Poker News

Ashley Adams

I was reading some back issues of this great newspaper. I find that when I get my copy in the mail I often don’t read it thoroughly - just looking for some of my favorite authors, upcoming tournaments, the Hustler ad, and then my article. But I just check to make sure it’s there; I often don’t read it.

But last night I was reading my column. It was the one where I admit that I eventually got busted out of Party Poker, losing the $50 they gave me to play with. Oh, the shame! I promised that I’d write about the lessons I learned in a future column. Well, here are those lessons. Sorry it took so long.

First of all, I thought about the allegation that games are “crooked” or otherwise deliberately juiced to encourage new people to play. I don’t buy it. Frankly, I could never accept the theory that a site that’s making millions of dollars by running successful games would want to artificially boost results for winners or losers - when the risk of having someone blow the whistle and shut them down would be so catastrophic. So I’ve never bought the “crooked” label. Nope, I was the sole master of my own demise.

Next on my list is the rake. Hey, Party has to make their money somehow. They’re not running a public service. So they rake the game. And the lowest stakes games - the $.50/1.00 game to be exact - are heavily raked - 10% to a maximum of $1. That’s as high as my local casino, though not as high as some places that have a $5.00 or even a $6.00 maximum. And, since it’s on line, there’s no tipping, which saves me money. Still, 10% $1 max in a $.50/1.00 game really grinds away at theprofit.

But that’s not why I lost either. At least it’s not the only reason. I have beaten and can beat the game with the right type of play. What I learned is what I already knew but didn’t heed. And it’s this. Impatience and recklessness will deplete a bankroll quickly - and especially a short bankroll.

$50.00 isn’t really enough of a bankroll with which to play $.50/1.00 unless you are prepared to be absolutely nit-like, incredibly patient, and never getting out of line. Even then it’s probably too short by half. Similarly, increasing it through careful play to a larger bankroll does not mean that you can start playing more loosely and carelessly when you start to win.

My fatal errors were, simply put, hubris on the way up and desperation on the way down. While I started out with exactly the right style of play - careful, patient, and tight, I allowed myself to loosen up and become reckless when I started to win and then again when I started to lose. There’s no excuse for that. It’s just very seductive, even for a typically thoughtful, wise old poker hound like me.

My own advice to others was not heeded. When I won the four out of six SNGs I mistakenly thought that I had a pass to play less carefully. When I hit some great flops in Omaha8 Pot Limit I mistakenly let it get to my head, and thought that I would be able to boost my stack just by playing aggressively in the future. Wrong and wrong!

$50 was a small price to pay to see the limits of my own self control. And it was a price paid by someone else. So once again, thank you Mike Sexton for the insight into my own weaknesses.

Filed under: Poker News