Most people consider me to very LAG and therefore just assume that I love to gamble. They are surprised at how risk averse I am in life, with my bankroll, and that I don't gamble. I dont play that way because I think its fun. I believe that fold equity is the most powerful concept in poker and that LAG is generally the optimal way to play. That doesn't mean I like to gamble.
The other question I have is how often do pros not feel like playing? For me, when I play regularly, I want to play more, and more. However, I go for long stretches (weeks) where I simply don't feel like playing. I enjoy poker, but I enjoy other things more such as going to the beach (I live in Florida), spending time with my wife, even sleeping lol. Unfortunately, those things don't make money, and aren't very productive. I love the strategy of poker, thinking about the game, reading people, the thrill of tournaments. I've found no other activity where I have to be engaged and in the zone in order to be successful and that's why I love it. However, I also find it to be stressful. For that reason, although I do love the stress of poker, sometimes I just don't feel like it. Its a challenge, and I enjoy that challenge, but I'm not always up to it. I guess you could compare it to rock climbing, bunjee jumping or some other “action junkie” activity. Poker makes me feel alive but sometimes I dont want to feel THAT alive.
I'm wondering whether the pros feel the same way or if they truly love the game like a burning passion so intense that they just HAVE to play. I genuinely love the game, but it seems as if many people love it more. If anything I'm fortunate to have the wife that I do because she sees me win at poker and encourages me to play more often because she loves to see me win. Is this sort of attitude common or do you guys truly love the game all of the time?
December 24, 2013
Offline
I find myself thinking about this more and more whenever I watch/rewatch a Casey vid (or more recently, Jamie Kerstetter's vids), because these two just seem to test the waters quickly albeit in different fashions. When Casey takes a spot, he doesn't back down because he's played back at really ever, because he's already decided how something will go. I absolutely love that mentality. It produces huge stacks when the table inevitably fears you after a suckout or a strong showdown with a weak hand. Those huge stacks then make deeper runs. I think people who choose to do that also tend to be gambly people, but I also think about it more outwardly than that. Take a group A and a group B. Group A is those who gamble to an unknown level that we just arbitrarily call a high amount. Donks who happen to be aggro are also in Group A, and Group B is unknown, but by definition has a lower gambling propensity than Group A. Set C consists of players who make deep runs. If Group A is large relative to Group B, you'll see Set C through rose-colored glasses, filled to the brim with Group A. So it's easy to think “Those that act like Group A are more likely to be in Set C” where that's not actually necessarily true, through logic. I'm really really good at thinking of unique ways to interpret situations to better understand them, but really really really (3 x really) bad at communicating these thoughts out, so I hope that makes sense. I'm drawing venn diagramms in my head if that helps.
cliff- Group B could be 1/3 the size of Group A, and on average you see Group A players in Set C more often. That doesn't mean Group A makes Set C more often than Group B.
A coworker also came up as I was typing this out, so I lost my train of thought for a bit sorry haha.
December 24, 2013
Offline
super cliffs are, those who like to gamble will be more likely to take shots, and assume their edge is the same between the two buy-ins (avg rolled buy-in and whatever their shot is/are), well 10-20% of those that take the shot will continue the shot because 10-20% will be itm. pretty much all of those with sicko bankrolls have to be some sort of high-propensity gambler because you just don't see someone with a low-propensity to gamble have that amount of money to get to that point in the first place that often. It's not that high gambling means high poker success, but high gambling means the window for loss-profit is a lot bigger, so those that took more/bigger shots that then also got their one time have bigger success.
December 24, 2013
Offline
Foucault said:
I can say I've never spent $1 in the pits. It may well be true that the absolute highest stakes players have more “gamble”, because to get up the bankrolls to play those games most made some, let's say, aggressive bankroll management decisions. Basically they took shots that panned out. Who knows how many other potentially great players took shots that didn't pan out and ended up stuck in the small stakes or leaving the field entirely?
I think the majority of people who make a living from this game consistently over a lot of years aren't so gambley, and that includes a good number of people with very respectable, if not seven-figure, incomes.
To be clear, that's not the same as being irrationally risk averse within your bankroll. I don't consider it remotely gambley to make a big thin call, value bet, or bluff that you believe to be +EV – that's just good poker.
I really need to re-read posts before I decide to post the same thing with more words lol. wp.
January 9, 2014
Offline
i think there is no high stakes players without a bigger risk tolerance, but im not saying this just because that necessary shots they constantly take. i mean in certain level MTTs had a lot of metagame and leveling, and almost every decision have (in some way) a lot of risk unless you had really good hands too often.
maybe youre not talking about this, but i think in some way all had a connection with every side of the game. and if youre climbing stakes you NEED: a) a healthy disregard for money, like killingbird said; and b) a lot of confidence on every move you do, even if you have not a lot of “std equity”. that feeling wich let you make a 5bet light without any fear or a big river bluff with T high is, in my opinion, at least a little love to gambling. what i mean is: if you're not ready to gamble, maybe you're not ready to crush high stakes. so, in certain way, gamble is a bit needed to take an important improvement in your game.
really sry if my english is not good, im argentinian and learned this language just to become a better player :p
btw i really hate casino games too
TPE Management
April 6, 2010
Offline
You seem to speak English a lot better than I speak Spanish 🙂
November 22, 2013
Offline
I can understand what you’re saying, although I disagree. I always thought that 3 betting light, bluffing at an optimal rate, calling down bluffs, and playing LAG in the right spots is not a gamble. To me, it’s playing optimally, based on years of experience. I don’t always play that way, but when I do it’s not out of craving action, it’s to win. I will do whatever I think increases my chances to win without fear, if that’s bluffing then I will bluff, if that’s tightening up, I will tighten up. That’s more like increasing the expectation of an investment. I also don’t see playing poker as gambling, so long as you’re playing in a game where the overall EV for you is positive…I see that as investing, which is different than gambling. To me, gambling is taking risks regardless of the expectation in the long run; in other words, a gambler would be willing to take a negative EV bet simply out of the love of “action”. I never loved action that badly, although I understand that a lot of successful pros have. Doyle and Ungar in particular were wild, at least that’s my perception based on the stories I’ve read, losing millions at golf, etc. Some of the best players made millions playing poker, only to invest it back into casinos in other ways, which I always thought was foolish.
October 6, 2010
Offline
i think the amount of gamble you have at the poker table is irrelevant to this discusson to a certain extent, and as others have mentioned, it is more about the risk tolerance you have, as others have mentioned, and i think you have to have a pretty high risk tolerance to make it to the very highest buyins – i.e super high rollers or the biggest cash games, because noone is rolled for those, probably even including the amount they sell off.
almost all of them would have had to take a big shot at some point in time that paid off.
but dont forget, there is a significant bias in that. there would be a ton of players that were playing mid/high stakes, took a shot at the nosebleeds, got their ass kicked back down to the lower stakes, and stayed there.
im not saying you have to be lucky to be a top tier pro, but i believe there are plenty of people that have very good skill levels grinding out the mid stakes, just waiting to take their big shot (or maybe their risk tolerance is such that they never will). i mean thats what we all hope for when we play the milly right?
January 9, 2014
Offline
I can understand what you’re saying, although I disagree. I always thought that 3 betting light, bluffing at an optimal rate, calling down bluffs, and playing LAG in the right spots is not a gamble. To me, it’s playing optimally, based on years of experience. I don’t always play that way, but when I do it’s not out of craving action, it’s to win. I will do whatever I think increases my chances to win without fear, if that’s bluffing then I will bluff, if that’s tightening up, I will tighten up. That’s more like increasing the expectation of an investment. I also don’t see playing poker as gambling, so long as you’re playing in a game where the overall EV for you is positive…I see that as investing, which is different than gambling. To me, gambling is taking risks regardless of the expectation in the long run; in other words, a gambler would be willing to take a negative EV bet simply out of the love of “action”. I never loved action that badly, although I understand that a lot of successful pros have. Doyle and Ungar in particular were wild, at least that’s my perception based on the stories I’ve read, losing millions at golf, etc. Some of the best players made millions playing poker, only to invest it back into casinos in other ways, which I always thought was foolish.
—————-
i agree with you, but i’m not saying you need to play roulette to be a good nosebleeds poker player. i’m saying you need a really high risk tolerance to achieve that confidence will let you play your A game.
the first question was “how much “gamble” do you need to be a top tier pro”, and if we understand that gambling is not just playing casino games yes, we need a lot of gamble in our hearts. i.e. if we don’t wanna be outplayed we need to treat money like shit if we believe that’s the right move, even if we’re playing a 100k SHR. and there is no microstakes player who can ever treat money in that way.
i think if we want to be a top tier pro, we can’t burn money on any other felt when we don’t have an edge. in the same way we can’t eat snacks all day and pretend to be awake and playing our 100% after twelve hours of deep run. if you wanna be the best you have to work all day on your mindset, and every decision you take from the moment you wake up will affect both our wallet and performance.
btw imagine you’re a top tier pro. you have pretty millions on your bank account and you’re a consistent winner. you will invest your money on some spots you think are +EV, like staking horses or idk, funding your own company. you will have your eyes really opened waiting for those spots where you can earn money. if some day a fish comes to you and he offers you a bet, you have to do some numbers… i think if the proposition is +EV, you have the money and the risk tolerance, if you don’t take the bet that would be a huge mistake. i mean money is our work tool, we just need to find the right spots to bet and win in the long run. you don’t need to be only a good poker player, because all that stuff you learn playing can be used away from tables.
ps: cant quote dont know why
November 22, 2013
Offline
Based on everyone’s comments in the aggregate, I think we’ve come to a consensus view on a few things: 1) Play on the table is different from risk tolerance and you need to be able to make the correct play without fear; 2) A disregard for money is necessary but not sufficient to move to nosebleed stakes; 3) All of the top tier pros have had this disregard for money; 4) Some highly skilled players have had this disregard for money, took their shot, and it didn’t pan out.
Now the million dollar question is, assuming those four things are true is being a top-tier pro something you/me/we truly want to aspire to? It seems like an awful lot of risk, the chances are against you, and you can make a decent living without playing at the nose bleed stakes. Just some thoughts.
October 6, 2010
Offline
For some people that could be the goal, for me it isn’t. Even if I won the main event I still doubt I would ever play high rollers etc.
In fact I would probably invest most of it in things outside poker.
I think a lot of it at the highest stakes cash games is about ego, and although I have a healthy ego haha I still don’t think I have dreams that big.
For full time players it might be different. Would love to here thoughts of the pros here, especially the grinder types, ginger might be a good one to respond.
TPE Pro
August 25, 2012
Offline
In my opinion, it's not about 'gamble', because that's not a concept that enters into the head of any good poker player during the actual process of playing a hand. A good poker player simply sees any situation in which variance is involved as either a +EV or a -EV move – you analyse the pot odds and your equity, and make a decision. Occasionally you might consciously decide to take a higher variance spot, because of any number of factors, but in the end, if your mental processes are correctly configured, 'gambling' is actually just a catch-all term for any situation where variance is involved.
If the word 'gamble' ever actually goes through your brain during a poker hand, there's probably a leak to fix somewhere, since you should in theory be able to analyse the play – even after the fact – and say “this was a big mistake” or “this was fine”, or perhaps the closes thing you could get to a gamble, “this was a breakeven, high-variance spot”. So, what the top pros have, rather than 'gamble', is an incredibly well-honed ability to intuitively calculate the profitability of a situation, combined with three other things:
Fearlessness – a simple disregard for the consequences of a wrong decision, or a bad end result. One factor that contributes to this greatly is simply having deep pockets – if you can play in a high-stakes game and have a huge losing session and still have millions of dollars in the bank, it's natural that you'd care less about losing.
Focus – an ability to filter out the extraneous influences that obstruct the decision-making process of a hand. An ability to forget about the possibility of looking stupid if you lose, ignore the guy on the other side of the table chattering away, ignore the fact you just lost a huge flip for half your stack, and spend as long as it takes thinking about nothing but the hand you're playing.
Confidence – this is perhaps the most important one. A steadfast belief in one's own decision-making skills. We've all had those moments where we feel like we should maybe bluff the river but we check back out of uncertainty, or we make a tight fold because we're not quite sure we know the guy's range well enough. Great players don't hesitate to back their own decision-making – they know that if their instincts tell them it's a good spot to bluff or a good spot to call, it probably is. They have the experience to know they're usually right, and the analytical ability to examine the hand after the event and learn from it if they weren't.
TPE Pro
TPE Management
July 20, 2010
Offline
“you cant teach size or speed” i hear and read this all the time when it comes to pro sports, When im taking on new students for coaching one of the 1st things i look for in the person is if they have gamble and gumption because these are traits i find the best players in the world have and that they are also unteachable imo you either have it or you dont just like size and speed. You have to be willing to get it in bad now and then and know when it is time to gamble.
November 22, 2013
Offline
I like everything that has been said particularly Ginger and ttwist but it also brings up the point, which is at what point is being too gambley a bad thing? Does anyone really know where the edge of the cliff is without going off it? For example, no one is ever going to accuse Gus or Durrrrr of being scared money and they've had a lot of success. But my perception of say Negreanu and from what I've read isn't that he is particularly gambley in either poker, life, or bankroll management and he has had a lot more long-term success than those two. So is the answer that you need some gamble but not too much? Seems obvious. But then who knows what the optimal amount of gambling is? There would be no way of knowing for certain unless you took a big shot and went broke. Then you could back and say, “Hey maybe I could've been more conservative with my roll.” Seems like a situation of trying to push it to the limit but never knowing when to stop until it is too late.
Most Users Ever Online: 2780
Currently Online:
115 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
bennymacca: 2616
Foucault: 2067
folding_aces_pre_yo: 1133
praetor: 1033
theginger45: 924
P-aire 146: 832
Turbulence: 768
The Riceman: 731
duggs: 591
florianm1: 588
Newest Members:
adrianvaida2525
Anteeater
Laggro
Philbro
acekingsuited
Lber16
Forum Stats:
Groups: 4
Forums: 24
Topics: 12705
Posts: 75003
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1063
Members: 12005
Moderators: 2
Admins: 5
Administrators: RonFezBuddy, Killingbird, Tournament Poker Edge Staff, ttwist, Carlos
Moderators: sitelock, sitelock_1
