After reading about half the book, I think I can understand and explain Barry's point of view a little better. First off, he does mention the need to have yourself staked based on your win rates and play style a bit later, but it's not forumlaic or detailed on bankroll amounts to a big extent and it doesn't contradict what he states in the quotes I posted.
I think his Q & A for the BRM question has to do with something I like to call the "infinite bankroll" (neat name, and a neat concept to). Let's pretend that you are completely broke. You have no money to play poker. In fact, you have no money for food or gas, no possessions, no house. You have absolutely nothing. But that's not true.
This is where my "infinite bankroll" comes in and my interpretation of Barry's reasoning. The mere fact that you are alive is value. You're abilities define your bankroll. Whether you're a college educated professional who can obtain a high paying job, or someone with only the basic abilities endowed to every human being, you have worth. And the difference in that worth is the subject of many economic classes (in fact this post is a brief and basic economics overview with tie ins to poker).
Let's take someone with no education or training. They can still be a functional member of society through on-the-job training. For example, I worked at Wal-Mart as a cart monkey (pushed carts back to the front of the store) during my first winter break at college and worked with people who were mentally handicapped, performing a job useful and necessary to society. There was even a cashier missing an arm who pushed carts one night for some reason. Anyway, I think you get where I'm coming from by now so I'll pull back from this little tangent.
Because you are alive and have or can obtain the skills to earn a wage, you have a bankroll or the ability to get one. (Bankroll here not referring only to poker, but to all money related activities.) Therefore, you have an "infinite bankroll" and always have the ability to make money, from poker, a job, or another endeavor. Barry went broke once or twice and used his university training to get a job and eventually got back into poker after several years of normal life.
If you put your bankroll at risk in a situation where you are a large favorite and go bust, so what. People still need goods and services, and money will not stop being printed. Besides, most people don't play professionally and have primary incomes. And professionals, especially live ones, can take and give loans to other professionals. It happens frequently in Bobby's Room at the Bellagio (so I've read) and it probably happens even more elsewhere. (Of course, as Barry points out, you have to be careful about who you lend money to and who you accept it from. It sucks to be owed money when you need it.) This is my "infinite bankroll" theory and what I think Barry is getting at.
Thefatman313 mentioned Barry talking about live poker. I think that's true, but not because online players are tougher or that super easy games don't exist online; both those things are true. It's more relevant to live poker because of the physical nature and transperancy of seeing and dealing with chips and money. Online poker has the disadvantage (or depending on people's spending habits, advantage) of not being able to quickly acess your winnings. Especially in the USA where lack of regulation dissuades many banks and credit cards from dealing with poker sites
, but even in Europe you must transfer the money from your poker account to an online bank or credit card, then you must go to a real bank to collect the money or use your credit card to spend it.
Oh, and one last thing...
Originally Posted by vanquish
cool story hansel
Ughhh, what?? Hansel as in Hansel and Grettle, the fairy tale kids who were easily seduced by the witch? Like I'm easily seduced by what Barry wrote? Either you are way underestimating me or I'm extrapolating your post wayyyy to much, lol.