Gamblers or not gamblers?

[Rasputin]

This isn't a post about whether poker is gambling, of course it is.

It's about personalities and poker. Some people like to take chances and live on the edge and all that stuff. Some folks don't. This isn't a black and white trait like color blindness or blood type, people fall all along the spectrum.

What I would like you to consider are on the one hand a guy who likes to gamble, likes the action, likes the edge, but not to the point of being an addicted gambler. He plays recreationally and likes to play aggressively but won't risk his house on the turn of a card. We'll call this guy the gambler.

On the other hand, consider a guy who is more conservative, wants to limit his downside even at the risk of limiting his upside. He plays poker recreationally and can take the risks involved in bluffing off a buyin or two but would be absolutely horrified to the point of nausea at the notion of betting his house. We'll call this guy the more conservative guy.

Now take these two guys out of their normal lives and make them professional poker players and answer two questions.

1) Which of them is likely to be the better player?

2) Which of them is more likely to be able to make it as a professional player?

These are pretty broad and sweeping generalizations, arent they?

[Rasputin]

[ QUOTE ]
These are pretty broad and sweeping generalizations, arent they?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

It was just something I was wondering as I was reading some of the discussion in the magazine forum about all the "going pro" articles. Seems to me that bankroll management is the downfall of many good poker players when perhaps a slightly lesser player with less gamble would have less chance of blowing it.

[Rolen]

Take 100 'gamblers' with good poker skills + give them all bankrolls of 10K. Come back in 5 years and you'll have 1 top class poker player earning millions a year in some of the biggest games around, and 99 guys will have 0.

Take 100 'non gamblers' with good poker skills and give em all 10K. Come back in 5 years and 99 will be successfully grinding out a modest income at the party 20/40, posting on 2+2 in their spare time. The other guy was the unlucky one.

Which one is better? The first of course! In answer to the questions, the gambler is likely to be the better player because, all other things being equal, the fact he's going to be playing a lot more poker will give him more experience. The second is more likely to be able to make it professionally, but no where near in as big a way as the first is able to.

[mosquito]

To some extent, willingness to take risk and pushing the
envelope are necessary to becoming a good player (not micro
limit).

The people that are pushing in a controlled manner have the
best chance.

Neither the conservative guy, nor the gamb00ler will become
good players without changing their modus operandi.

IMHO, the gamb00ler has a better chance though.

-mosquito