They say the art of horse riding is in the not falling off. They also say that you aren’t a proper rider until you’ve been thrown several times. A similar contradiction exists in poker. Pretty much all the top pro's say you’ve got to go bust a few times. They also advise playing within your bankroll so that this never happens.
How can both things be true? Personally, I see some merit in the argument that going broke can be a good thing. In individual tournaments, you aren’t going to get very far if you’re afraid of getting all your chips in the pot. Having been doon to the dross several times in your playing career will help to breed a fearless attitude. Same with horse riding, you can comfortably canter all day long if you’re not scared of landing on yer goolies.
I think far too many people use it as a badge of honour. Money is how we keep score in poker, when you’ve lost it all, surely it’s something to be ashamed of, not proud of. Pride can be derived from having been ruined, and worked your way back up again, but not in the act of blowing your wad itself. That’s a mistake I think a lot of people make.
Easy to do that, it’s natural to protect the ego after all. The main cause of being out of action is playing in a game that’s too big for you. Celebrating your doom in an unsuccessful swaray at a high limit is a way of ignoring the fact that you shouldn’t have been in the game in the first place.
Ability to make money at the poker tables is, of course, central to the trade we ply. If you can’t do that, there’s not much point in having the best money management skills in the world. The converse is also true, no point in being the greatest poker player that has ever graced the felt, if you can’t keep ahold of it. This is why I’ll never consider Stu Ungar to be among the 'true' greats.
He won millions in tournaments, but lost it all at the track. Many describe him as the greatest poker player of all time, I disagree. As I said above, money is how we keep score. How can someone who is always skint be any good?
Don’t get me wrong, all due respect to the dead dude. He was, by all accounts, a competitor of unbelievable ability. This is where I’d draw the distinction between a 'great' poker player and someone who is to be 'most feared' at the table.
If someone was making $100 a week during the 80s, grinding it out at $3/$6 stud, and had something to show for it at the end of the decade, then I’d consider them to be a better player than the chappy who won millions several times, before squittering it all away. That’s just my opinion.
If falling off a horse makes you a better rider, maybe Mr. Ungar should have been a jockey and bet on himself. I can’t knock him too much though, he was a great man, and money wasn’t a way of keeping score to him. He just didn’t care about finances the way you and I do.
Be proud not that you have fallen off, but that you climbed back on. Learn from your experiences, so that you’ll be less likely to be thrown into the sawdust again.
How can both things be true? Personally, I see some merit in the argument that going broke can be a good thing. In individual tournaments, you aren’t going to get very far if you’re afraid of getting all your chips in the pot. Having been doon to the dross several times in your playing career will help to breed a fearless attitude. Same with horse riding, you can comfortably canter all day long if you’re not scared of landing on yer goolies.
I think far too many people use it as a badge of honour. Money is how we keep score in poker, when you’ve lost it all, surely it’s something to be ashamed of, not proud of. Pride can be derived from having been ruined, and worked your way back up again, but not in the act of blowing your wad itself. That’s a mistake I think a lot of people make.
Easy to do that, it’s natural to protect the ego after all. The main cause of being out of action is playing in a game that’s too big for you. Celebrating your doom in an unsuccessful swaray at a high limit is a way of ignoring the fact that you shouldn’t have been in the game in the first place.
Ability to make money at the poker tables is, of course, central to the trade we ply. If you can’t do that, there’s not much point in having the best money management skills in the world. The converse is also true, no point in being the greatest poker player that has ever graced the felt, if you can’t keep ahold of it. This is why I’ll never consider Stu Ungar to be among the 'true' greats.He won millions in tournaments, but lost it all at the track. Many describe him as the greatest poker player of all time, I disagree. As I said above, money is how we keep score. How can someone who is always skint be any good?
Don’t get me wrong, all due respect to the dead dude. He was, by all accounts, a competitor of unbelievable ability. This is where I’d draw the distinction between a 'great' poker player and someone who is to be 'most feared' at the table.
If someone was making $100 a week during the 80s, grinding it out at $3/$6 stud, and had something to show for it at the end of the decade, then I’d consider them to be a better player than the chappy who won millions several times, before squittering it all away. That’s just my opinion.
If falling off a horse makes you a better rider, maybe Mr. Ungar should have been a jockey and bet on himself. I can’t knock him too much though, he was a great man, and money wasn’t a way of keeping score to him. He just didn’t care about finances the way you and I do.
Be proud not that you have fallen off, but that you climbed back on. Learn from your experiences, so that you’ll be less likely to be thrown into the sawdust again.
Thomas 'thetank' Stott
[Ed Note: A thread has been started on the forum regarding this topic. So, if you wish to comment on the content of this article, then please add your thoughts to thread by clickingthe 'forum' link below]
