Do pro's really "go broke" all the time? Someone explain this to me.

[Bob Moss]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, thats silly---He makes on average $75,000 a year. He stays under the radar by not being a big profile player like a lot of pro's are. Why does he stay under the radar??? He doesn't pay taxes on his winnings. He has a good thing going and doesn't want to ruin it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure he'd be very pleased to see you talking about his taxes on a public forum.

[ZSebag]

I think the reason he has a "win limit" is because he is playing with tourist, lets say the average vacation is 2 weeks. If you take an extreme amount of their money in 1 night, they won't come back. If you take it little by little the days they decide to play poker they will end up putting more at risk. For example, take limit games. It's common understanding that people call more raises in limit games because there such a small amount, however it adds up. I believe it is the same effect here, if he takes to much of their money in one night, he most likely won't get as much as he could, so in fact he's MAXIMISING he win percentage.


I hope I made sense.

[DrPhysic]

I read a story about one of the pro's which may be relevant. I don't remember a name, nor am I going to do a large amount of research to find it, but it was reported as a true story.

One of the pro's went to one of his friends and asked to borrow $500 to make his rent money. His friend said "I thought you were playing in the $1000 tournament tonight. His answer was, "Oh well, I have the money for THAT."

I think this simple but presumably true example may explain the connotation among pro's of the word "Busto".

Doc

[GeleHaas]

Can't a pro answer this question? I've seen many different answers, but witch 1 is the right one?

[revg]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you really a "pro" if you risk your entire bankroll on high stakes games? Seems to me you are a gambler.

I've watched a few episodes of High Stakes Poker. At the table were: ELI, HANSEN, NEAGRANU, DOYLE, THE MAGICIAN, GREENSTEIN and one other guy (a weak tight rock).

So my question is this: If all of these guys are "pros", then who is the sucker at the table? The weakest guy isn't spewing chips. He's waiting for a solid hand.

I watched one great hand between Gus and Daniel. 55 v 66. Board 5 6 8 5 7. Final pot $600,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very good question. Who is the sucker at the table? Most of the time it is Phil Hellmuth, but with all the guys you mentioned I don't know.

[freewheeler]

Poker is a funny game. The way it is played by you and a lot of other smart young pros, it is not gambling at all. If you play very well, only join tables when you are quite sure you are +EV, and you understand variance and manage your bankroll accordingly, then you are clearly not gambling (even though poker can be correctly classified as a gambling game). However, if you have pretty much all of the elements of a successful poker player EXCEPT for the fact that you are a gambler by nature (which is what attracted you to poker in the first place) then the gambler in you will eventually lead you to get in over your head, which will inevitably lead to busto (which it is true can taken to mean a variety of different things).

"Pros" who are also "gamblers" will likely go bust at some point. Many will learn their lessons, get their act together, and get back on their feet and be successful. Many others will not. The point is that the "new school" pros - like you - are really not gamblers at all. And it is a well known thing that non-gamblers really don't understand very well the motivations of the gambler. What you see as obviously foolish mismanagement of bankroll, is exactly what gets a gamblers juices flowing. So the answer to the question in the OP is "no, of course not". There are lots and lots of pros who will never come close to going bust. But their story is not as entertaining...

[rakemeplz]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the reason he has a "win limit" is because he is playing with tourist, lets say the average vacation is 2 weeks. If you take an extreme amount of their money in 1 night, they won't come back. If you take it little by little the days they decide to play poker they will end up putting more at risk. For example, take limit games. It's common understanding that people call more raises in limit games because there such a small amount, however it adds up. I believe it is the same effect here, if he takes to much of their money in one night, he most likely won't get as much as he could, so in fact he's MAXIMISING he win percentage.


I hope I made sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think thats in supersystem but it makes no sense. Busto means you have no bankroll and thus can not play games, doesn't have much to do with what groceries you're buying/rent etc.

[driller]

So Stu Unger who died broke but won about half of the high entry fee nl tournaments he entered was a putz?

He was an awesome poker playing talent, but he was also a gambler with almost no social skills and he couldn't even spell money management.

Semantics here I guess. If you define a non putz as a superior card player with good game selection and money management skills then a lot of the big name pros don't qualify, but in my opinion that doesn't make them poor poker players.

[bilyin]

Have you guys ever heard of "profit taking"? That is what his brother means by "win limit". Of course one must stop when not playing well. You must also learn to quit a winner. If you can't quit when you are down and won't quit when you are ahead, you will go bust. Am I missing something or are you guys as stupid as you appear to be?

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you guys ever heard of "profit taking"? That is what his brother means by "win limit". Of course one must stop when not playing well. You must also learn to quit a winner. If you can't quit when you are down and won't quit when you are ahead, you will go bust. Am I missing something or are you guys as stupid as you appear to be?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to quit eventually, of course. But no, you are as stupid as you appear to be.