
How teenage poker prodigy Steven Silverman won, and lost, millions - cwan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/01/AR2010100105833.html
======
edanm
Interesting article, although it kinda reinforces a false dichotomy - just
because this player had an unhealthy lifestyle playing poker, doesn't mean you
can't play poker professionally while living a perfectly healthy and otherwise
normal life. In fact, the article keeps mentioning the "lavish" lifestyle of
the poker players as a given, when that is _also_ just a choice they make.

I've always enjoyed playing poker. I'm pretty sure I could make a decent
living at it too, if I put my mind to it. But only after reading Paul Graham's
articles on Wealth, I realized why making a fortune from poker always seemed
"empty" to me: you're not really creating wealth that way.

~~~
evansolomon
There actually are several aspects of being a poker player (online) that make
it really hard, though surely not impossible, to live a normal life. You have
very little interaction with other people, your working hours are partially
out of your control, and it is incredibly stressful/tiring. I know a few
people who managed to combine poker with a normal life, but I know way more
who utterly failed.

Sincerely, A guy who used to do this

~~~
InfinityX0
Ditto. I also attempted to do this full-time but only managed to squeak out a
moderate living, and eventually grew sour with those points of intense rage
(going on tilt) that would crush weeks (and sometimes months) of work.

It's strange how poker works but I imagine Buddhism and poker to be the most
complimentary religion-to-profession complement on the planet.

And I agree with the first point - poker is an empty job. You do not create
wealth - you make another poor soul, likely a gambling addict, further
burdened by that addiction. Meanwhile, the only person you're "creating
wealth" for is the guy with his feet up that owns the poker room.

~~~
heyitsnick
> You do not create wealth - you make another poor soul, likely a gambling
> addict, further burdened by that addiction. Meanwhile, the only person
> you're "creating wealth" for is the guy with his feet up that owns the poker
> room.

Does a sportsman make wealth? What about a professional chess player? Snooker
player? Pool hustler?

What about a brewery, "further burdening that addiction" of alcoholism? What
about the barman what served the drink? Just creating wealth for the pub? The
sommelier?

What if I start a start-up that's about 'social' betting, like a betfair
exchange about film stars? What if I shake up the gambling industry with my
social facebook Zynga poker that launches real-money tables?

Your concept of what is a 'valued' job seems very narrow.

Gambling is an enjoyable past-time for millions, throughout history, in
cultures around the world. For every sad story of gambling addition, that are
thousands who enjoy gambling responsibly on a recreational basis, just for
every alcoholic there are thousands that enjoy drinking socially. And some
social gamblers sometimes blow a bit too much, just like social drinkers
sometimes go overboard at the weekends. Things aren't black and white.

And those professionals provide the entertainment that others enjoy, either
directly (from spectators on TV) or indirectly (providing that example that
'the game can be beat').

Sure it's not the most worthwhile job in the world in the grand scheme of
directly creating wealth, or improving man-kind. But then, dare I say it, nor
do do many a start-up.

~~~
edanm
You've definitely got a point. But I still feel that even most of the other
things you mentioned create more wealth. I'll try and explain my feelings, but
I might do a poor job of it.

Sure, professional sports players, chess players, etc. are _not_ creating
material wealth (I'll sidestep the hustler issues for now). The thing is, they
are creating wealth by pg's definition, i.e. creating something people want
(entertainment, in this case, that people can view).

Compare that with pro poker players. Ask most players what they want (who they
want to play against), and they _won't_ tell you that they want to play
against a pro. I think pros make most of their money, "preying" on poor
players who don't _realize_ they're up against a pro. In that sense, pro
players are not really creating wealth, they're tricking other people.

Of course, I'm completely ignoring a part of the poker world which _does_
create wealth, i.e. the televised matches. These are obviously equal to
spectator sports. Still, I think the majority of players who grind out a
living playing against weaker players really _aren't_ adding wealth to the
world.

Hope that was clear. I'm not anti-poker players or anything, I love poker, I'm
just explaining why I would never do it for a living.

------
mattmaroon
This article does a pretty good job. Much of what you read about poker misses
the mark. Also the credit card roulette caused me a large bit of nostalgia.

I got a lot of the busto rumors when I quit too. In fairness, it's a lot more
frequently the case than someone successful walking away, but I'm always glad
to hear of other people doing it. A really young kid named Jason Strasser
became one of the best tournament players around and then gave it up to go
back to school.

It's a seductive lifestyle, but often not a healthy one, and rare is the poker
player who realizes there's much more to life than money while they still have
some of it left. Unfortunately in my case it took my mom dying to put it in
perspective for me. I hope for him it was something less traumatic.

~~~
jiganti
The way the poker economy works among the high stakes regulars is generally
such that if you go 'busto', you'll inevitably be able to get staked from
buddies if you are legitimately good. This results in players playing with
extremely aggressive bankroll management.

In addition, there's no real visualization of the value of what you're playing
for. It's just numbers on a computer screen. By far the most legendary story
of a young player who's completely detached from the money is the Isildur1
phenomenon. [1]

I played high stakes online at a young age and felt the same sort of
detachment- the appeal of "getting to the top" was too much to pass up to
grind steadily at lower stakes. One of the problems is that over the past ten
years, the dynamics of online games have changed considerably. Even an 18
month difference shows a dramatic development in the style of play you see-
I'd contend that poker training sites like cardrunners play a large part in
this. So a lot of players go on a tear for nine months, then have a big
downswing as a result of moving up stakes too fast and failing to adjust their
game.

One thing you see sometimes is tournament players like Zugwat trying to play
high stakes cash games. It's well understood that in poker, the deeper the
chip stacks are (defined by the number of big blinds players have) the more
technically demanding the game will be. As tournament poker tends to be played
with stacks of 10-50 big blinds, and cash games with 100-500 big blinds, the
former requires less decision making. This is for a few reasons, but the main
one is that on average you'll have fewer decisions to make with a smaller chip
stack since you will be all in earlier in the hand.

Tournament players who are admittedly great at what they do often try to
dabble in cash games because they've made enough to bankroll themselves for
it. I remember watching Zugwat play Tom Dwan (who goes by the alias 'durrrr',
[2] and talking to a few of the other high stakes regulars who had played him
previously. The consensus was that he was pretty solid (which is saying
something- many cash game players have a somewhat condescending attitude
towards tournament players because of the supposed simplicity of tournament
poker) but he had bit off much more than he could chew and would inevitably
lose a good chunk of his bankroll before realizing it. I think he played four
or five tables of 200/400 ($40,000 buyin per table) and lost about a quarter
million that session. To his credit he was surprisingly mature in the chat
box, something that can be hit or miss after large losses.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isildur1> [2]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durrrr>

------
kroger
One-page version: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/10...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/10/01/AR2010100105833_pf.html)

~~~
nfriedly
In case it hits anyone else with a "login required", here's an account to use:

    
    
      Username: getjiggly@sogetthis.com
      Password: bugmenot
    

[Edit] Actually.. the log in worked for me, but it didn't give me the one-page
version :/

------
rospaya
Did I miss the part where he lost his fortune?

~~~
bapadna
[http://www.pokertableratings.com/fulltilt-player-
search/zugw...](http://www.pokertableratings.com/fulltilt-player-
search/zugwat)

<http://www.pokertableratings.com/stars-player-search/Zugwat>

[http://www.pokertableratings.com/absolute-player-
search/ZUGW...](http://www.pokertableratings.com/absolute-player-
search/ZUGWAT)

~~~
bl4k
So typical - you see this all the time. Moving up too soon thinking they are
the best in the world, only to lose it all.

(For non players, this means that you are a winner at lower stakes, say $5/10
- but a common trait is that you become bored with that level because the most
you can win each day is ~$1000-3000. As you move up levels the play is a lot
harder (exponentially so). Players like this guy crush the small levels and
think they are good enough for the higher levels, and just end up losing it
all - often blaming their luck in the process. If you look at his chart, you
will see that he won it all playing medium stakes, and lost it all (in a lot
shorter time) playing high stakes).

~~~
aquateen
His PTR pages clearly show most of his hands at 5k/10k/20k NL. That's not
medium stakes.

I'd guess his losses at 40k/60k/100k NL /are/ due to luck; doubt he's a
-20BB/100 loser at those games.

------
sz
Mentioned in the article, and applicable to more than poker:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilt_(poker)>

------
maloalto
I know, I hate my life. 6 years ago I had 2 degrees and so much enthusiasm for
poker, life, and the future... Now I wonder how a resume with nothing on it is
gonna look in a job market I know nothing about... The habits of this oft
toxic lifestyle will be harder to break than many of the good parts of my
routine were to establish... Plus, for me at least, 17k months and 5k days
have never translated to actual wealth... On the otherhand, my 'job' has cost
me relationships and years (plus two inches of hairline) I will never have
back...

------
jeffepp
I know quite a few online professional poker players. They have won & lost
several million combined. Many were 'born' out of a home game we had at
Michigan State in the early 2000's. To the average person the swings are
insane; for anyone playing high limits online (multiple tables to boot) it is
generally expected. Those who cannot afford the swings, or are emotionally
effected by them, are generally not winning pros for long.

In some respects, those who do really well (millions won & lost) are akin to
athletes or celebrities. They work strange schedules -- for poker you can work
whenever -- and have much more money than they could have ever imagined. You
can afford to do almost anything, go out 7 nights a week and travel the world.
Money is easy come, easy go.

It's rather fascinating. It is a tough lifestyle to maintain a balance when
you can lose thousands upon thousands and be playing well. I recall a friend
telling me with a dead straight face he lost over 100k the past 2 days and had
played some of his best poker...

In the end of the day, I would have to imagine it would be a lot tougher on
the spouses. Although, in many respects, we as founders are taking similar
risks (uncertainty).

------
Ganthor
Can anyone point me towards some good online resources about getting started
in online poker?

~~~
waterlesscloud
Two Plus Two forums are not a bad place.

<http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/>

------
steveklabnik
I find the "I wonder what his future will be like without a college degree" vs
"upswings of $160,000 at a time" to be interesting.

~~~
bl4k
A lot of investing (esp trading) is a game of incomplete information between
two or more parties, so yes.

------
mkramlich
Wall Street reminds me of poker done on a much larger scale.

~~~
jrockway
Not really. Sure, people make money on their market bets... but the real money
is made by sitting in the middle of other people's transactions. That way, you
get money when they open their bet, and you get money when they close out
their bet. It doesn't matter whether they won or lost, because they have to go
through you.

~~~
brisance
And that's why high-frequency trading should be deemed illegal because it is
technically insider-trading; the intermediary makes a commission and masks the
true positions of buyers and sellers, profiting at the expense of both.

~~~
jrockway
I'm talking about exchanges. Matching buyers to sellers is actually something
that adds value.

Market makers are also similar.

(Also, the rest of your comment makes no sense. "High frequency trading" is
just trading at high frequencies; it's not any different from any other
trading strategy. Your program quotes the other guy a price, he either accepts
or doesn't.)

