Is it just me or is this a case of "player looks annoyed to lose money, must be broke." The WSOP is a major grind, guys who have been playing a ton will be pretty cranky. Also I think you're reading too much into a ton of **** here. Also, if the high stakes players are losing money, who are they losing it to? Your post seems to lack that.

I guess money just keeps on going round and round in high stakes games. Dwan wins $5m from Guy, Isildur wins $5m from Dwan, Hastings wins $5m from Isildur etc etc etc

About looking annoyed. How come they didn't look too annoyed after a big tournament win? How come they're starting to look annoyed now? People like Esfandiari for example?

To be fair, he did, he's suggesting that many of them are actually total degens and end up losing it on casino games/ sports betting etc.

But I do agree with the general consensus.

What really bugs me is the association between not looking/feeling well and = obv. losing money.

Poker used to be my sole source of income but over the past few years i've broadened my horizons in terms of investments.

But still to do this day, any time my gf or family see me and I'm not "in good form" they automatically assume it's due to financial loss incurred through poker. Ironically poker losses don't effect me anywhere near as much as they used to.

And when i'm in a bad mood or feeling down, more often that not, it's not related to poker losses.

OP - Did you ever stop to consider the fact that they simply may have life issues niggling away at them?

Seems like you saw alot of book covers and automatically assumed they're ****.

Harvard

http://www.pokertableratings.com/sta...earch/nanonoko


proved wrong...

Nice read.

Of course there's a lot that I would not agree with, doesn't mean it wasn't interesting to read. People thrashing the entire thing as utterly ******ed have really short eyesight if you know what i mean. Live poker scene can be pretty sick, why would my local casino be any different to Vegas? Humans remain humans. I've seen the TV pros without make-up and stuff, and they really look very, very bad. In the end people overestimate their ability almost always when it comes to poker.

People like Daniel may state 1000 times that they are learning to play again, and areopen to new methodes, but then you see him playing like a total monkey-tilt-fish on the big game for no reason whatsoever. Nothing against Daniel, just an example of human nature.

Woteva.

ty sir, just got up and literally laughing out loud at this. Now if only I could not go broke....


OP, seriously, you're right to some extent, but you give up too easily.

It's famous that 99% of poker pros play above their BR limits.
But look at someone like Nanonoko. Now that's a professional poker player.

I'm not saying he's interesting to watch, I'm not saying he's better than PI, I'm saying he's the most professional poker player out there.

Have you seen this guy's PTR graph? This guy is no mistake. When you make 5bb or more over 1 million hands with a perfect curve like the one he has, there is no mistake.


Here's the thing. When you play live, there are too many destructive temptations in an environment as unhealthy as a casino.
Namely hookers, drugs, and most obviously all the pit games.

As you pointed out, most pro players are also heavy gamblers.
Most were gamblers before they turned to poker and saw poker as a way to fund their degeneracy.

Most online pros don't run into these downfalls, but they succumb to the battle for ultimate online player.
CTS, Townsend, Durrrrr, etc...all of these guys.

I think they just forgot the principle that even if you're the 2nd best player in the world, if you spend your time playing against the actual best player in the world, you're going to go broke.

No one is rolled for the nosebleeds, except Ivey and a bunch of real life billionaires like Guy.

But again, guys like Nanonoko, Leatherass, are the real pro players.
Their life is not about the glory of taking down Durrrr one day for 500k and losing 1.5 million to PI the next.

Their life is about grinding medium/low-high stakes for 5bb/100 playing 100k hands a month or more.
They make money consistantly and that's why they can call themselves pro players.
They stay where they know they're substantially better than the competition and make a boat-*****-load of money doing so.

You're just giving up too easily.
There are winning players, just very very very few.

And to be honest, many of the people you mention would be perfectly fine if they didn't gamble their money away.
I doubt Johnny Chan went broke (if he did) playing cash games...All of these guys have horrible gambling problems.

you don't have to have them. They're not losing poker players, they're losers period. Nothing says you have to gamble your winnings away and succumb to meth addiction.

Tilts me when people post smart a** replies.

Read the Goddam OP whydontcha.

Great reply, I think you just explained what I'm trying to say and you've also enlightened me on a few things. Better watch more of that Nanonko guy lol

In their grand scheme of life, it ISN'T a lot of money...but it does not mean that they want to just give it away.

But I guess you must not get frustrated with the fluctuations in the markets either...its really no different than the ups and downs on the felt.

confirmed, cause im broke, and im good too

so now im good and broke,

and if i cant win,

who the heck can ?

great post imo

I'd say I believe you, op. But i think it's what one, having poker experience, would predict. Why is that so? I'd assume it's because people even now are way way underestimating variance. Even with superhuge samples the +/- in winrate is quite big. And as skill pool increases, variance increases, as do fluctations in the deviations from winrate. And what are all these players you were talking about? Mostly tournament players and live pros. And from a huge base of poker players that we have now, especially after 2003 pokerboom, there will be always number of players who will run well above expectation and those who do not. I'd argue that if you reset everything to 2003 for example, the names you'd be hearing about would probably be much different than today. Because it's not only ev, because if I flop flush with someone, one of us will usually lose a lot of money while equities differences will be enormous (like, if we round it to 100%/0% we are still pretty accurate) and this is something that EV does not cover. And if you really want to win, you have to really work hard, to maximise every friggin' edge you can have. And that's something that Phil Ivey excells at most out of every player we know. And still, he clearly has gambling problems as I will never understand how someone as talented and intelligent as Phil Ivey (which i think we can all agree on) loses money on craps although he MUST know that everytime he throws the dice, he loses money.

And that what poker to me is. It's a self-test. A self-test of your weaknessess. Through financial results it's forcing you to get better or die. Just like real life. But it's motivational value is incredile, because nothing hurts more than recovering from a phase of bad play where you lost something you worked hard for. And it just goes to show, that people are mostly not self-critical. How many times you heard "story of my life" and how many times you heard "i lost because i was playing terrible/way over my head/etc." and how many percentage of the time stories of our lives actually reflected in our own bad decisions. If you play and you lose amounts with which you were not comfortable with, it's your own fault, because you know poker and with sitting on the table, there is a good chance you will lose that money.

So, in conclusion, I think vast majority of people are not truthful to themselves (majority as in everyone in this world) but lead good lives because the edge they have acquired with birth (intelligence, skillsets, etc.) is big enough that being unrealistic about oneself is not a dehabilitating flaw. But in poker, where variance is huge and if you want to succeed you have to reinvent yourself. Sure, you can run good. What is 200-300k hands? Nothing. How many poker players pass that mark. Even in modern times, this percentage is probably quite low, also the ones that do, had to have more luck than others (again most of the, not everyone). And when that finishes, you are in trouble.

So the secret that most of losing poker players that most fail to recognize? Be fair to yourself. If you are able to do that, you cannot lose because you will not let yourself do that. All these people OP mentioned apparently do not posses that ability. Haha, does this mean Phil Ivey knows he's an addict?

ad: i think with most ive been saying Foldemlow beat me to the punch, I only read the OP after making my own. Good post, Foldemlow

Look at it from another perspective and It's mathematically certain all poker players would go broke. If no money and no new highstakes players are added to the highstakes pool, then the rake would eventually break them all.

Not saying I think the OP is right, and not reading into things too much ... just saying

Awesome photoshop.


OP most of the nosebleed players are playing far above their bankrolls and are going to go broke due to variance alone - and quickly. They cannot play enough hands to determine who is best, or even who is positive EV. It's not uncommon for the huge winners in a year to have played under 50K hands of nosebleed. That's nothing. And in live games 50K hands is a serious grind year, although to be fair edge can be far larger in live games. It is expected that a large percentage of the WINNING high-stakes players will go broke in a given year.

Tournaments are largely a luckfest unless you are a poker god, and while a great many players think they're god, only a rare few are right. Further, if all the sponsor deals (player-to-player) and online satellites were to end, the live high-stakes tournament scene would crumble. I'd bet a third of the guys in a major outside the June WSOP are staked in some way, including the overwhelming majority of "known" tournament grinders who aren't sponsored by - or part owner in - a poker site.

Leaks like side gambling for real money can break anyone.

These guys have high expenses relative to their earn rates. Many spend more than 100K a year. Think about this. Hotel rooms are expensive. Houses and cars are expensive. 100K is a lot of money for live players to cover.

What about online? The thing is, it is extraordinarily hard for a human to grind online for 5 years or more. I know hundreds or players, a few really good, and maybe four have done this. Obv there are many who have succeeded grinding online for years, but most play 2-3 years seriously then blog about lack of motivation and start poker training sites or other businesses.

The quiet poker pros who make money year after year and do "well" are modest in number and almost exclusively do not play nosebleed poker. They play 2-5, 5-10 and maybe 10-20, or they've found honey holes in home games.

Also, there are many supposedly nonprofessionals who have day jobs but take substantial money out of the poker economy. They have two huge advantages. One, they don't have to pull money out of their bankrolls for day-to-day living expenses. If cards go bad for a few months they just don't spend any poker money until they're winning again. Two, they are under less pressure and don't have to play as many hours. They avoid burnout and take a tremendous amount of EV away from the grinding pros.

The guys who don't go broke and play for many years tend very strongly to be under the radar in smaller-stakes games and live non-baller lives, or they have a major outside source of income.

It's funny you should post this here because I was actually thinking about the exact same thing a few days ago. I believe for many of the top HU nosebleed players the problem lies with them all having the drive to be the best as well as often using poor bankroll management techniques. While I do believe durrrr was rolled for the highstakes games at one point (proved by him being able to drop 5.5 million to a single player), I believe these days when he plays the nosebleeds he is severely under-rolled.

While I don't know if a lot of what the OP says is anywhere near close to accurate, I can give you a number of reasons as to why we might never find out if some of these poker players actually are broke or not. A poker professional such as Doyle Brunson being outed as broke would completely cause the crash and burn of any and all glory the term 'poker professional' may in fact have. People play tournaments and gamble with the dreams of being just like those they watch on TV. I mean these people seem like they have no worry on earth, and are able to just drop $200,000 without even blinking an eye - something that is so very bewitching for the average person.

Everyone thought that Tom Dwan was completely unstoppable for a long period of time but as people can see from his PTR page, over the past year or two he actually hasn't made a cent. Tom's downfall is the fact that he refuses to follow game-selection techniques because he has the belief that he is in fact the best in the world. Sammy Farah made a comment in which he stated that there is always someone that has your number in poker, and no matter what you do you will never be able to beat them. If this is anything to go by, without proper game selection every top player will eventually go broke. It will come down to a game of scissors, paper, rock for money with the sites taking their rake. Could you imagine if Dwan stopped playing Isildur1 after he had first lost a million and took time off to analysed the situation before deciding whether or not to stop or continue? He could possibly not be in the situation that he is now and may have reached the 10mil mark on PTR.

While I don't think Tom Dwan nor Doyle Brunson are broke, I also don't think we will ever find out if any of them are anyway. Poker superstars such as these guys going broke from playing poker? That is NOT a good look for poker.

Hypothetically...only possible if 100% of all high stakes players had no other forms of income as sponsorship deals, business endeavors, big stakes at the online sites etc...not the case at all but it could happen in theory, yes.

Wether you are wrong or right in your views, i honestly would not know, but i respect the fact you do try to make your own thoughtful observations and take the time to share them with us in such an extensive way. I enjoyed the read a lot OP!

lol no

when these pros go broke what are they gonna do for a living??? Bouncer at a club, personal assistant/chef to the 2 months 2 million guys...

alot of lols in this op, but a few points seems to be true, 4 example the sammy farha thing, he got invited to play on hsp again but he doesnt like to because he doesnt want his strategy to be revealed lol...sure

come on, have u guys heard this before?

Conclusion from the I got from the OP is that the games are not dead.