Nosebleed-Stakes Psychology

Poker players all over the world have been fascinated by the ultra-high-stakes battles at FullTiltPoker.com. A handful of young wizards have played heads-up no-limit hold’em and PLO [pot-limit Omaha] with blinds as high as $1,000-$2,000. Pots have exceeded $1 million, and there have been several multimillion-dollar wins and losses.

You can get the facts from Julio Rodriguez’s reports at CardPlayer.com and the Card Player Dec. 30, 2009, cover story. I’ll just answer four questions:

• How talented are they?
• What are their motives?
• How realistically do they perceive their situation?
• What should you learn from them?

How Talented Are They?
They are exceptionally gifted. Players of their ages have never been so highly regarded. Despite being only 23, Tom Dwan was nominated for the Poker Hall of Fame, an honor that usually comes after decades of notable accomplishments. Phil Ivey just turned 34, and many top players consider him to be among the world’s best, or even the very best. I believe that the others are under 30; since they can hold their own, they must be very good.

I am awed by how fast they think. Doyle Brunson, Stu Ungar, and the other immortals could take much more time to make their decisions. Because the nosebleed-stakes players play multiple tables simultaneously online, they have only a few seconds to make complicated decisions involving fortunes.

Most multitable players play formulaically, but you can’t do that against great players. They will quickly “crack the code” and develop effective counter-strategies. Arthur Reber, author of The Dictionary of Psychology, said that their speed comes from two factors: their youth, and thousands of hours of playing video games and multiple tables online.

Young people think much faster than older ones, and those games speed up their reactions. Because they play multiple tables simultaneously online, all of them have played far more hands than anyone who doesn’t play online. After playing millions of hands, they have repeatedly encountered most situations and don’t have to “go into the tank” to analyze things and decide what to do.

What Are Their Motives?
Some (perhaps all) of them may disagree with my opinion: Their motives are at least partly irrational.

In all economic activities, including poker, “rational” means thinking logically to maximize profits, and they all yield to at least three partly irrational desires:

• To prove how good they are
• To become famous
• To get an adrenaline rush

To Prove How Good They Are: This desire has destroyed countless players’ bankrolls, and it reduces the immediate profits of anyone who yields to it.

Because they all are so good, nobody has much of an edge. If they really wanted to maximize profits, they would follow Barry Greenstein’s advice: “You want to play with bad rich players, because that is the best way to make the most money. I notice that a lot of younger players want to prove how good they are, and because of that, they do not select good games. … To me, poker is not about proving I can beat everyone. It is about paying the bills.” (“Capture the Flag,” Card Player, May 21, 2008)

Young people often ignore this sort of advice, partly because they think they can do anything. For example, Dwan offered 3-1 odds to anyone, and “Isildur1” played against Dwan, Patrik Antonius, and Ivey simultaneously.

Dwan may be a bit better than anyone, but nobody is a 3-1 favorite against the world’s best. Isildur1 may have an edge against Dwan or Antonius or Ivey, but nobody has an edge against all three of them at once. He got lucky that time, but CardPlayer.com reported that he “lost in the neighborhood of $2 million to $3 million overall in 2009.” He is now apparently playing in much smaller games, presumably because he lost most of his bankroll.

I’m not surprised. My first Card Player column was “Arrogance, the Biggest Bankroll Buster.” (Sept. 13, 2002) Arrogance causes players to take foolish, bankroll-busting risks.

To Become Celebrities: Many cash-game pros disguise their skills to maximize their profits. If people knew how good they were, they would get less action. Since television has made top tournament players famous, some cash-game players yearn to become celebrities, and Full Tilt has helped them to do it.

They naturally love reading about themselves, having strangers recognize them, and being interviewed. Celebrities also get endorsements and sponsorships, which make this desire somewhat less irrational. In addition, as celebrities, they occasionally may get more action (in live games). A few rich people will want to play with them just so that they can tell their friends: “You should have seen the great bluff I made against Doyle.” They conveniently forget that they lost heavily.

To Get an Adrenaline Rush: They are partly “action junkies.” This term is usually applied to losers who gamble crazily, but it also fits them. Antonius has even said that he gets bored when playing with “only” $200-$400 blinds. Their need for an adrenaline “fix” makes them play without an edge and above their bankrolls.

Many high-stakes players have a similar need, but the older ones control it better. T_he Professor, The Banker, and The Suicide King_ quoted Doyle Brunson: “It takes kind of a sick person to play the way we do. I’m convinced we’re all compulsive gamblers. We just find a way to win.” Howard Lederer agrees: “Most of us, maybe all of us, have a little of the sickness in us. … The guys that end up in the biggest games are the ones that have a little too much gamble in them, but they’ve managed to figure out how to use it to their advantage.” (Pages 10-11)

How Realistically Do They Perceive Their Situation?
In “Winners Are Brutally Realistic” (Card Player, Oct. 2, 2007), I wrote that many players deny reality about themselves, their opponents, and our game. The nosebleed-stakes players overestimate their own abilities and underestimate their opponents.

The first World Series of Poker provided an amusing example of these tendencies. The tournament director asked participants to vote for the best player. Everyone voted for himself. To break the tie, he had them vote for the second-best player.

They also deny an essential poker reality: Because luck has such huge short-term effects, most (or all) of them don’t have a large enough bankroll to guarantee that they won’t go broke.

Because their games are so different from anything we have seen before, the rules for estimating bankroll requirements can’t be applied automatically. But the logic of those rules certainly applies: You need a larger bankroll as the skill differences become smaller and the game gets more volatile. Since they are about equally skilled, and multitable heads-up play is extraordinarily volatile, some of them are playing above their bankrolls.

My next column will discuss the various aspects of challenging the best and putting your bankroll on the line: You can’t reach your full potential without playing against superior players, and many of the world’s greatest players have repeatedly gone broke. It also will describe the lessons that these players can teach you.

Author’s note: I’d like to thank Lou Krieger, David Sklansky, Arthur Reber, Barry Tanenbaum, Nick Christenson, and Matt Lessinger for their help.

Dr. Schoonmaker, [email protected], is the author of four poker books: The Psychology of Poker, Your Worst Poker Enemy, Your Best Poker Friend, and Poker Winners Are Different.