It is a great sound bite but is it true? In poker it would seem that it is, take as an example Annette_15’s recent success or Jonathan Little, by most accounts both of them are very aggressive, some might even say BOLD.  Being bold is also very attractive to the people that are gravitating towards poker, most of whom are young (or like me, young at heart). 

But is it the right approach for everyone?

“In coaching there are 2 types of, old coaches and bold coaches, there are no old bold coaches though.”  Lou Holtz

Recently game selection has just taken me over.  I have an audience with many high limit poker players and to an astonishing degree, game selection is what they do best.  The impression most people get of Doyle Brunson is that he is a guy that will gamble on anything.  That isn’t the impression I have of him.  That is the impression I have of Amarillo Slim though, who would you rather be in poker?  In fact, one of the worst things you can call a poker player is a nit (a tight player).  Of the list of people in the big game I know a lot of people that would consider many of the people tighter players.  You can’t be a nit to get to that level but as you get older you start to lose “fancy play syndrome” and you focus more on playing people you can beat.

About a year ago Michael Craig wrote an article about how he believed that the big game would be $10,000-$20,000 soon based on the wealth of the best players in poker increasing.  That hasn’t happened, in fact, the opposite has happened.  The big game rarely goes these days and when it does it isn’t a $4,000-$8,000 limit mix.  The wealthiest players aren’t getting wealthier, they are going broke, not like you and I broke but still broke.  You and I broke as where you go broke and can’t borrow.  These guys can borrow.

There are a number of factors making poker players broke these days.  If you aren’t borrowing you are loaning, it is a fact of high stakes poker.  Let’s say you are up 500k and the loose action is broke, everyone at the table is counting on you to float this guy 100k, if you don’t, well, there goes your game selection.  It is the ultimate catch 22, to stay in the game you have to be part of the currency exchange, when you are winning you rarely walk home with your total win and when you lose if you haven’t borrowed most of that money, you are likely a sucker.  Why are you a sucker, because today’s poker is played on paper.  Recently there was a thread on 2+2 about the collective wealth of poker players at the highest levels.  As I was reading it I realized that people have no idea at all.  There is a well known player that by most accounts has a bankroll over 10 million, yet he is broke.  But he has 10 million on paper that is owed to him.  That is right, 10 million dollars.  Now don’t feel bad for this guy, he is able to scrape up a buyin but if you were one of the other top players would you be willing to loan say a million dollars to a player that is likely better than you who is owed 10 million from players you wouldn’t loan money?

The long and short of this story is that tournament poker is where a lot of players get their start, it is difficult to be a winning poker player playing just live big buy in tournaments.  So you supplement your income with smaller online tournaments and side games.  In side games the nits make the money in the long run.  If you are a great player and want to win in side games you will have to become more of a nit rather than less of a nit.  I know this isn’t exciting and it certainly isn’t bold but that is where the money is at and that is the ticket to making it playing poker long term.