Is Going Broke Necessary?

[Burdzthewurd]

I read time and time again from the likes of Negreanu, Hellmuth, Esfariandi, Greenstein, etc. about how a player must go broke once or twice when playing poker. Why is this a necessity? All of us have had downswings (some larger than others), but I don't feel I can justify any reason for me flushing my bankroll down the toilet unless it's a state of emergency and I need to use it for other means.

It seems further complicated with the utilty tools like PokerAce, PokerTracker, etc. (I'll be honest and say I don't use these much, I care more about reads and take a lot of notes, not rely on numbers). With all the different limits for every game, even if you go down 10-20 buy-ins, you should be able to move down at worst to the microlimits and build your roll back up. I do play games with huge variance (PLO where 10-20 buy-in swings are not uncommon, and Limit HE), but also low variance games such as Omaha Hi/lo and Stud Hi/Lo (two very underrated games I think newbies and beginners should consider learning first before Hold'em; you only need 100-200x BB to start these up to 5/10), so I don't have a problem taking a break from one and switching to another. Yes, everyone and their grandmother will say only play NL or Limit Hold'em because you make the most money that way. And yes, it's best to master one specfic game before you try anything else. I personally desire to make a living after college playing poker, that's a reason why I do my best to mix it up and play every game well.

Doing this keeps me fresh, and it helps in terms of table selection if there are no good limit HE games going (that's usually a rare thing, though), but you are always going to be able to find a fishy PLO/PLO8/LO8 game going. I digress, though. Is it evident these professionals say something like this because they did not have online back when they started (I'm pretty sure online poker was around when Esfariandi started, though before its boom)? I mean yes, everyone does something stupid at one point or another (playing the $1000 NLHE WSOP event would be mine, took a large chunk out of my roll), but I just can't see going broke being reasonable if you don't play above your limits, cash out all the time, loan money to someone who doesn't pay back, and don't steam/tilt off your cash. Bonuses and rakeback are also some good fallbacks. Thoughts anyone?

[CCovington]

I agree, there is no reason for a knowledgeable, disciplined, winning player to go broke playing poker with all the info/software we have avaliable today.

[Charlie J]

As long as you play with in your means you shouldn't go broke. but everyone has that day where the just flip out and piss it all away.

It cost me like $5-10k when I first started to realize the rule you obey like God is....PLAY WITHIN YOUR MEANS.

[mshalen]

The old pros did not have many of the advantages that you/we have and enjoy today.

They started in cash games before there was an internet (I know most of you guys don't believe it but some of us remember manual tune black and white TVs with only a few channels). They played in cash games without the advatage of micro games - you learned at 5/10 limits and quickly swam or sank.

Most of the older players do not come from backgrounds that are advataged as many of the posters here. They didn't have parents supporting them in school while they chased girls, drank and played cards.

When I look at the number of foreign born players and their backgrounds I am reminded of the early days of professional football - back before there was money in it. If poker had not caught on big these players would be playing each other in small tournaments with only the WSOP having a major payoff. Go back and check the numbers of entrants in the WPT season #1 tournaments and compare the numbers to today - just three years later.

As Brunson has said many times: these young players have seen more hands in a year then we saw in a career. In 1980 no one 4 tabled for 12 hours a day. You one tabled in a dirty, smoke filled room trying to beat the tourists out of a few bucks.

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]
As long as you play with in your means you shouldn't go broke. but everyone has that day where the just flip out and piss it all away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point of this thread is that not everyone has that day - it all comes down to just how much discipline you have. Some people start with it, others learn it through that first (or second, or third) bustout...and some never do.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
I read time and time again from the likes of Negreanu, Hellmuth, Esfariandi, Greenstein, etc. about how a player must go broke once or twice when playing poker. Why is this a necessity? All of us have had downswings (some larger than others), but I don't feel I can justify any reason for me flushing my bankroll down the toilet unless it's a state of emergency and I need to use it for other means.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't need to play so that you have a high risk of ruin. However, going broke is more reasonable than you make it seem.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] These players play live poker. That is much, much slower than online poker. Downswings last longer. You have to pay more living expenses per hand than you do online. It takes months of live play to double your bankroll if you are playing conservatively, while you can double your online bankroll in a week or two.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] When you move up in limits, you don't know what your new win rate is. It may take a while to determine that your win rate is much lower than you had hoped.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Going broke means your balance is 0, not your bankroll. Your bankroll may be larger than your balance if you can tap into other resources if you lose all of the cash you have now.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Those who choose to play live poker for a living are less risk-averse than most people. If they make decisions to expose themselves to more risk than you would tolerate, that may just be because they are less uncomfortable with losing, or value winning more.

[ QUOTE ]
I read time and time again from the likes of Negreanu, Hellmuth, Esfariandi, Greenstein, etc. about how a player must go broke once or twice when playing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Define going broke.

- Going broke as in dead flat busted with no job, no rent, no food, no stakehorse, no credit?

- Going broke as in having to wait for the next paycheck to stake yourself?

- Going broke as in having to wait for the ATM limit to recycle so you can withdraw more money?

Big differences with big implications depending on the scenrio. I hope no one would ever have to experience the first. Although if one is a losing player, sometimes that is the only way to get away from the game.

[GeniusToad]

I think the old adage that "every poker player goes broke" is outdated. As has been mentioned above, the technological advances that now exist make it much less likely for a player to lose all his money. For most people its just a self-control issue. Also, if you're the type of person that believes you have to take huge risks to get huge rewards, going broke may be an acceptable outcome to a gamble that possibly could have resulted in a huge pay day. Its all about personality type and self-discipline. I think this applies to any bankroll.

One more thing. Sometimes part of going broke "back in the day" meant a guy in a mask with a gun busted down the door of the smokey back room of the bar you were playing in and robbed the game blind. This type of thing will make even the most solid player go broke whether he likes it or not. These stories, although somewhat embellished over time, are quite common among the older, now legendary, players.