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 [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]