Andy Glazer "Pays Up"

Before the WSOP, someone asked me, as an alleged poker expert, to reveal what my financial results were for the last year. I said it was a fair question but that I was too busy to answer at the moment.


I should have answered at the moment, because the answer has changed, but a promise is a promise.


I work off a fiscal year of July 1-June 30, and while I don't want to get into precise figures, I can now say that what was a promising year ended up in the red, thanks to a WSOP that cost me $22,000 in entry fees with only one cash (in a one table satellite). I failed to make the money in the four events I bought straight into. Previously, things were pretty good, even though $7600 went down the drain at the Commerce when, 15 minutes into the tournament, all the money went in pre-flop with me holding two aces against two kings. These things happen, but they are pretty annoying 15 minutes into that big a tournament.


Things would have been even better if my blunder at the WPO hadn't "won" me -$1,800. The entry fee was ten grand, and I got $8,200 for finishing 22nd, making the incredibly stupid mistake of taking my top five stack against one of only four players who could have busted me, Humberto Brenes, who used the chips (after the hand he had almost exactly twice as much as his closest competitor and it was a LONG way back from there to fifth) to pound everyone else into oblivion and win the half million. I hadn't been playing big pot poker for three days, and suddenly I played one for $225,000 against the only player at my table who could bust me. Six months have passed and I think there have been maybe four days when that hand hasn't at least briefly entered my mind.


So, for that fiscal year, I ended up a net loser, but not by a lot, and the finish goes to show just how large a bankroll a tournament player needs to have, if s/he is to enter $10,000 tournaments (two) or $2,000 or $3,000 tournaments. The fluctuation on these things is enormous, and you need to be able to absorb "hits" in a lot of them if you're going to play them: that's just the nature of tournament poker.


If I'd stuck to $500 tournaments, I'd have made a tidy little profit, but of course, I wouldn't have been in position to win a half million in Tunica, either. I plan to play 2-3 10k tournaments this year, depending on what's offered (I skipped the Party Poker Million because I had been planning on playing the Poker Million, which got cancelled after the ship sailed, as well as a few other smaller championship events and a few other WSOP events, in addition to the occasional $500 and $300 events. If I whiff again in the big money events (I'm not quite sure whether to categorize the WPO as a whiff or not) in 2002-2003, I might re-think my battle plan for 2003-2004. The smaller events and the cash games help, but my bankroll isn't unlimited.


One thing I do know for sure: I'm going to play more events and more side games this year. I was so busy with various writing projects that I skipped a lot of good tournaments, even those that were right in my own back yard in LA, and while there may be poker players who are good enough to play their "A" game after a month away from the tables, I'm not one of them.


Andy Glazer

Good post Andy,


And I do hope you will find the time to post here again, as this forum would surely profit from both your poker and writing skills.


Nicolas

He's just gonna gave to post here more now that he has no one left to write for. Poker Digest is down the tubes and Barry Shillman will no longer accept him in the Shillman publication CardPlayer.

I found A.G.'s post interesting. I have wondered about writers/players' results, but would never ask anyone how much they made or lost.


I think it takes guts to admit to a losing year (though it wasn't a dreadful one).


I haven t been checking postings in a while, and haven't seen Andy's articles in the card player. -- with hopes i don't sound too nosy - why is he not writing for card player any longer?


Andy, i've enjoyed your articles!

How the heck should I know why he's not writing for CardPlayer any longer!!!!???? Go away!!!!!

Andy,


Thanks for the report. You can't measure results by one year of tournament playing anyway, so I wouldn't worry about being in the hole this year.


What I really want to know is statistically how have you done? I would be more interested in what the bottom line is for the last 100 tournaments that you have played. Just subtract the entry fees from the profits. If you don't want to post your own numbers, maybe there is someone you know who would be willing to post their tournament record.


My final question? I don't think there are that many people making a living off of playing tournaments unless they have won one of the bigger tourneys to keep them in the money.


Futhermore, I think the rating system that is used to rank tournament players is invalid, because we do not know how many tourneys they have played to achieve that rating.


Good Luck


Mark

Hi Mark,


I don't want to set any more precedents about posting entire tournament results. I'm going to keep that between me and the IRS. Before you draw any conclusions about that, know that when someone asks me if I've slept with a woman, my answer is always (with thanks to James Bond, who gave it to me in Live and Let Die), "It's not the sort of question a gentleman answers." Basically, any other approach means that if I say "no" when the answer is "no" and "no comment" when the answer is yes, it becomes pretty obvious what the answer is in all situations.


I think your second comment almost right on the money, but I would make one change. I don't think you have to WIN a big tournament to making a living playing tournaments, but you certainly have to either do that or get not just to the money but to the top three on a fairly consistent basis. Seconds and thirds, especially if there is a deal involved, can be pretty profitable. But someone who plays a lot of tournaments and can't crack the top three fairly often is going to be a losing player, barring one huge score.


I'm not sure if I'd call the current rating system "invalid," because it does provide SOME information, but I certainly agree that a system that showed what percentage of the time someone won or made the final table would provide a lot more information. Someone like Erik Seidel, who doesn't play a lot of events, doesn't get a ranking anywhere near where he deserves, while there are others who play 300 tournaments a year who are probably ranked higher than they should be.


Andy Glazer