Zimba Blog:
Mine is bigger than yours. That's what it comes down to. We are creatures of comparison. We can't seem to escape the desire to compare our cars, houses, possessions and even our girlfriends or wives.
The same comparison dynamic pervades the poker world. It's all about the "benjamins." Who has won the most money playing cash games or tournaments. For me, the longer that I'm involved in poker, the more meaningless the generally considered numbers have become. There is a poker myth of money that I would like to see evolve.
When I see all the jockeying for the all time money won list I chuckle to myself.
Should we limit the results to certain size fields?
Should we limit the results of buy-in sizes within a certain range?
Should we limit the results to truly open events, as opposed to invitationals, freerolls or the many semi-private poker room affiliated events?
All those considerations are fruitless until you begin to peal back the myth of money in poker.
Let me use a concrete example. I listened to the PokerStatic podcast with Mer "peachymer" Brit yesterday. To be completely honest, she rubbed me the wrong way from the moment I met her years ago in the CardRunners chat room. But that has nothing to do with her poker talent or lack thereof. I haven't followed her career except to hear of the occasional big score she had. Then once she began a "well" on 2p2 after joining PokerStars Team Online, she received a firestorm of attention. So I listened to her podcast interview to hear more about the situation. While it wasn't particularly revealing, insightful or enlightening, I heard the number mentioned that the account that she is associated with had won $2.4 million dollars over the years.
Mer Brit explained that she was a private person and didn't want outsiders knowing of her wins as they would wrongly associate it with money she actually had. For that one point, I agree whole-heartedly. That is the myth of poker money. Regardless if she was ghosted/coached by BradL over Skype or not, money won isn't money owned.
It is a guarantee that although her account has "won" $2.4 million that her net results are much more modest. Players play hundreds and thousands of tournaments where they don't cash. This means that she could easily be a slightly winning, break-even or even losing player over the past few years if you calculate a net profit for all her play.
Another significant consideration is whether she has been or is currently backed. If she is, then she generally keeps around half of her wins and must make up for when she is running below water. Throwing around that $2.4 million money won figure is so deceiving.
Another example of the difficulty of comparing in the poker world is Men "The Master" Nguyen. For years, he played a huge volume of live events at every possible destination and buy-in. He racked up tons of cashes and player of the year points, much like the top online players who play massive volume do to achieve their high rankings. Is simply playing more events than your competition a fair way to comparatively rank better?
The reality is no two players' results can be effectively compared outside of a vacuum. Factors like number of events, buy-in size, size of field, and quality of field affect results significantly. Thus it makes it impossible to compare the money won results and make any real conclusion of comparative ability or success.
The poker industry, of which I am a part, is wed to the traditional statistics of poker success. It is a myth we help perpetuate each time we report a tournament or cash game win. We glorify the big gaudy numbers with little regard to their actual net results. Net results would require much more work, but if the IRS can expect it when poker players file returns, so should the poker industry work to create a more realistic picture of poker success. Otherwise we perpetuate the myth.
Poker money won is but one piece of information to help determine a comparison amongst players. Certainly the poker world could benefit from moving to a greater emphasis on comparing player's net profit or return on investment (ROI). It might be more work to compile or track, but it would bring greater transparency to the poker world.
If we can't escape our need to compare our lives and results with others, at the very least we should pick a more accurate and reflective statistic with which to do so.
Mine is bigger than yours. That's what it comes down to. We are creatures of comparison. We can't seem to escape the desire to compare our cars, houses, possessions and even our girlfriends or wives.
The same comparison dynamic pervades the poker world. It's all about the "benjamins." Who has won the most money playing cash games or tournaments. For me, the longer that I'm involved in poker, the more meaningless the generally considered numbers have become. There is a poker myth of money that I would like to see evolve.
When I see all the jockeying for the all time money won list I chuckle to myself.
Should we limit the results to certain size fields?
Should we limit the results of buy-in sizes within a certain range?
Should we limit the results to truly open events, as opposed to invitationals, freerolls or the many semi-private poker room affiliated events?
All those considerations are fruitless until you begin to peal back the myth of money in poker.
Let me use a concrete example. I listened to the PokerStatic podcast with Mer "peachymer" Brit yesterday. To be completely honest, she rubbed me the wrong way from the moment I met her years ago in the CardRunners chat room. But that has nothing to do with her poker talent or lack thereof. I haven't followed her career except to hear of the occasional big score she had. Then once she began a "well" on 2p2 after joining PokerStars Team Online, she received a firestorm of attention. So I listened to her podcast interview to hear more about the situation. While it wasn't particularly revealing, insightful or enlightening, I heard the number mentioned that the account that she is associated with had won $2.4 million dollars over the years.
Mer Brit explained that she was a private person and didn't want outsiders knowing of her wins as they would wrongly associate it with money she actually had. For that one point, I agree whole-heartedly. That is the myth of poker money. Regardless if she was ghosted/coached by BradL over Skype or not, money won isn't money owned.
It is a guarantee that although her account has "won" $2.4 million that her net results are much more modest. Players play hundreds and thousands of tournaments where they don't cash. This means that she could easily be a slightly winning, break-even or even losing player over the past few years if you calculate a net profit for all her play.
Another significant consideration is whether she has been or is currently backed. If she is, then she generally keeps around half of her wins and must make up for when she is running below water. Throwing around that $2.4 million money won figure is so deceiving.
Another example of the difficulty of comparing in the poker world is Men "The Master" Nguyen. For years, he played a huge volume of live events at every possible destination and buy-in. He racked up tons of cashes and player of the year points, much like the top online players who play massive volume do to achieve their high rankings. Is simply playing more events than your competition a fair way to comparatively rank better?
The reality is no two players' results can be effectively compared outside of a vacuum. Factors like number of events, buy-in size, size of field, and quality of field affect results significantly. Thus it makes it impossible to compare the money won results and make any real conclusion of comparative ability or success.
The poker industry, of which I am a part, is wed to the traditional statistics of poker success. It is a myth we help perpetuate each time we report a tournament or cash game win. We glorify the big gaudy numbers with little regard to their actual net results. Net results would require much more work, but if the IRS can expect it when poker players file returns, so should the poker industry work to create a more realistic picture of poker success. Otherwise we perpetuate the myth.
Poker money won is but one piece of information to help determine a comparison amongst players. Certainly the poker world could benefit from moving to a greater emphasis on comparing player's net profit or return on investment (ROI). It might be more work to compile or track, but it would bring greater transparency to the poker world.
If we can't escape our need to compare our lives and results with others, at the very least we should pick a more accurate and reflective statistic with which to do so.
First installment of the Zimba Blog: I Want That Feeling, One Time!
Second installment of the Zimba Blog: Sunday Poker Diatribe
Third installment of the Zimba Blog: Thoughts and Experiences with Cheating in Poker
