This is a discussion on Why is bankruptcy a badge of honor? within the online poker forums, in the General Poker section; I have played poker since I was a young and dumb Marine PFC. I have had times where I have felt like one of the
I have played poker since I was a young and dumb Marine PFC. I have had times where I have felt like one of the best and had times, like now, where I was barely a skidmark on the road. I have never been bankrupted by this game I love. I have been around some big names and they have their down times, but not lost it all. So, why is it people seem to think this is a badge of honor?
I could be a little more cautious than others. I got to see Stu Unger when he made his comeback after his demons took him far down. They still held on to him for all they were worth. This was a cautionary tale for many of us young bystanders, I suppose. I keep hearing about folks who win big on the felt and then gamble it away on sports or other games. This is odd to me. This game has huge chances to make or break someone, but why gamble all you have when there are ways to recoup losses.?
Maybe I am just old in my ways. I have played in places where everyone had at least one firearm and some had more than that. I have played where the room was so smoky that we have set off a smoke alarm. I have also played for charity in a place so nice I almost thought my cowboy hat was a lot too redneck. So, why ruin the chance at those sort of memories?
I do not pay much attention to what some people find appealing, still I guess this is not the bankruptcy itself but rather the ability to rise from a total loss.
The movie 'Two for the money" tries to explain some thrill connected with betting.
I agree with CSLysander and how he has termed the 'condition' - a badge of honor'.
It is regarded by many that way. Even the likes of Daniel Negreanu talk about visiting Las Vegas the first few times and then scuttling back to Canada, tail between his legs, busted. Character building and all that. Really?
Most poker players laugh it off. In my opinion its all about the amount of gambler in a given player. Those who are hard core gamblers seem to think it a right of passage. As a non-gambler, I do not see it that way. I do not understand how anyone can lose their bankroll - it seems moronic to me.
Do not misconstrue what I am saying - it obviously happens all the time and people seem to find it acceptable. That is just not the world I inhabit. I tend to think from a more 'business' perspective and whilst suffering a setback is to be expected, if an entrepreneur kept gambling with his start up funds to the point of failure, you would take a dim view.
We all understand ebb and flow and variance. Gambling off your last cent seems like a call for intervention to me.
I see it as once you can see and feel how low things can get (for yourself personally), you will never get too high minded when things run well to where you can't play great poker. Many people can run hot for a long time, and get lost in the glam, the high, if you are grounded just where bottom truly is, you can play solid poker from there on out no matter what happens high or low. That is my theory on it.
It is sort of the whole UPS concept..nobody can advance anywhere in the company, even as CEO, until they worked as a driver busting their ass.
Doubt that holds true to this day, but for years and years that was their concept/policy.
BTW the high times of poker absolutely ruined Stu Ungar. He had no grounding at ALL. No poker pro wants to repeat being Stu Ungar. Ever.
I would go as far as to call it "research" into your personal business.