Winning $100,000 and Writing About How to To It

[David Sklansky]

No one who could make 100K in a year is going to lose 40K the next. Not playing medium stakes anyway.

[adios]

Definitions:

Labor Intensive - A process or industry that requires large amounts of human effort to produce goods.

Capital Intensive - A process or industry that requires large sums of capital resources to produce a particular good.

If "poker expertise" is a form of "capital" then IMO playing poker is labor intensive activity and writing books about poker is a capital instensive activity. You don't get the money as a player unless you put in the hours more or less (I'll condede that one could get lucky in a tournament and make a big score). On the other hand utilizing capital implies making an investment to reap future rewards. Leveraging one's knowledge about a subject or industry happens all the time in our economy and writing poker books is leveraging one's knowledge. Just a long winded posted to say that states that it's a perfectly rational economic and business decision that happens all the time in response to:

"So here are two of the best mid-limit hold'em players in the world devoting their energies to publishing/teaching instead of to playing. What does this say about the ease of making six figures playing mid-limit poker?"

[Jim Brier]

"What does this say about the ease of making six figures playing poker"

It says that people talented enough to make six figures playing poker can usually make a lot more money doing something else.

As an aside, there are other players who were making considerably more than $100K per year playing poker who quit to do something else. One example would be Dan Harrington. Dan was the 1995 WSOP champion and runner-up in last years WSOP (I think!). Dan was also a world-class high limit player. But he found that making bridge-loans on the Los Angeles real estate market was far more profitable so he doesn't play poker that much any more.

[CrackerZack]

Dan was 3rd, Sam Farha finished 2nd.

I love the game, but also seem to really like the security of an income not based on a game with a large element of chance.

[andyfox]

"It says that people talented enough to make six figures playing poker can usually make a lot more money doing something else."

Accept for the word "usually," I would agree. Although I suppose it would depend on the definition of the word "can." They may have the brains to do so in other fields, but maybe not the know-how. Or they may be lazy or inarticulate or antisocial.

But I would agree that for all but a few, the big bucks ain't in the playing.

[M.B.E.]

I'm wondering what the purpose of the disguise is. Is he going to pretend to be some tourist just learning how to play?

I would have thought that the advantages of being known as a poker authority would outweigh the disadvantages in terms of EV in a mid-limit game.

[MMMMMM]

I'll say one thing which I think is pretty applicable. When you play poker you want your opponents to not be taking the game too seriously. Sure it's nice if you can push someone out of a pot when you need to if they fear you. But David's problem (and I think he said this once) is that people try very hard against him because of who he is. I've noticed a similar effect in tournaments. Even the guys who usually give their money away are trying to win. That might not make them all play like Brunsons but it sure can make them tougher to beat. Even a poor player can suddenly decide to tighten up and stop giving action for a while and play only the premium hands if for some reason he is trying very hard.

[andyfox]

See David's post in the Sklansky Slammers thread. He says people tighten up against him so as not to embarrass themselves and that, on balance, this hurts him in a ring game.

[skp]

Malmuth has written that a wild image is not the right inage to have in hold 'em. This is because in general, you want people to fold against you as the play develops on most hands. Admittedly, I am oversimplifying Mason's rationale but in any event, I agree with his statement.

Sklansky's disguise comment appears to state the opposite.

So, I agree with you...I don't get the disguise bit.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]


Sklansky's disguise comment appears to state the opposite.

So, I agree with you...I don't get the disguise bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was pretty clear that he felt he would lose EV immediately if you recognized him rather than taking quite some time to learn how well he played. This has nothing to do with a wild image at all.