Originally Posted by
Alan Mendelson
Im a recreational player now and always have been. It's only entertainment for me.
I like the idea of winning, but Im not going to bang my head against the wall when I lose.
And the reason why I play craps, for example, even though I know it is a losing game, is that I like the challenge of trying to influence the dice. It's the only reason to play the game -- the challenge of doing what seems to be impossible.
For me, throwing the dice in a "controlled manner" is akin to pitching a perfect game in baseball, or hitting a drive like Tiger Woods. Obviously I can't throw a major league pitch, or even drive a golf ball several hundred yards to a green. And I can't control the dice either. But it's certainly a challenge and fun to try which is why playing on a $3 table in Jean, Nevada is as much fun (actually more fun) than playing on a $25 table on the Strip in Vegas. The "fun" is not in the amount of money, but in the "challenge" of doing what for the most part is impossible.
In live poker, I play a low stakes game. It doesn't take much money to give me the enjoyment of playing live poker. I could just as easily buy into a $500 game -- but there is less enjoyment with that much money at risk.
The other night at Hollywood, my $100 game broke up, and while I waited for a seat at another $100 table I was moved to a $40 (forty dollar) table, and to be honest -- that $40 table with lower blinds was even more fun than playing at a $100 table. And ironically I won more money playing at the $40 table than I usually win at a $100 table. At a $40 table you can still go all-in, just as you can at a $100 table.
So my point is this: if a professional determines he needs a $73,000 bankroll to win his $2,500 then good luck to him. But if you give me $73,000 I can find several lower risk opportunities for you to get $2500 or more, including selling covered calls on Wall Street. Risking $73,000 for a $2,500 return does not make sense to me.
Reply With Quote
