The Incredibly Silly Subject of Money Management
Tad Perry
As long as Mason Malmuth is around, there's something I'd always been
meaning to mention about the Incredible Silly Subject of Money
Management. Even if he doesn't comment on it, maybe someone else would
like to.
It seems to me that it's not such a silly subject in one regard: it's
emotional impact on the player. Most money management schemes have you
leaving a game if you're up X%, leaving if you're down Y%, or leaving
if you had been up but lost Z% of your profits. He points out that if
you're in a good game you should stay. If you're in a bad game you
should leave. It really doesn't matter how many chips are in front of
you.
That SHOULD be true. But it isn't. If you're the type of player who
changes your playing style as your stack fluctuates, then the
Incredibly Silly Subject of Money Management becomes not so silly. For
instance, if you start playing bad (say, start chasing more) when
you're stuck: you should leave. If that point is definable in money
management terms, then you should find that point, define it, and
stick by it. If when ahead you're the type of player who starts to
gamble when you get a comfort zone (say, start playing every hand and
raising everything) or if you're the type who tightens up too much to
avoid losing, you may also consider money management. These types of
effects are so pronounced in so many people, that I always thought his
book should have given it at least a paragraph of mention.
I know I used to tighten up considerably when I got ahead. And I'd
always start to blow back and then leave. I recognized what was
happening, and *forced* myself to keep playing right (especially raise
when it was right to raise instead of call, or bet when it was right
to bet instead of check). Eventually, I got rid of the problem. But
before I knew the real reason behind my tendency to blow back, money
management was able to help me. I'd play Game A (+EV) until I was up
Y%, then play Game B (-EV) until I lost Z% of profits, and then I'd
cash out. I think I definitely saved some money doing that.
STORY ALERT
I remember sitting in a game of total fish and getting stuck a minor
amount. Especially after making a huge mistake that cost me a pot. It
put me in the wrong frame of mind and I was losing. Suddenly I get up
and leave the game and the floorman who knows me well asks me: "How
can you leave that game? That's a GREAT game! You can destroy it!" And
I said: "No game's a great game when you're beating yourself." (Those
were probably my greatest words of poker wisdom ever.) After a 40 minute
break, I got back in the game and beat it for a small win overall. And
I was pretty happy with that.
Now, I admit that I was beyond money management in doing this. I
recognized I was on tilt and it was making me lose. So technically I
left for *that* reason. I also saw it was a good game and got back in
later for *that* reason. But money management could have got me out of
the game just as easily had I been using it. And maybe it did in a
sense: I'm sure I reached a loss limit I was uncomfortable with and
decided not to try salvaging my psyche while remaining in the game.
A seasoned pro, with the confidence and will-power to play the right
strategy in each given situation is going to come out ahead in the
long run no matter what. Such a pro has no need for money management
and can't even see why anyone else would. But the pro's forgotten the
odd dynamic relationship between the intermediate player's play and
size of his/her stack. But in that money's money and it affects
people's judgement, TISSOMM can make a difference in some cases.
The real thing that should have been addressed is WHY it can make a
difference and why it shouldn't HAVE to, rather than stating that it
absolutely DOESN'T make a difference and never WILL.
Tad Perry t...@eskimo.com