Player's Stories

Can You Make Money on the Tournament Trail?
By Dr. Mark Burtman

Here I am at the end of my second year of playing tournaments. I have decided to go back and look at my results over the two years. Over these years I have had high points and low points, winning streaks and losing streaks. I have had some big wins compared to the level I formerly played at. I have also lost more than I could have ever imagined in certain stretches. One thing I have learned is that a losing streak can really burn through a bankroll when you play high entry fee tournaments, notwithstanding the fact that one win can quickly replenish a bankroll. Thus I have found my tournament career to be an exercise in withstanding fluctuations, while continuing to try to reevaluate and improve my game against the best poker players in the world.

One flaw in the ranking of tournament poker players is the fact that the primary focus is on wins without any consideration of money wagered on tournament entry fees. This is like making the batting champion the guy with the most hits without considering the number of at bats. Nonetheless, I realize that we often do look only at the total numbers of hits. Pete Rose has more lifetime hits than Ty Cobb, yet many would say that Ty Cobb was the better hitter, because he had a much higher lifetime batting average. When one examines the total hits, we are looking only at the numerator in a fraction. When we look at the batting average, we also consider the denominator, which is the total number of at bats as well as the number of hits. When Emmitt Smith surpassed Walter Payton's all-time rushing record, that was an undisputed record looking solely at the numerator, which was total yards rushing. What ensued was much discussion about yards per carry, yards per season, and a lot of other discussions that often centered around a denominator.

In our present system of poker rankings, we have no denominator. All we have is a single numerator based system. I still like the system very much, and I have a goal of making it in the top 20 some day. Nonetheless the question still remains, are these people actually winning poker players? Many would argue that there is just no way that anyone could play all of those tournaments, without winning, as their bankroll couldn't withstand it. I would expect that this would usually be correct. However, this is a bankroll driven competition, and we place a great deal of merit on the strength of bankrolls. This can create a situation that essentially leads us to an unequitable competition, which is not necessarily based on skill, but more on people's ability to withstand the fluctuations in bankroll. I am not saying that the best players in the existing ranking system are losing. What I am saying is that it is theoretically possible for a losing poker player with a sufficiently large bankroll to be the top ranked player in our present ranking system.

What I intend to do from here is share my numbers with you. First I will present the numerators, then we will see how I have actually done so far, when we bring in the denominators. When I am at the hospital bragging to nurses about how much I have won in poker tournaments, I can impress them by just telling them how much I have won, without telling them about the entry fees. This really sunk in when I busted out of the $3000 Gold Rush Event at Lucky Chances. I finished 18th, winning $3500. This event was televised by the WPT, so they interviewed me, and they specifically asked me to show the $3500 to the camera, so that the audience at home would think I had a big pay-day. The fact is that I only netted $350, but to the camera it looked like a lot. So if you add up all of my winnings over these last two years, I have won $54,751. That exceeds most people's annual salaries. I can impress some people (hopefully not the IRS) by giving them that number.

In 2001 I played my first major tournament. I took a 7th place in the first event I played. From there I played 14 more events over the course of three tournaments venues. I did not count small events, under $300. So for a total of 15 events I paid $22,610. I made two final tables that paid (I also made one that didn't pay, as they only paid the top 5 places), along with one other money finish. My total winnings added up to $24,856, for a profit of $2246. So far in 2002 I have played 28 events over the course of five tournament venues. I have paid $33,180 in tournament entry fees. Over that time I have made four final tables and I have three other money finishes. I also had a streak of 13 straight events without a money finish. My total winnings add up to $29,895. So over the course of two years, I have played 41 events, 6 final tables, and 4 other money finishes. My total entry fees have added up to $55,790. My wins have added up to $54,751, for a net loss of $1040.

So when looking at the numerator alone I can impress some people by throwing around a fairly large number. However, when I put up my denominator, I still show a small net loss. This fact led me to look at big tournament players. My two-year number of events played fails to come anywhere close to the amount of events that many of the others play in a single year. So I thought I would do a cost analysis of what it would cost to play every event of all of the major tournaments. This will give you an idea of how strong your bankroll has to be to play the 100-200 events that some players play.

My tour would have looked something like this. The World Poker Open was in January, in Tunica, Ms. Then I would have traveled to L.A. in February for the L.A. Poker Classic. March would have been slow, but I would have entered the Party Poker Million. Then after the relaxing cruise I would have been ready for the Granddaddy of all tournaments in Las Vegas, The World Series of Poker in April and May. In June I would have gone back to L.A. and the Commerce Casino for the California State Poker Championships. In July I would have stayed in L.A. to play at the Hustler's Grand Slam of Poker. Continuing my stay in L.A. I would have gone up the road in August to the Bicycle to play The Legends of Poker. Then I would have gone on to Las Vegas for the Hall of Fame Poker Classic at the Horseshoe, followed by the Four Queens Classic. In October I would have gone to Costa Rica for the tournament there. Then I would spend November in Foxwoods, playing the World Poker Finals. In December I would start back at the Bellagio for the 5-Star Poker Classic, before hopping a plane to play the remaining events of the U.S. Poker Championships in Atlantic City at the Taj Mahal. The cost of this whirlwind poker tour is broken down as follows:

1.WPO…………………..24,650
2. L.A. Poker Classic……22,140
3. Party Poker Million……8,000
4.WSOP………………...119,100
5.CSPC………………….7,290
6. Grand Slam…………..7,505
7. Legends……………..22,170
8. Hall of Fame…………28,500
9. 4 Queens……………..13,520
10. Costa Rica………….4,820
11. WPF……………….25,155
12. 5 Star………………12,080
13. USPC………………13,840

The total price tag for this many events is $308,770. There are several factors not considered in these totals. This adds up the entry fee of every event. It doesn't take into account the fact that final tables may occur the next day, thereby making play of the following event unlikely. Many players pick and choose events, taking days off. However I think the figures point out the high cost of playing tournaments. If you want to play every event of a tournament venue you need usually more than $20,000. It's also easy to see how a losing streak can break someone. It took me some time to recover from my losing streak. This is why a great many players on the tour seek out backers, or take pieces of each other. Other factors to consider are savings from winning satellites, and side action. But then I failed to consider the added costs of being on the road. So In my opinion, in order to make money playing this heavy of a schedule, you probably need to clear $350,000.

After compiling this data I thought it would be worthwhile to see how our leaders, according to a major poker publication, stand up to this kind of scrutiny. Today is November 16th and it looks like T.J. Cloutier is the number one player. I know T.J. plays a lot of events, and it is my understanding that he has a backer. His final table winnings are almost $267,000. The poker publication doesn't include other money finishes, so I am sure he has won more than that. But according to my research, if T.J. has played as many tournaments as I proposed above he could actually be posting a loss for the year. I can only speculate, because I don't know. The system in place doesn't allow me to know. On the other hand, the second place player, John Juanda, has $599,000 in final table winnings. There is no doubt that he is a winning player on the tour. He plays a lot of events and wins consistently, and he has the money to prove it.

In conclusion there are a lot of ways we can present our numbers to create differing perceptions about our success or failings. The ranking system as it now exists is still a viable tool. But I regard it as a building block that can and should be improved upon. As Poker tries to occupy more of the limelight, I think we need to improve on our criteria for ranking players. I believe losses need to be considered, as well as wins. Separate from the issue of ranking players, some things are very clear. It is very expensive to play on the tournament circuit. Losses can add up very quickly. I also believe that top three finishes are critical to maintaining a bankroll. One win can wipe out a big losing streak. Small money finishes are not going build your staying power on the circuit. My win in Costa Rica nearly brought me back to even for the year after losing 13 straight. On the other hand, I believe many new players catch a big win and jump on the tournament bandwagon. If they don't have tournament skills, it won't take long to see their winnings chewed up in entry fees. This has happened to me.

Despite allowing my previous winnings to get chewed up, I find myself only down $1,000. I have learned an awful lot about tournaments. I have put up some good numbers recently. It could just be a hot streak, but I feel I have a much better sense of how to play poker and tournaments now than ever before. I have an intact bankroll and I am ready to make a real stab at some big money. My goals have changed now. I don't want to just make the money anymore. I want to win, because that's where the money is, and that's what it takes to preserve a bankroll. I'm having good thoughts about 2003. See you on the tour...

Addendum...

After completing this article, I found that I couldn't resist one more foray into the tournament arena. I journeyed to Atlantic City to play three $1,060 events. So I will revise my numbers for this year and my two-year cumulative. I came home a winner after finishing second in the Omaha 8 event and winning $15,660. This also made me a lifetime winner. Now my 2002 results are as follows: 31 events, 6 venues, 5 final tables, $36,360 in entry fees, and $46,555 won for a profit of about $10,000 for the year in tournaments not counting satellites and other games. My lifetime, two years of tournament play, totals are $58,970 in entry fees and $71,411 in tournament winnings for a two-year profit of close to $12,500. In order to do that I needed to have two high finishes with a first and a second in two of my last twelve events. It still points to the same fact, that it takes high finishes to sustain oneself on the tournament trail. If I get shut out in Tunica, I will be back to being a lifetime loser. So I will need to establish whether I am the Mark Burtman who has won about $35,000 in the last three months of 2002, or the Mark Burtman who went 13 straight tournament events without a money finish.

Now that the year is over, it appears that T.J. did win the Player of the Year honors, according to the major poker publication's Web site. He won about $318,000 in final table wins. This won't count money finishes outside of the final table. Nonetheless, I am still going to ask the question of how much did he actually pay in entry fees? Without that number we really don't know if he was a highly profitable tournament player this past year. If he did play all of the events, then he didn't win much more than the $308,000 I projected for a full year of tournament play. It's just a question. T.J. is one of the greatest ever. I read all of his books, and I have learned from watching his play. But I still question whether he actually had a very big net win this past year.