Must you go broke to be great?

I have heard that many of the best poker players - with sklansky being the exception - are actually quite proud of going broke at some point in their careers. I used to think this was silly, but my experience this past year had led me to question that notion.
I've been playing poker seriously for about 18 months - several games and limtis - and have always been proud that I've never had to reload my bankroll. At the same time, I have been unable to steadily build my bankroll. I just seem to hover around my initial investment. Could be I'm beating the game, but not the rake, since I primarly play $4-8 limit and $30 ring games.
I tend to play farily tight - though I will push in certain situations. What I am wondering is if my desire not to reload my bankroll has kept me from getting involved with more difficult hands that may cost me a little more in the short term, but will make my play stronger and enable me to outplay others in more difficult hands down the road. In otherwords, should I be more experiemental with my play in hopes it will pay off down the road or should I continue to play conservative until I eventually break through. Thoughts?

[jba]

the only way to steadily build your bankroll is by taking less money out of the roll than you win. If your bankroll is not growing, you are either taking too much money out of it or you are not a winning player.

If you start playing higher than your bankroll supports, you will have a greater chance that your bankroll grows. The tradeoff is that you have a greater chance of growing broke as well -- there is no way around this fact, it is math.

A good player can double his roll in 15,000 hands, which he can pump out in a month. This means a great player that can beat every level of game he plays can reasonably take $100 and grow it to nearly $500,000 in a year, with minimal risk of going broke. Given that this is true I'm not sure why being risk averse would prevent you from being a great player.

[smartalecc5]

I wish I could make 500,000 in a year by just playing simple poker. I think that number is a little too inflated...

Not if you're talking about doubling it every month. But you'd have to be a hell of a player to do that...

[BugsBunny]

[ QUOTE ]
can reasonably take $100 and grow it to nearly $500,000 in a year, with minimal risk of going broke

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on how you define minimal risk. If your great player has a 2% Risk of Ruin at any given level that would mean he has a greater than 20% chance of going broke before getting to 400K in 1 year. If he's willing to drop down levels as required to preserve bank then that 20%+ number is no longer true, but his chances of getting to 500K are now greatly reduced.

If his Risk of Ruin at any given level is 5% rather than 2% then that 20%+ changes to 45%+.

If we take a great player and assume that at the lowest level his ROR is .1%, next level it goes to .25%, then goes to .5% then increases at a rate of .5% per level as the difficulty of the game increases until he reaches a 5% ROR after 12 levels his overall ROR is still in the 25% range.

So again, it all depends on what you mean by "minimal risk".

You're talking about 12 levels here and Risk of Ruin starts over each time he moves up a level so your cumulative risk is geometrically imcreasing as you move up (if you don't allow yourself to move down as needed).

[CCovington]

its possible but not probable (going from $100 to $500,000)

[Guthrie]

[ QUOTE ]
I wish I could make 500,000 in a year by just playing simple poker. I think that number is a little too inflated...

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you missed the operative words: "a great player that can beat every level of game he plays"

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wish I could make 500,000 in a year by just playing simple poker. I think that number is a little too inflated...

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you missed the operative words: "a great player that can beat every level of game he plays"

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly

I'm talking about barry greinstein types here. OP was asking if bankroll risks were necessary to become a "great player". My point is that if you are a great player, you never have to put the roll at a significant risk.

I never even came close to saying you could make a half million playing "simple poker" --- I wish.

I think the question in your title can be rephrased.

Many individuals suggest that experience is the best teacher. There is a certain amount of value in learning about higher limit games from first-hand experience. Higher frequencies of these lessons can be maintained due to an unlimited bankroll, staying extremely lucky, and/or going broke several times. Is the value you gain from frequent first-hand experiences at higher limits greater than the value you gain from practicing relentless at lower limits, dedicating hours of study to your play, and taking much less frequent shots? Which will place you as a winning player at the highest limit the fastest?

You have 3 hours. Use blue or black ink only. Begin.

[ayecappy]

something for the mythbusters aye /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[phish]

Yeah, the best poker players are always broke. Just ask them.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, the best poker players are always broke. Just ask them.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Hey, TKO, you know I'm a winning player... can I borrow some cash?"

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, the best poker players are always broke. Just ask them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is ridiculous. Its nice to have a excuse for being iresponsible, however I totally disagree. I think the best players are the players who put themslefs in a place to win day in and day out, not those who take huge shots and miss. Its disgusting that some of "the best players" are always broke.

the thing about going broke is it teaches you hard lessons about bankrolling. but if you've never busted out, then i'd say you are a rare breed that already has good habits.

[phish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, the best poker players are always broke. Just ask them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is ridiculous. Its nice to have a excuse for being iresponsible, however I totally disagree. I think the best players are the players who put themslefs in a place to win day in and day out, not those who take huge shots and miss. Its disgusting that some of "the best players" are always broke.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess sarcasm is completely lost when it's not spoken with the sarcastic tone.

A Great Player would not risk his entire bank roll on one hand or even one session at the table. A Great Player will go Bust at the table from time to time. No one is immune from a Bad Beat. The difference between a Great Player building his bank roll is this: A Great Player will risk at most between 10%-15% of his bank roll in a single session. A Good-Medium Player will risk 25%-40% of his bank roll on a single session at the table. Thus when the Good-Medium player hits a run of bad cards, he can not survive and his bank roll goes bye-bye. One of the worst Bad Beats I have ever seen was at this years World Series of Poker. The Hand with Goldie Hawn's Kid vs. Sammy Farha. Keep in mind, this was the first hand of the tournament fo this table. Farha had A-10 and Hawn's Kid had 10-10. Flop comes A-A-10 giving both players a full house. Needless to say Hawn's Kid went bust. Not many Pro's would have been able to get away from the hand either. Just a lesson that bad beats do happen in this game. Just gotta survive them.

[ QUOTE ]
A great player will risk at most between 10%-15% of his bank roll in a single session. A good player will risk 25%-40% of his bank roll on a single session at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is an interesting point, with a decent estimate of the numbers. All other things being equal, you would be more likely to go bust playing on a shorter bankroll. Must you ever play on a short bankroll? I wonder how long it would take to move up one limit at a time whenever you reached 300BB for the next limit, and move down when you shrink to 300BB at the previous limit. I wonder if, by this method, you would never reach your optimal limits. Is taking shots necessary to be a great player?

I almost never get 10% on the table. What does
that make me? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I almost never get 10% on the table. What does
that make me? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Risk-averse?

Read this in a Sklansky essay. Thought it was relevant:

"Another excuse unsuccessful poker players make is that they would win if they didn't overplay their bankroll. There is some truth to that but not in the long run. If for instance you get into a $30-$60 game with $5,000 to your name, you are a favorite to go bust no matter how well you play. But not if you have done this several times. Eventually you should get lucky enough with that buy-in to bring it up to a point where you will never look back. If you don't, it's because you can't beat that game. I do know a few broke pros who could make a living at moderate games yet insist on playing stakes where they can't win. But that is a rare bird."

[Escotme]

Very interesting post.

To have any hope of answering the question, we need to define "great".

In my book, a "great" poker player will:
1) CONSISTENTLY beat the highest levels, ie. hard fact results should speak for themselves.
2) A great player must be able to adjust to opponents, table dynamics, levels, good/bad luck, etc.
3) Understand risk/reward in relation to own ability. If faced with inferior opponents, a great player not only could, but SHOULD put his whole bankroll at stake or play at a higher limit than he/she normally would. The risk/reward ratio warrants it and a great player should be able to recognize this. (The reverse is also true.) How much inferior should the opponent(s) be? Think about the Andy Beal challenge and you could almost feel the tickle that Ted Forrest, Howard Lederer et. al must have had when they sat down. In other words, a great player should know when to gamble and when to not.
4) Coping with risk. A great player should be unaffected by pressure and even be able to use it to his/her advantage.

Ok, now for answering your questions:
You specifically - if your hovering at your initial investment over an extended period, then you're not beating the game. Will going broke help you do that? Maybe. Maybe if you're going broke when learning to play the trickier hands - then it could be seen as a learning cost/investment. Some pro said that the biggest pots he won were the ones where his hand was only marginally better than his opponent's. Knowing when your ahead and when your not on close calls and how much you bet/call in those situations is another mark of a great player. That's how you consistently beat the game.

In general - I personally think that going broke could be beneficial in the long run. You have to push yourself to be great, regardless of what you do. If I don't fall when I ski, I'm not skiing in tough enough slopes/terrain. If you as a poker player don't push yourself to new limits, literally and symbolically, you will not grow and you could never aspire to be great. To be truly great, you must overcome what the average person deems as a healthy respect for money, otherwise you'll never get to play at the highest levels.

In summary, I don't think you NEED to go broke to be a great player, but you have to subject yourself to situations where it's possible that you COULD go broke, if the outcome is unfavorable. The decisions preceeding that, however, should not have been.