Berkeley GM and six-time US champ Walter Browne spends much of his time in the poker world these days, both at work and at play. He did a little of both this weekend, as pointed out by Michael Jeffreys. According to this site, Browne made it to the final table of a "No-Limit Hold'em" event at the world championship and finished seventh. His finished with $58,515 and due to his extended run he had to skip the National Open chess tournament at the Las Vegas International Chess Festival that's underway now. I'm sure he'll suffer through without a shot at the $8,000 first prize. (Buy a new laptop, Walter!) As I remember one European GM being quoted as saying recently, "I'm in the top 100 in the world in chess but make ten times more being in the top 10000 in the world at poker." Oh sure, but with poker you have to hang out with showgirls and get free booze. Wait a minute... Actually most of them seem to play mostly online, so I don't think showgirls and comped drinks are on the menu.
I've seen several articles lately about the inevitable deflation of the poker bubble, as the game slowly runs out of new players to take money from and as mediocre players realize the odds don't really favor them over the long run. (Or simply get bored with it as with anything.) But the big events are still drawing tons of players eager to gamble on what has become a very long shot at the top places. This press release certainly doesn't make it sound like they're running out of suckers. But disciplined players, and chessplayers tend to fall into that pattern, can grind out a living without being stars.
During the candidates, much has been said about Grischuk and Bacrot playing more poker than chess these days. Any links or items on the truth of that and how well they've done? Poker, or just about anything for that matter, seems a reasonable career alternative to chess for American players who struggle to make a living at the game under the best circumstances. But when top ten European talent is moving to poker (if that's really happening), it's noteworthy.
Mig,
Are you planning a post about the USCF election?
Goichberg has some great info at www.checkmate.us regarding the parties running.
I've seen Pablo Zarnicki playing online poker at respectable stakes as well.
If I were Susan, I would say that is all happening because of the way USCF has been destroying chess in US because of politics :)
If I were Susan, I would say that is all happening because of the way USCF has been destroying chess in US because of politics :)
I can confirm that Grischuk plays very well and wins a great deal of money. You can find a few reports about him playing in the EPT championships (10,000 Euro buyin) as well as numerous other major buyin events (10,000 dollar and higher). The EPT championship was actually in Monte Carlo either right before or right after the Melody Amber tourney. To be fair, he hasn't had any success in these events.
Note as well that PokerStars sponsored the US chess league, thanks primarily to the efforts of Greg Shahade:
http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/2007/02/poker-and-chess-with-us-chess-league.html
I can't imagine that Walter Browne has a very good poker face.
The success that Walter Browne has had at the poker tables raises an interesting issue. There has been more than enough discussion here about the lack of money in chess. So instead, this post is about the following question: in the larger chess game of real life, how many moves does it take to become financially successful?
A useful benchmark of financial success is $1 million in net worth. As per our earlier post, we played chess in High School, did rather well, and then used our playing skills in the real world. Today, at age 51-52, three of us are millionaires, all self-made.
As in chess, there are several paths. The King’s Gambit approach is for entrepreneurs, and gamblers: take immense risks, stake everything on the opportunity for success. Obviously, this works for some types of entrepreneurial ventures. But the risks are substantial. Most entrepreneurial ventures fail, while many gamblers lose money. Walter Browne may be the exception, rather than the rule.
Most of us were more positional players. We always preferred openings like the English, the Queen’s Indian and the Caro-Kann. And in real life, we favored long, slow positional strategies.
Two of us are senior partners in a New York law firm. We had to make sacrifices at the outset, going heavily into debt in Law School, but it really wasn’t a gambit so much as a profitable investment. Even in New York, where costs are high, we were able to maintain a good standard of living, pay off our debts, and invest the surplus. One of us does industrial R&D in the Midwest. He never made the sort of salary that attorneys do, but lived below his means, saved heavily, and his investments paid off.
So from the end of the opening, when all of us basically had nothing, to $1 million, took 20-26 moves. We played effective positional moves, and won in the middle game.
Our strategy: maintain a defensive shield in cash, T-bills and CDs (keep a wall of pawns around your king) as a defense against recessions, layoffs, restructurings, etc. Devote the rest of your investments to aggressive growth stocks, particularly international (mobilize your heavy pieces to attack the opponent’s weak points). A good way to do this is through a self-directed IRA.
By comparison, it seems that much of the American middle class has been playing the game quite badly. The national savings rate is close to zero (weak pawn structure), people have gone into debt to finance consumption (pieces are misplaced, defenses are neglected) and bankruptcy rates have been high since the late 1980s (pieces are being left en prise).
In our view, the surest path to victory is through the positional approach.
In my opinion, The_NYC_4 is taking this chess as a metaphor thing way too far. Where did he get one move per year? Where does he get $1M as a benchmark for financial success, and how in the world does "financial success" equate to "checkmate?" Where does he get his imagination?
As Karpov poignantly pointed out in his relatively interesting book, Chess and the Art of Negotiation, in life, but not like in chess, we all start out in different finanacial and social positions. (A variation on the poker cliche "We're all handed different cards in life.")
NYC, you write, "...we used our [chess] playing skills in the real world." Does chess skill really translate into the real world? Or even poker playing, for that matter? Please.
Howard
what an obnoxious post by The_NYC_4. Sir, get a pipe and go sit in at an Oxford salon if you want to brag about how smart you were accruing wealth.
what an obnoxious post by The_NYC_4. Sir, get a pipe and go sit in at an Oxford salon if you want to brag about how smart you were accruing wealth.
Short answer? Chess isn't poker. Don't compare them.
Why do I play poker INSTEAD of chess? Well, obviously for many reasons:
1) The cost is actually rather similar.
2) The payouts are HUGE, and dwarf what you can win in chess
3) Significantly more glamorous
4) Easier
Heck, I'm a "Good" chess player (I actually truly suck, but most people don't know that), but at poker, the same 21 and change rating makes me profitable.
Put it this way, what are my Vegas options?
Option 1) Go to the National Open. Pay an entry fee, suffer through 6 rouns of chess at the Riviera, and win $0.
Option 2) Go to the WSOP, play in the $1,500 NLHE event (Browne cashed in the $2,000 NLHE), play a $500 tourney at the Wynn on Friday, and some cash games Sunday and Monday at the Wynn or Bellagio.
You know what? Financially, it's not all that different. (And I have pure upside)
Guarantee you Browne made more money in 3 days of that WSOP event than he ever made playing a chess tournament.
Poker won the battle vs. Chess. Doesn't mean I still don't enjoy it, but whatever.
And somehow, to link into other threads, you don't have these fools like Kirsan, Makro, Azmai, Danailov, Sloan and others in poker. Much nicer all around.
Downsides to poker:
1.) You can go on a long losing streak, even if you're really good. Huck Seed won the Main Event what, six or seven years ago? From the time he won it all until the interview I read two years ago he was a net loser at the game.
2.) Psychologically, losing is very tough since there are so many variables. In chess you always have an idea where and how you lost a particular game and can go back and work to correct it-- spend a few weeks on endgames, work on tactics, etc. In poker you can bust out of games for a good while and not know where you're going wrong. That's tough to handle.
John Fernandez: "And somehow, to link into other threads, you don't have these fools like Kirsan, Makro, Azmai, Danailov, Sloan and others in poker. Much nicer all around."
Plenty of A-holes in poker. You may have been just a visitor in Las Vegas or California, but if you live full time and spent 1200+ hours per year in the main cardrooms (Vegas on non-weekends in particular, but I've lived/live in both states just for poker), you will probably not think the atmosphere to be so nice. Lots of desperation, drug abuse, whining, begging, huge egos from broke players - it can be a real grind. The difference is it pays REALLY well, and allows you to work just 1200 (or much less now with multitabling online play) hours a year and take the rest of the time to do other things. If your whole life is in the cardroom, and that applies to most poker pros, it really is much less glamorous than you let on. Online play has been a godsend to allow one to escape the face-to-face torture that was the 90's. But people who see poker as an end instead of a means to it usually are the most boorish types you will meet (chess fanatics are probably worse overall, though).
I'm curious to how much time you've spent in 'live' (non-online) poker and the big emporiums in Vegas and SoCal. I'm guessing very little by your rosy description. I also wonder if we've played against each other before. What limits do you play?
shams' Downsides to poker: "1.) You can go on a long losing streak, even if you're really good. Huck Seed won the Main Event what, six or seven years ago? From the time he won it all until the interview I read two years ago he was a net loser at the game."
Net loser in gambling, but most of it was sports betting. He quit poker for quite some time after winning the WSOP main event. Like most tournament winners, he went broke because he was not a cash game regular, and the variance in tourny poker alone is HUGE, way more than is logical to specialize in. He is back in poker with a backer, he is still a good tourney player but has no passion for playing anymore. He is a sucker in cash games.
Most of the winning players in poker are people you've never heard of because they play cash games at stakes that are high enough for a great living and with enough of a skill edge to reduce 'risk of ruin', but not high enough to attract press. Those sky-high games have so little (if any) edge in them that it is often an exercise in variance. Those players you've heard of because of TV / Tournament success usually go broke because of personal leaks (drugs, other casino games, sports betting) or variance alone. Or they were never that good to begin with and got lucky in one tournament.
shams: "2.) Psychologically, losing is very tough since there are so many variables. In chess you always have an idea where and how you lost a particular game and can go back and work to correct it-- spend a few weeks on endgames, work on tactics, etc. In poker you can bust out of games for a good while and not know where you're going wrong. That's tough to handle."
If you're a player and you don't know 'where you're going wrong', you probably were NEVER good enough to beat the games and were just on a lucky streak anyway. Especially with online poker, where you can easily compile your stats, see the showdown hole cards, and analyze your play, you should know if you are playing poorly or a victim of variance. I doubt you know what you are talking about from any experience if you really think good poker players do not know exactly where the edges are versus the field and when they got their money in good, regardless of the result (which is all a good player can do). Any player who is capable of prolonged losing streaks and is befuddled to the reasons why is not a professional player. Sorry, poker is not that complicated, though players want you to believe so because it does their egos a lot of good.
p.s. I do agree with shams and Goldowsky that the post by The_NYC_4 is the most ridiculous a self-congratulatory post I've read in a while, here or anywhere. I'm betting The_NYC_4 was euphorically patting himself on the back with what he thought was his written masterpiece, when all it displayed was arrogance and simple-mindedness to a childish degree. Seriously - get a grip, dude.
I interpret the phrase "knowing where your edge is" as meaning to only engage in tournaments where you know you have a poker skill advantage against the other players. So if you know that you are an ELO 2150 poker player, you would never enter an event with bunches of poker GMs. The advantage that players with chess backgrounds have in the poker world is that they understand that such a relative strength distribution exists. Many others are clueless! In chess of course we meticulously calculate these ratings, and publish them. So as a class A chess player, I would never pay $10,000 to compete in an open tournament that had a bunch of GM's & IM's.
I find any comparisons between chess and poker somewhat amusing. They are both games and they require some calculation, but that's about where I believe the comparison ends. One involves no chance whatsoever and the other greatly involves chance. It is possible (and happens frequently) that an amateur player can win a very large $$$ prize poker tournament with very strong players, but that will never happen in chess. A weak poker player can simply be dealt a streak of great cards, but a weak chess player will never consistently beat a series of strong ones.
Both games are immense fun, but I much prefer chess. Too bad the $$$ isn't the same, but it never can be in America. Too much effort is required for too little reward. Who in their right mind would ever work as hard as you have to at chess to earn $$$ when you can make much more $$$ in poker with relatively little effort at all?
rp: "I interpret the phrase "knowing where your edge is" as meaning to only engage in tournaments where you know you have a poker skill advantage against the other players. So if you know that you are an ELO 2150 poker player, you would never enter an event with bunches of poker GMs. The advantage that players with chess backgrounds have in the poker world is that they understand that such a relative strength distribution exists. Many others are clueless! In chess of course we meticulously calculate these ratings, and publish them. So as a class A chess player, I would never pay $10,000 to compete in an open tournament that had a bunch of GM's & IM's."
This is completely wrong. I am mainly a cash game player, but it doesn't matter, your thinking is so muddled that you should be able to detect your error easily.
You don't have to be the best player in the tournament to profit. You just need an overlay versus the field. A "GM" in poker might have an expectation of 250% of his tournament buy-in ( so for a 10K event, he can expect to average a return of 25K in the long run), while a 'mere' FM might have 140%. They both still profit because there are 500+ players who are close to -95% expected win rate, creating an overlay for all the GMs, IMs, and FMs in the tourny with them. Your hypothesis would be closer to being true if it was a winner-take-all event, which tournaments never are anymore. Even then, variance is high enough that an "FM" has a good chance of beating the "GM", but the 1200 elo poker players have no chance to make it to the final table, making every 'titled' poker player profitable.
In cash games, you can easily be the 3rd best player at the table and still be profitable if the other 3 or 6 or 7 players are truly terrible. You will lose a bit to the #1 and #2 player, but the profit you make from #4-#10 is more than enough to compensate.
Your edge is measured versus the field, not just against the best player in it. If you are a HU specialist, then you pick your opponent carefully.
BTW, in poker it is relatively easy to be an 'FM' player, a serious amateur can be one in a couple of months. That is why variance in tournys is so high, there are so many with a slight but measurable chance of winning, even if they play 'break-even' poker.
But there are still plenty of players who are -95% EV or worse, and are heavy losers. But even they, especially collectively due to their large numbers, have a shot in a short-term sample size like a tournament. So I shouldn't say they have 'no chance' to make a final table at a tournament, or even winning one, but in the long-run they have 'no chance'.
In cash games, because there is no 'bottom end' (fixed amount) to their possible loses, these awful players get eaten quickly. That is why -20% tourny players can last a long, long time, especially if he gets lucky early (and usually makes them 'go pro', even if they are -20%), while -20% cash game players die much faster (and why its easier to maintain a consistent lifestyle as a cash game player versus the feast-or-famine tourny specialist).
I was just about to go to sleep, but I just read that a "Walter Browne" just placed 2nd in the WSOP $2500 HORSE event. If it is the same guy, I'm pretty sure he isn't going back to chess any time soon. If he would have won it, he would be semi-famous outside of chess:
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2007/6/wsop-updates-event-16-Richburg-tops-Browne-in-2500-HORSE.htm
1st: James Richburg — $239,503
2nd: Walter Browne — $131,790
3rd: Chris Bjorin — $83,467
4th: Tom Schneider — $54,913
5th: Ali Eslami — $42,612
6th: Robert Mizrachi — $32,069
7th: Herb Van Dyke — $24,601
8th: Harry Kazazian — $18,011
sleepy time.
Stern - I agree with and accept you analysis. I apologize if my prior post was unclear. But you have reinforced my fundamental point .. that knowing that there is a relative distribution of poker skill, and that choosing a tournament where you have a strong relative standing is the smart thing to do. Let's face it, how many of those -95%, and lower, players actually realize that's their probability. If they did, they wouldn't be so eager to shell out those big buy-ins. In other words, the great earnings opportunities today in poker are driven by the large number of suckers (fish) who don't realize that's what they are. How does the old saying go "If you sit down at a poker game with a bunch of strangers, and don't realize who the sucker is, then it's probably you!"
Found a page with a pic of Walter (just to finally remove any doubt there was another poker pro with that name from Berkeley) after his 7th place finish the other day. Great to hear he did so well in another one.
http://tinyurl.com/38sv66
Change Browne's complete winnings to $189,960 now, after his 2nd place in the HORSE event:
http://www.cardplayer.com/players/results/Walter_Browne/37654
http://news.pokerpages.com/index.php?option=com_simpleblog&task=view&id=2288
Also, Jennifer Shahade took 17th in the ladies event.
We'll see if I can add to the chessplayer tally this weekend.
Stern, you're right in that I don't have a great deal of live experience, but the experiences so far have been pleasant. That being said, I did have a bottle broken over my head at a poker table a year ago, and *I* was thrown out of the casino (they thought I did it, due to me standing tall after the hit, despite the headache).
Generally I find that casinos (I only frequent the nice ones) go out of their way to make you happy. Chessplayers don't get that same treatment, at all. Even in Vegas.
I'm mostly a tournament player. You'll see me at the $25+2.5 and $3R at 8PM on PokerStars many nights.
Change Browne's complete winnings to $189,960 now, after his 2nd place in the HORSE event:
http://www.cardplayer.com/players/results/Walter_Browne/37654
http://news.pokerpages.com/index.php?option=com_simpleblog&task=view&id=2288
Also, Jennifer Shahade took 17th in the ladies event.
We'll see if I can add to the chessplayer tally this weekend.
Stern, you're right in that I don't have a great deal of live experience, but the experiences so far have been pleasant. That being said, I did have a bottle broken over my head at a poker table a year ago, and *I* was thrown out of the casino (they thought I did it, due to me standing tall after the hit, despite the headache).
Generally I find that casinos (I only frequent the nice ones) go out of their way to make you happy. Chessplayers don't get that same treatment, at all. Even in Vegas.
I'm mostly a tournament player. You'll see me at the $25+2.5 and $3R at 8PM on PokerStars many nights.
Mig, is there no way to fix the double-posting bug? Besides drawing smarter posters, that is. I do this like 50% of the time, and I'm not the only one.
shams, you gotta believe! Just write your thing, click "Post", wait a while, do something else, then return to the "Dirt", reload the page. It will generally appear then.