One reason for caution is that many players are undercapitalized. They don’t have remotely as much as the authorities recommend. The win rate decreases (in big bets per hour [BBPH]) and the standard deviation (in BBPH) increases as games get larger because the competition gets tougher. Bigger games therefore create larger swings and a greater risk of going broke for undercapitalized players.
Winners trade the opportunity for larger immediate profits for increased chances to survive. They play at safe limits, build their bankrolls, and move upward slowly. Losers—including some excellent players—refuse to make that trade-off, move up too quickly, and go broke.
Playing above their bankroll hurts them in two ways: they do not have the capital to survive the inevitable losses, and they play poorly because they cannot afford to take necessary risks. It is called “playing with scared money.”
Indicate where you stand on this trade-off by circling the appropriate number. This scale is a bit different from the preceding one. Everybody loves profits, but you may dislike risks. If you will take large risks to get large profits, circle a higher number:
Profits vs. Variance
This trade-off appears similar to the last one, but it is quite different. It is also closely related to frustration tolerance. Some people play too passively because it seems less risky than playing aggressively. They check when they should bet, or they call when they should raise, even though the aggressive actions could be more profitable and less risky. Passive play often saves a bet, but loses a pot.
Many situations and strategies increase both your profits and your variance, but some people won’t take them. For example, extremely tight-passive Rocks fold many positive EV (+EV) hands, don’t raise with good draws and many opponents, and sacrifice profits in other ways to reduce their variance.
Countless people avoid very loose games because they’re too frustrated by variance, especially bad beats. You can’t get a bad beat without having the best of it, often by five or ten to one. Whining that “these people call with anything” is obviously foolish. You should want them to call with weak hands, even though you will occasionally lose.
But the winners’ objective is long-term profits. If you really want to maximize them, you will often have to join games and make plays that increase both your variance and your frustration. You must decide whether the increased profits are more important to you than the variance and frustration.
That decision may depend on other factors. For example, if your bankroll is small or a losing streak has reduced your confidence, you may be unable to afford—financially or psychologically—a high-variance game. You may need to win more frequently, even if your wins are smaller. Your rating today could be quite different from what it would be when your bankroll or state of mind is improved.
Indicate where you stand on this trade-off by circling the appropriate number:
Profits vs. Fame and Status
The desire for status and fame wasn’t one of the motives in The Psychology of Poker. When I wrote it, hardly any poker players were famous. Now, with poker on television so frequently, some players are celebrities, and thousands more are wannabes.
Of course, poker has always had a status hierarchy. Winners are higher status than losers. Players in larger games have higher status, even if they don’t do as well. A breakeven $30–$60 player has higher status than a winning $4–$8 player. Nobody really knows how much anyone wins, and many people lie about their results.
Until a few years ago, many pros did not want other people to know how good they were. A tough reputation would reduce their profits. Some people would not join their games, and others would not give them much action.
When televised tournaments became popular, some top cash game players who had avoided tournaments started playing in them. A few said they did it because people asked, “If you’re so good, why haven’t I seen you on television?”
Being on television is a very mixed blessing. Players don’t get much or any of the television revenue. The exposure does increase a few top pros’ incomes from endorsements, and so on. However, being on television probably reduces their playing profits. Their opponents record and study their play and then use that knowledge against them indefinitely.
So why do they do it? Because it’s a huge kick to be on television, and many pros will sacrifice substantial profits to get there. In addition, since they can’t tell how much it affects their playing profits, they may rationalize that they aren’t losing much (or anything).
Preston Oade, a good tournament player with whom I collaborate occasionally, e-mailed me about the conflicting desires for profits, fame, and status:
If profits are the only way we keep score in poker, why does everyone seem to care about WSOP bracelets? And why have a “Player of the Year” competition based on one’s overall results in designated tournaments? I suggest that the practical realities of tournament play are largely inconsistent with profit as the driving motive or as the “only” way to keep score. It is much easier to win money in cash games.
Indicate where you stand on this trade-off by circling the appropriate number:
Profits vs. Testing Yourself Against Tough Competition
The desire to challenge tougher players has destroyed countless bankrolls. Even though they know that it’s risky, some people can’t resist the challenge. You may know players who moved too high and went bust, and you may have done it yourself. It’s a natural human desire. You want to know how good you are. But yielding to that desire can be extremely expensive.
Barry Greenstein told our discussion group that he and the other regulars in Bobby’s Room at the Bellagio love to have the winners of big tournaments join their games. They are so puffed up from winning a huge prize and being televised that they want to challenge Barry Greenstein, Doyle Brunson, Dan Negreanu, Jennifer Harman, and the other great players. They usually lose heavily, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars.
You aren’t a tournament hotshot, but—if you have an excessive need to test yourself—you could be headed for very big trouble.
Indicate where you stand on this trade-off by circling the appropriate number:
Profits vs. Developing Your Skills
This desire relates to every game, even ones you don’t play for money. It also interacts with drives such as the one to test yourself, and we must distinguish between immediate and long-term profits.
To maximize your immediate profits, play in the softest possible games. But—if you don’t sacrifice some immediate profits—you won’t develop the skills you need to beat larger games. Matt Lessinger’s forcefully stated his readiness to make this trade-off:
There are times (and it may surprise you that I am saying this) that I play and do not expect to make a profit. I have played in games in which my EV was very clearly negative.... [They] were learning experiences, and thus well worth the sacrifice. I was willing to pay my “tuition” in order to get schooled.13
Unfortunately, you may rationalize that you’re trying to develop your skills when your primary motives are the needs to gamble and to challenge tougher players.
Indicate