I hear that alot of the pros you see on tv are all degenerate gamblers that lose 100's of thousands and a million or more on craps or other games you cant beat. Is this true, and why would people that are advantage gamblers in poker, blow all their money on craps.They know the math involved. I hear TJ, ivey and the mouth are horrible gamblers. Is this true or is it just jealousy. I would like comments from people in the know, not 10th hand info. If you had to compile 2 lists of famous players, which ones would you put in the steady,responsible with winnings list and which ones would you put in the usually broke list.
Question about poker stars on espn?
- Thread starter lucifer
- Start date
There are a lot of them that are degenerate gamblers, if you play high stakes in Vegas you will run into them all the time. Johnny Chan, Chino Rheem, the Mizrachi Brothers, etc. All degens and bad at math. I have never heard this about Matusow. TJ is definitely a degen craps player. I've heard Ivey gambles "responsibly" which seems fine to me.
Whoever said Phil Ivey is a somewhat responsible gambler you have bad info. Phil is a great guy, I've played poker vs. 70-80% of the guys you see on TV, he's one of the biggest gamblers you will ever find. One night at the Mirage Phil and Barry Greenstein were playing craps, Ivey had 5,000 dollar come bets with max odds on top of it. Ivey and Greenstein also will bet on what cards hit the flop during a poker tourney just to pass time. Ex: Phil will say 2 cards lower than 9 and Greenstein will say I bet you 10k you're wrong.
TJ Cloutier is well known for being a very unlucky person on the craps table. Ted Forest has said he's made 2million in one night playing poker and lost 3 million playing craps. He said that durting in an interview on TV. I can't say what percentage of professional poker players are degenerate gamblers, but it's prob. pushin 30% or higher if you count online poker. Mike the mouth Matusow once said he lost over 1 million on full tilt in less than a month, he was living at his moms house ( this is within the lat 2 years) he took the computer and threw it outside. ( so he says during an interview)
I remember personally being so pissed at myself after winning 20k at Bellagio tourney 2 years ago and then losing 15 of it on the craps table. Stupid, Stupid, and Stupid.
TJ Cloutier is well known for being a very unlucky person on the craps table. Ted Forest has said he's made 2million in one night playing poker and lost 3 million playing craps. He said that durting in an interview on TV. I can't say what percentage of professional poker players are degenerate gamblers, but it's prob. pushin 30% or higher if you count online poker. Mike the mouth Matusow once said he lost over 1 million on full tilt in less than a month, he was living at his moms house ( this is within the lat 2 years) he took the computer and threw it outside. ( so he says during an interview)
I remember personally being so pissed at myself after winning 20k at Bellagio tourney 2 years ago and then losing 15 of it on the craps table. Stupid, Stupid, and Stupid.
Phil Ivey probably has the money to lose. He wins a lot more in cash games than these buffoons that only play tourneys. I think he wins somewhere in the $50 million a year range.
I'm sure a ton of these guys are just degenerate gamblers, though. A lot of them don't even understand basic poker strategy; they just got lucky in a big game, or they can read people.
I'm sure a ton of these guys are just degenerate gamblers, though. A lot of them don't even understand basic poker strategy; they just got lucky in a big game, or they can read people.
The rumored "degeneracy" of some (famous) poker players cannot be addressed without first defining our terms.
A degenerate gambler is what used to be called a "Compulsive Gambler"
By late 20th century that term had evolved into "Pathological Gambling."
The stakes at which gambling devolves into "degeneracy" is entirely relative to the gambler's financial status. Some gamblers cannot (rationally) afford to gamble at all. They may have no discretionary funds. they may be heavily in debt or even commit crimes to obtain cash for gambling. Clearly there are persons who are wealthy enough to lose 6 and 7 figure sums without "feeling" it.
Similarly, excess time spent gambling can suggest degeneracy.
Unless one "has the best of it" then to forego food and sleep to gamble smacks of degeneracy as swell. Ignoring one's spouse, family, employment, etc. etc. reeks of degeneracy.
Need I go on?
The "whale" stakes (that someone like Phil Ivey shoots craps for), is not, in and of itself, an indication of "degeneracy."
Anecdotally speaking, the legendary, near mythic poker immortal, Stu Ungar, would think nothing of winning hundreds of thousands of dollars at the poker table only to be broke by the following day after betting everything on sporting events about which he knew nothing.
Stuey, "The Kid" Ungar was a (definitively) degenerate gambler.
It is a fact that a handful of the biggest names in poker will shoot craps, play BJ, or play golf, etc. for extremely high stakes. They are often people whose lives, (financially speaking), are quite unlike those of most civilians.
After all, if you are used to winning and losing 5 and 6 figure sums at poker, then the (essentially) mindless games of craps is a seductively stress-free form of relaxation - compared to high-stakes poker.
A degenerate gambler is what used to be called a "Compulsive Gambler"
By late 20th century that term had evolved into "Pathological Gambling."
The stakes at which gambling devolves into "degeneracy" is entirely relative to the gambler's financial status. Some gamblers cannot (rationally) afford to gamble at all. They may have no discretionary funds. they may be heavily in debt or even commit crimes to obtain cash for gambling. Clearly there are persons who are wealthy enough to lose 6 and 7 figure sums without "feeling" it.
Similarly, excess time spent gambling can suggest degeneracy.
Unless one "has the best of it" then to forego food and sleep to gamble smacks of degeneracy as swell. Ignoring one's spouse, family, employment, etc. etc. reeks of degeneracy.
Need I go on?
The "whale" stakes (that someone like Phil Ivey shoots craps for), is not, in and of itself, an indication of "degeneracy."
Anecdotally speaking, the legendary, near mythic poker immortal, Stu Ungar, would think nothing of winning hundreds of thousands of dollars at the poker table only to be broke by the following day after betting everything on sporting events about which he knew nothing.
Stuey, "The Kid" Ungar was a (definitively) degenerate gambler.
It is a fact that a handful of the biggest names in poker will shoot craps, play BJ, or play golf, etc. for extremely high stakes. They are often people whose lives, (financially speaking), are quite unlike those of most civilians.
After all, if you are used to winning and losing 5 and 6 figure sums at poker, then the (essentially) mindless games of craps is a seductively stress-free form of relaxation - compared to high-stakes poker.
You don't need a huge amount of math to figure out pot odds. Few people will think of pot odds in the sense that they know there's 140,000 in the pot and it's 26,000 to call so they mentally divide 140k/26k and come up with a precise answer. Most people, instead, will think about things as multiples of the big blind or the antes - X raised 3x the BB, 2 people called, so that's 9x the BB in the pot, and after the flop, someone puts in a pot sized bet and nobody has called so it's 2:1 to call.
As a matter of fact, as you start putting in rather subjective terms such as implied odds and folding equity, especially in NL, the amount of math that you need decreases even more than that. There's no way to verify that someone has a 50% chance of folding to a pot-sized bet but a 25% chance of folding to a min bet, for instance - it's just something that people internalize.
As a matter of fact, as you start putting in rather subjective terms such as implied odds and folding equity, especially in NL, the amount of math that you need decreases even more than that. There's no way to verify that someone has a 50% chance of folding to a pot-sized bet but a 25% chance of folding to a min bet, for instance - it's just something that people internalize.
"utility function" or "regressive taxation"
Whether you believe that ill-afforded gambling activities
are a "utility function" or a "regressive taxation" the poor
gamble out of proportion to their assets, as they rarely have
more than a trivial amount of discretionary funds.
Gambling is primarily directed at the poorest citizens.
the poor gamble because they are not only innumerate
but because their need for escapist fantasies of financial
windfalls are greater than those of the middle class.
What must be understood is that there is inflated value to
buying lottery tickets (or playing slots) in the service of
dreams and fantasy re: an abrupt miraculous escape from
poverty.
This is called a "utility function" by economists.
Whether you believe that ill-afforded gambling activities
are a "utility function" or a "regressive taxation" the poor
gamble out of proportion to their assets, as they rarely have
more than a trivial amount of discretionary funds.
Gambling is primarily directed at the poorest citizens.
the poor gamble because they are not only innumerate
but because their need for escapist fantasies of financial
windfalls are greater than those of the middle class.
What must be understood is that there is inflated value to
buying lottery tickets (or playing slots) in the service of
dreams and fantasy re: an abrupt miraculous escape from
poverty.
This is called a "utility function" by economists.