What Gus Hansen can teach us about game selection
Why do talented players insist on playing in the games they can't beat or can't afford? Barry Carter and Jared Tendler discuss how you can avoid these pitfalls.
One of the big stories right now is that Gus Hansen lost over $8 million in 2013 and for the third time became the biggest online poker loser of the year (down nearly $15 million online since records began).
The sad thing is that Gus is a talented poker player. He has over $11 million in tournament wins, a WSOP bracelet, an Aussie Millions title, and three WPT titles.
The reason why Gus loses so much money online is not because he is a bad player in general, but because he insists on playing in the biggest nosebleed games against the best players in the world.
He may be the most high-profile case, but there are a lot of very talented players who are actually losing players (or even broke) because they stubbornly ignore the rules of game selection and bankroll management.
It would be remiss of me to not mention the obvious: that some pros have gambling problems. The same cavalier attitude towards money and variance that likely helped them become successful players can obviously also be their downfall.
I think it is too easy to dismiss all cases of players who make bankroll management and game selection errors by labelling them as a degenerate. I think there are other reasons why good players still ignore these fundamentals.
(Mis)understanding skill and variance?
One thing I have learned from my good friend and mental game coach
We are all vulnerable to cognitive biases which make us believe others are not as intelligent as we are, and when we lose it is down to bad luck. Most people claim to have an edge on the field, and most exit stories from a tournament are claimed to be bad beats.
We can all objectively notice these predispositions in others, but it is much harder to spot it in ourselves. If you believe you were unlucky in your last few losing sessions, or if you believe one of the regulars is inferior because of a mistake you believe he made, it is hard to not want to play in that game even if it is costing you money.
Poor predictions of the future
| jaredtendler |
 Jared Tendler, MS, is poker's leading mental game expert.
He has coached over 200 of the world's top players and is the author of The Mental Game of Poker 1 & 2. |
Regarding bankroll management, the problems can come from overconfidence. I refer to
"Human beings are poor predictors of the future; when they are living on easy street, there is a hidden assumption that that is how life is going to be from here on out. Good poker players can develop a feeling of invincibility, as though they are destined to dominate.
"They think they've earned their rightful place, and it's theirs - as if success is a possession that can't be taken away. They lose sense of all the work that was put in that got them there, and the dynamic nature of the game which means they need to keep putting that work in."
Moving down and the spotlight
It is hard for any player to move down in stakes when they once won money at them. There is a real stigma to having to rebuild and go back to basics for any player. Even though, as Jared said, the game is dynamic and the difficulty of a certain stake fluctuates.
It takes a lot of discipline to be able to move down in stakes, but can you imagine how hard that must be when you are in the limelight? It would suck for you or I to drop down from NL100 to NL50, but when the player in question has fans, sponsorship, and people reporting on his every move, it must seem like a real admission of failure.
It is probably easier for a tournament player, because you just stop turning up at certain events. When you are a high-profile online cash game player like Gus, dropping down in stakes gets noticed. Most nosebleed players likely could drop down to $25/$50 or $10/$20 and make a really good living. When they are used to making five-figure continuation bets, making an honest crust at these stakes might actually be embarrassing. A player like Gus in particular thrives on keeping company with the best in the world. Some people would rather look good and lose than look bad and win.
The assumed promise of staking
One reason we don't often talk about is the impact the culture of staking has on game selection. When we hear of players going broke, there is usually an implied element of it being absolute. That once you hit rock bottom, it is game over.
The reality is that for most talented players there is usually somebody that is willing to stake them. Assuming they have a decent reputation, they can be pretty confident that somebody would offer them a staking deal.
This no doubt means that for many successful players, bankroll management and game selection become less of an issue because they assume that in the worst case scenario, somebody will still be willing to stake them to play. The threat of the game ending is not as severe as it would be for someone working their way up.
For the players who are already being staked, there is also the element of makeup (i.e. when they are losing on a backer's stake and must first pay back the losses before they can take a future profit). When a pro player has a six or seven-figure makeup amount, it is not as devastating as being bankrupt or broke because they can keep playing. However, they have to face the prospect of playing poker where even if they win, they don't see any returns until the makeup is cleared.
This must be tremendously demotivating, especially when they have a big score. As such, there is no impetus for the player to gradually grind their way back to the top. In this instance the best way to get even will be viewed as to take big shots at glory, because unlike non-staked players, they actually don't have anything to lose. As poker players we try to distance ourselves from the real value of money to play more objectively, but in these instances there might be too much detachment.
The reality is that game selection and bankroll management are two of the few constants in poker and objectively are the two easiest skills to master in poker. There is no real excuse for not adopting these two simple but vital skills. As alluring and exciting as playing in the biggest games can be, a much more valuable lesson can be learned from those people who are able to survive the game (and themselves).
by Barry Carter
