Why nosebleed games are built around one player

Barry Carter explains why it only takes one bad player to keep an entire high stakes poker economy afloat.

Gus Hansen and Viktor Blom leaving Full Tilt this week was one of those surprises that, after thinking about it, wasn’t that surprising. It seems like it is the way sponsorships are going in general and given both men were technically losing players since signing their deals, it wasn’t a huge shock.

The more interesting thing (for a poker nerd like me) was what a profound impact this has had for the high stakes community. Indeed, just how much nosebleed poker games are built entirely around one or two players.

Gus has not been seen at the online high stakes games for a month, and as a direct result, the traffic in those games has reduced dramatically. Blom has also moved from Full Tilt to PokerStars this month, and it seems what little action there is has gone with him to Stars. For the last two years it seems like the action in these games have revolved around Hansen, and given that he has lost over $17 million since Full Tilt relaunched, it is easy to see how he has propped up an entire poker economy.

The one-man poker economy

This is not just exclusive to Hansen, the highest stakes have always revolved around a small contingent of losing players. The many rumoured accounts of Guy Laliberte pre-Black Friday being a prime example. Guy is said to have been the making of players like Tom Dwan, just like Andy Beal was the making of the 'Corporation' (A group of live poker players including Doyle Brunson, Phil Ivey, Ted Forrest and more). 

Around the same time as Guy, an unknown player called Isildur1 made for perhaps the most entertaining period in online poker for the railbirds. During this time we saw games as big as $1,000/$2,000 and multiple pots close to (and in two cases more than) $1 million. All essentially because of two players for whom the games were built around. 

A barrier for entry

In that respect, the nosebleed games resemble live poker much more than online. You have a hard time getting a seat, there is a queue a mile long and the shrewdest players find ways of liaising with the losing player to make sure they are playing at the same time.

The stakes of the tables, therefore, serve almost as much to ensure there is a barrier for entry for most of the $25/$50 regulars than just about playing for the biggest money. It's not that $200/$400 players are better, they just have the funds to play. 

It seems that around the $25/$50 level is the last sustainable organic stake that people play because it is the level they are skilled and bankrolled for. Everything else you see above that is a distorted way to ensure that not everyone can participate (It is remarkable, for example, how many people sell action at the nosebleed stakes, because most of the regulars are not bankrolled for it).

A lot of people think that Super High Roller games like One Drop and Rail Heaven are a sign of a flourishing poker economy. That is probably not the case. The size of the biggest games is most likely directly proportional to how big the biggest losing player wants to play at the time. 

The nosebleed games are not dead, they are simply sleeping until the next big fish comes along.