Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Poker gems, #411

Dusty Schmidt, in Card Player magazine column, March 9, 2011 (vol. 24, #5), page 70, on why he thinks staking other players is a bad idea.

For the most part, if a player is as good as he thinks he is, he should have the money and not need a stake. But for the sake of argument, let's say the person asking for the stake is right: He can crush the games; he just doesn't want to wait six months or a year to get in on the big action. What that person is telling me is that he's lazy and impatient, two traits that will lead to the demise of any poker player. This is the sort of player who'll take too many unnecessary risks, won't put in the hours away from the table, will go on tilt, will get lax during good runs, and won't function well as his own boss. Literally every poker player I've known who's both talented and broke has some extreme quality to his personality of which I don't want to be a part. Patience and personal responsibility are absolutely essential to poker success; without them, you might as well not even try.

1 comment:

Andy said...

I agree. A stake is a debt- and debt is bad. Sometimes really bad. I will never accept nor give a stake.