Is The Gambler an image thing?

[twang]

When I began playing poker some year and a half ago, I belived that one of the key aspects of every successful poker player was that they were extremely rational. A good player would only make +EV plays and never gamble in the general sense of the word, (i.e. blackjack, roulette, sports betting, craps etc).

My general opinion has not changed that much from back then, but I've come to realize that many of the big time poker players, both live and online, are betting on everything that moves (and some thing that don't). Besides the obvious names as Matusow and Ungar, there are also players that doesn't come off as crazy that obviously have some serious urges to control. Phil Gordon, Phil Ivey and Erik123 comes to mind.

I was thinking that maybe it's just an image thing for some people; if you area high stakes poker star you're expected to be making all kinds of weird and negative EV bets for thousands of $, even if you don't have a gambler nature or have a (borderline) gambling problem.

What do you think?

[vypremik]

I don't think most of the big stars make all kinds of crazy moves. It is true that do make some moves that seem like they are nuts, but there is almost always a reason for it.

Maybe the have a good read, maybe the pot odds are right, maybe they are taking advantage of a table image, maybe they are taking a stab at gathering chips to make a run at a win.

At any rate, many people believe that the top players play a lot looser than they realy do because the wild hands are always the ones that make it to television.

[twang]

I mean gambling away from the table. Crazy prop bets, horses, blackjack, roulette and craps. That kind of things.

[Bobb]

They're rich,

and they use moderation.

[soko]

[ QUOTE ]
They're rich,

and they use moderation.

[/ QUOTE ]

[soko]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean gambling away from the table. Crazy prop bets, horses, blackjack, roulette and craps. That kind of things.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the point of having money if you can't spend it on stupid [censored] and have a good time?

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They're rich,

and they use moderation.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

tell that to Mike Matasow. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[raze]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I mean gambling away from the table. Crazy prop bets, horses, blackjack, roulette and craps. That kind of things.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the point of having money if you can't spend it on stupid [censored] and have a good time?

[/ QUOTE ]

True enough. I should note though, I have been quite successful with online poker for the past year, but I have never wagered money (or ever felt an urge to) on Blackjack.

[WhoIam]

Gambling is fun and exciting. They do it primarily for the thrill and entertainment value and sense of risk they don't get from playing in poker games. Telling them not to gamble is like telling them not to do cocaine because it costs money.

I'm a pretty successful poker player and I enjoy gambling, but I only do it with amounts of money that are tiny compared to even one buyin. I satisfy my purely gambling urges by placing 1-2 small sports bets a week and playing BJ and sometimes even roulette in a casino while drinking heavily. It's a blast.

[frappeboy]

[ QUOTE ]
They're rich,

and they use moderation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when did Stu Ungar start using moderation?

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]
They're rich,

and they use moderation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always figured Greenstein was one of the more clever, calculating guys out there, and even he admits to being a million bucks in the hole at one point and losing a ton on sports betting and golf.

Many of the top "name" pros are degenerate gamblers, it's true.

[Peter Harris]

It's possible, and i'm just spitballing, that if you are a high stakes player you play with the same crowd; if you don't take part in proposition betting you may find yourself on the "outside" of a good game.

This is similar to the warnings in books like TOP about finding yourself out of good games if you refuse to give action.

Again, just an idea, no real evidence, but something to consider.

[stigmata]

Al Alvarez deals with this issue in "The Biggest Game in Town", which is also an absolutely cracking read and a cult classic, and comes highly reccomended.

From this book, a good inference is that many of the uber-high stakes players are elite poker players (obviously), but are also degenerate gamblers. It is the fact that they have a bizzare, somewhat detached relationship with money that allows them to play poker so well at such high stakes. It's not a problem for them to push astronomical sums of money with a tiny edge. There are probably many more elite poker players in the world, but these other players have a more grounded sense of money, and hence cannot help but play scared at such ridiculously high stakes.

I personally think that this may be somewhat chicken-and-egg though. I think gambling for a living can turn you into a "gambling addict" and you can start craving action in other places. I never used to gamble before starting poker, but I am now happy to lose a little money getting the worst of it, just for fun. I could never see the enjoyement or point before hand.

After winning the world series, a press agent asked Stu Ungar what he was going to do with the money. He apparantly chuckled, and quietly mumbled, so that it was barely comprehensible "lose it".

[BigPoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
It is the fact that they have a bizzare, somewhat detached relationship with money that allows them to play poker so well at such high stakes. It's not a problem for them to push astronomical sums of money with a tiny edge. There are probably many more elite poker players in the world, but these other players have a more grounded sense of money, and hence cannot help but play scared at such ridiculously high stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good point.

I play loose and aggressive in a small buyin MTT but would tighten up and get myself blinded away playing in the WSOP.