What's the REAL reason(s) so many "top" players are busto?

[inferno]

ego

[dismalstudent99]

Another reason: Easy access to loans + "moral hazard"


It seems that top live pros loan each other money all the time. Thus, good players can borrow to rebuild their bankroll.

Furthermore, there is what economists call a "moral hazard" effect -- if I know I can just borrow money from someone if I go bust, then I'm actually more likely to go bust because I'll play more recklessly.

A broke player then borrows and plays in "rebuild" mode til he's back in black.

[KamiKatze]

[ QUOTE ]
What about Nikki Jedlicka specifically? I think a number of 2p2ers have a lot of respect for his game, and I KNOW Phil Ivey does. From what I've read it was a $1.1m downswing (rumored to be since he signed with FTP) that busted his online BR and has him saying he isn't planning on redepositing anytime soon. Was he just playing too high the whole time (during his $2m+ upswing AND $1m downswing? What is it with so many HS players (DB comes to mind) living the high life one day, and seemingly crippled the next?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was a 3,2 mil up-swing, this was after he started taking shots at the 200$/400$ PLO Tables at FTP, playing his A+ Game, really being completely focused.
After he was winning like crazy for approx. 2 months, it got hard to concentrate, since winning 300k in one session got a little boring.
So he started to get bored while playing, tilting some money off, the stakes simply didn't mean much to him.
That's when he started to make bad decisions, get unlucky, get "shy" on the poker tables, which enabled players, who have been at the top for such a long time, to take advantage of him, getting 1,1 mil back, this down-swing started right after he signed up with FTP, playing under Niki Jedlicka.
He has now 0,00 $ on FTP, and doesn't plan to start playing anytime soon.

This is ofcourse not the entire truth, but as much as I find out by googling / reading his blog / chatting with him.

-Kami

[prohornblower]

Coke is a helluva drug.

[felixleong]

I think the following could be one of the reason.

lets say u are the 9th best player in the world, do u think u wouldnt go busto if u play against the other 8 best everyday?

i think the money making players are those that play stakes that are high enough but not the highest and make good $$

Top players that keep playing against other Top players do not really a lot edge as compared to finding weaker players.

The top players are just taking turns winning each other's $$, so the money is basically passing around one another.
And because of their expensive life style u know wat happens next... they take turns getting busto...

[JJBuffone]

[ QUOTE ]
Coke is a helluva drug.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[luegofuego]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Coke is a helluva drug.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[/ QUOTE ]

i really isnt

[EmpireMaker2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Coke is a helluva drug.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[/ QUOTE ]

i really isnt

[/ QUOTE ]

[warrantofice]

I realized i didn't complete explain my concept of the ceiling. The reason there is a ceiling in the stock market at around 500 million dollars is that at that point your much to large to invest in smaller companies, because you either will end up owning the company or not allowing enough shares for the market to dictate the value of it you also can't invest small portions in lots of companies because of the ammount of time involved in researching the companies, you'd need a very very large team of great investors looking in many different markets. This basically forces you into investing in large companies, though the problem with this is that, large companies are generally held by lots of people so the shares are generally very accurate in representing the company worth. Similar to sports betting on the NFL, unless your the very best, the lines are so close that the average bettor can not make any money off them.

So when were discussing this in regards to poker, the pool of players obvs shrinks as you move up in limits and you can't take advantage of all the donkeys at the 10nl level when your playing but the possibility that a good portion of the 9 players you will play against at your 10nl table will suck is very high, well the proportion of donkeys at each subsequent level decreases probably to some percent, although there may be some random varation. So when you start to reach the 100/200nl (some random level i choose) then the probablity that you will sit with a donkey has dratmatically decreases, and your now happy if a player has a couple of leeks. So obv everyone knows the variance increases as skill increases.

The next factor is that if your treating your money and time spent at poker as an investment, than you'll be looking at your entire bankroll as your principle and trying to see how you grow it. Now the if you consider a poker player who has 1 million dollars, you want to grow it, well playing 25/50plo table and you win $5 000 so you now have $1 005 000 dollars. Congrats you just increased your bankroll by .5% so obv its kinda pointless so you step up to the 250/500plo tables and win $50 000, you just increase your bankroll by 5% now you feel like you have something in your pocket. However now your have 5% of your entire bankroll on the table and when you loose well it works a lot different from winning...you ever time you win 50k 250/500plo its not 5% anymore.
(going to use smaller amounts to make it easy)
100nl $2000br
win $100 = 2100br +4.7%
win $100 = 2200br +4.5%
win $100 = 2300br +4.3%

Now watch when you loose

loose $100 = 1900br -5.2%
loose $100 = 1800br -5.5%
loose $100 = 1700br -5.9%
loose $100 = 1600br -6.25%

So as can be seen the compounding works against you on the way up, you need to keep more money in play to keep the same size of returns, however, as you loose money you can't keep at the same level of play without threating larger and larger percentages of your bankroll each time you play.

I was going to write some whole thing about internet leting the very best players play each other and yadda yadda yadda but i wno't cover that now.

I hope this helps answer the question at bit better though

[Stinger88]

[ QUOTE ]
I realized i didn't complete explain my concept of the ceiling. The reason there is a ceiling in the stock market at around 500 million dollars is that at that point your much to large to invest in smaller companies, because you either will end up owning the company or not allowing enough shares for the market to dictate the value of it you also can't invest small portions in lots of companies because of the ammount of time involved in researching the companies, you'd need a very very large team of great investors looking in many different markets. This basically forces you into investing in large companies, though the problem with this is that, large companies are generally held by lots of people so the shares are generally very accurate in representing the company worth. Similar to sports betting on the NFL, unless your the very best, the lines are so close that the average bettor can not make any money off them.

So when were discussing this in regards to poker, the pool of players obvs shrinks as you move up in limits and you can't take advantage of all the donkeys at the 10nl level when your playing but the possibility that a good portion of the 9 players you will play against at your 10nl table will suck is very high, well the proportion of donkeys at each subsequent level decreases probably to some percent, although there may be some random varation. So when you start to reach the 100/200nl (some random level i choose) then the probablity that you will sit with a donkey has dratmatically decreases, and your now happy if a player has a couple of leeks. So obv everyone knows the variance increases as skill increases.

The next factor is that if your treating your money and time spent at poker as an investment, than you'll be looking at your entire bankroll as your principle and trying to see how you grow it. Now the if you consider a poker player who has 1 million dollars, you want to grow it, well playing 25/50plo table and you win $5 000 so you now have $1 005 000 dollars. Congrats you just increased your bankroll by .5% so obv its kinda pointless so you step up to the 250/500plo tables and win $50 000, you just increase your bankroll by 5% now you feel like you have something in your pocket. However now your have 5% of your entire bankroll on the table and when you loose well it works a lot different from winning...you ever time you win 50k 250/500plo its not 5% anymore.
(going to use smaller amounts to make it easy)
100nl $2000br
win $100 = 2100br +4.7%
win $100 = 2200br +4.5%
win $100 = 2300br +4.3%

Now watch when you loose

loose $100 = 1900br -5.2%
loose $100 = 1800br -5.5%
loose $100 = 1700br -5.9%
loose $100 = 1600br -6.25%

So as can be seen the compounding works against you on the way up, you need to keep more money in play to keep the same size of returns, however, as you loose money you can't keep at the same level of play without threating larger and larger percentages of your bankroll each time you play.

I was going to write some whole thing about internet leting the very best players play each other and yadda yadda yadda but i wno't cover that now.

I hope this helps answer the question at bit better though

[/ QUOTE ]

good thing I never loose