Where is the money coming from in high stakes poker?

[GoCubsGo]

I've been thinking about this for a while. At SSNL, most players suck. They saw the WSOP on TV and they've got $200 burning a hole through their pocket. They make a deposit and after about a month, sometimes less, go bust. This makes it pretty easy for a decent player to win at low stakes.

However, these guys don't go to 5/10 or 10/20 tables. They can't afford it. My picture of high stakes poker is the same people seeing each other every day because that's what they do for a living. All high stakes players must be very good, right? I would think they just pass $ back and forth, with no donkeys constantly contributing. In addition, the casino takes a rake, so there is less and less money between these good players.

I'm obviously wrong, because people do make money at high stakes. I just don't understand how. How could there be a losing player at 5/10? Wouldn't you have to be a complete idiot to continue losing $1000 a day? What am I missing?

[Fianchetto]

[ QUOTE ]
All high stakes players must be very good, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Hah.

There is enough luck in poker that even bad players can book some big wins, which will keep them coming back even though the wins are outweighed by bigger losses.

Also some people just have more disposable income to gamble with.

[yvesaint]

rich people suck and play poker too

[JKratzer]

Good players at low limits will take shots at higher limits. $$ from lower stakes can "trickle up" to the higher stakes. Also, just because many people are good at higher stakes doesn't make them equal. Some of them are better, and these are the true long term players.

JKratzer

[WhiteWolf]

[ QUOTE ]
rich people suck and play poker too

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the answer.

I'm guessing a combination of several places:

1. A lot of those people with $200 burning a hole in their pocket that will bust out quickly aren't exactly the type who are thinking, "Boy, I'd better stick to the 10NL game since that's all my bankroll will support." A lot will be just as likely to try 5/10 as .05/.10 just because they have no concept of bankroll management and they think that they're experts because they've watched the WSOP on TV.

2. There are rich people out there who just have money to burn. You may have started at .05/.10 with a $100 bankroll, but your average multi-millionaire is going to waste his time with that. Of course their play will be every bit as bad as the newbies at the small stakes and they'll get eaten alive by the sharks at the higher levels. That doesn't mean they'll hesitate to redeposit and try again though.

3. People are playing above what their bankroll allows. Some guy who plays regularly at $1/$2 decides to "take a shot" and finds himself horribly outmatched. Just because someone's playing $5/$10, doesn't mean they've really demonstrated the skill to win there.

4. Sort of related to the previous item, but most people, even solid players, reach a point where they simply don't have the skill to beat the next level. Not everyone that is crushing the .05/.10 game is going to eventually be a winner at 10/20. At some point they're going to move up to a level that they can't beat, lose some money, and drop back down. They'll make their money back at the lower level, take another shot, and lose again. Figure this happens many times before they finally get the hint and then multiply this effect by all the players out there and you'll see a "trickle-up" effect where money that is won by good players at lower stakes is lost at the higher stakes when they try to move up.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Read "The Professor, the Banker, and the Suicide King." It's the story of the largest game ever. Andy Beal lost well over $10,000,000 to the world's greatest players.

He is just an extreme case. LOTS of people have more money than brains. We call them "Whales" because they are much bigger than mere fish.

In the past most of them played craps, roulette, etc. Now that poker is fashionable, some of them play poker. A few of them take lessons and become reasonably competent, but some of them are as outmatched in the big games as the newbies are in the tiny ones. In fact, occasionally someone gets drunk in a big game and throws money away just like a drunken tourist in a small game.

David Sklansky has written quite a bit about the way that the players in the really big games all live off a few fish. They don't have much edge over each other, but they have a huge edge against the fish.

Regards,

Alan

[KeysrSoze]

I was railbirding party 100/200 today and believe me, the bad players are there too.

[goofball]

[ QUOTE ]
Read "The Professor, the Banker, and the Suicide King." It's the story of the largest game ever. Andy Beal lost well over $10,000,000 to the world's greatest players.

He is just an extreme case. LOTS of people have more money than brains. We call them "Whales" because they are much bigger than mere fish.

In the past most of them played craps, roulette, etc. Now that poker is fashionable, some of them play poker. A few of them take lessons and become reasonably competent, but some of them are as outmatched in the big games as the newbies are in the tiny ones. In fact, occasionally someone gets drunk in a big game and throws money away just like a drunken tourist in a small game.

David Sklansky has written quite a bit about the way that the players in the really big games all live off a few fish. They don't have much edge over each other, but they have a huge edge against the fish.

Regards,

Alan

[/ QUOTE ]


I think it is highly inaccurate to describe andy beal as having "more money than brains." He's such a highly successful businessman, that coming up with 10M or whatever for his match with the pros was easy. The top poker players in the world however, had a tough time with it, had to pool their bankrolls, and still had to get him to reduce the stakes.

[SoCalRugger]

[ QUOTE ]
However, these guys don't go to 5/10 or 10/20 tables.

[/ QUOTE ]
Go play a 5/10 game (or just watch one) for ten minutes or so, then see if you still think this statement is true.