MOTIVES/MOVING UP

POKER ARTICLES
110901

SHOULD YOU MOVE UP?

I. YOUR MOTIVES
By
Alan N. Schoonmaker, Ph.D.
Sooner or later, most winners ask that question. We wonder whether we will have more
fun and make more money in bigger games. The answer, like the ones to so many poker
questions, is: It depends. The right answer for you may not be the right one for me.
Moving up violates the select soft games principle of previous columns because larger
games are usually tougher. You should violate that principle only for very good reasons,
and many people move up for the wrong ones.
Although the games get tougher, moving up for the right reasons does not violate the
selective aggression principle; you should move up only if the benefits exceed the risks
and costs. Base your decision on: (1) your motives, (2) your abilities, and (3) your
bankroll. Unless they are all favorable, dont move. Unfortunately, many people deceive
themselves about all three. This column will focus on your motives. Future columns will
discuss your abilities and bankroll, then suggest a strategy for making your move.
Motivation comes first because you should always analyze why you want to do
something. Many people dont analyze; they just yield to their impulses, then wonder
why things go wrong so often.
TYPES OF MOTIVES
There are five primary reasons for moving up: (1) stimulation, (2) profit, (3) status, (4)
testing yourself, and (5) developing your game.
Stimulation
As games get bigger, the money becomes more interesting, and the players get better and
more exciting. If you are bored with your current limits for the right reasons (e.g.,
because it is too easy to win), perhaps you should move up. If you are bored for the
wrong reasons (e.g., because you have crave more action, even though you lose), you
should stay where you are or even move down.
Of course, you may enjoy your current game, but still want more kick. You can beat most
small games by just being tight and aggressive. Since larger games are tighter and more
aggressive, you cant win on style alone; you have to be deceptive, imaginative, and
analytic, which makes the games much more stimulating.
Profit
If you can win the same number of bets per hour, your profits will obviously increase, but
you probably cant do it. Because the games get tougher, you could easily shift from a
winner to a break-even or losing player.
You should also decide what the added profit means to you. If poker is your primary or
secondary job, profit is economically important. If you are a winning recreational player,
and the gains and losses are just the way to keep score, you may be wiser to stay put.
Youre getting the pleasure of winning regularly, and you may feel frustrated if you win
more money, but fewer big bets per hour (BBPH). For example, you may feel much
better winning $9 per hour playing $3-$6 (1.5 BBPH) than winning $10 per hour in a

$10-20 game (0.5 BBPH).

Lots of people dont need the money, but need to feel they are winning enough to satisfy
an ego drive (even if they dont see it that way). For example, one member of our poker
discussion group (PDG) wants to move from the smaller games she beats to $15-$30 at
which she has lost consistently. She wrote: the theoretical win per hour in the larger
game is attractive to me, because I don't want to work for 8 or 10 or 16 bucks an hour.
My time is ... simply more valuable than that, and I can make tremendously more by
trading or consulting, etc.
Since she can make tremendously more by working, profits importance is clearly
psychological, not economic. If the money was economically important, she should
obviously work instead of play poker. Her wording is significant: I dont want to work
for 8 or 10 or 16 bucks an hour, but poker is not her occupation or even a significant
income source. She confuses work and recreation. Bill Gates plays $3-$6, and his time is
worth immeasurably more than hers, yours or mine.
In fact, most recreation costs money, sometimes lots of it. Golf, travel, and skiing are
expensive, and boating is a bottomless pit. If you enjoy poker, dont need the money, and
win a few dollars, you are way ahead of people who spend serious money having fun.
Status
The stakes you play greatly affect your status in our world. Some people need to be seen
as higher limit players. If they used to play $100-$200, they may feel as embarrassed in
the $25-$50 game as the $4-$8 player feels playing $2-$4. They may say there are no
seats available, or they dont like the players looks, or somebody there irritates them, but
they let everyone know they dont belong in this little game. Some of them get
obnoxious. They criticize the other players, compare them to their regular crowd, and
never let you forget they are high limit players.
Their status seeking reminds me of a woman at an outdoor wedding in August. She
wanted to show off her mink coat and car, but nobody could see them. She loudly asked
her husband, Did I leave my mink in the Cadillac?
In addition, moving up could easily reduce your status. Bigger games are higher status,
but what is the primary source of poker status? Only one thing, winning. A winning low
stakes player is below a high stakes winner, but far above any loser, even one who plays
$1,000-$2,000. We look down on losers, no matter what stakes they play. Of course, high
stakes losers get treated well, but it is not respect or status; they are seen as live ones, and
the winners pretend to respect them to keep them coming back. If you really care about
status, perhaps you should stay and win right where you are.
Testing yourself
The desire to test ourselves is natural and desirable. We want to move up for the same
reasons that tennis players challenge people above them on the clubs ladder. If we didnt
test ourselves, we would never know how good we are, not just at poker, but at anything.
The PDG member wrote: I do like the challenge of playing the higher limits and do in
fact want to "prove" (to myself) that I can beat the game at a level which is
worthwhile. Her attitude is fine because she has already proved her worth in much
tougher and more important competitions than poker, but lots of people seek challenges
for unhealthy reasons.
If too much of your self-esteem depends upon your poker playing ability, youve got
problems. First, it is dangerous to have too much of your identity and self-esteem

dependent upon any one dimension, and poker is a particularly fragile foundation. The
inevitable losing streaks can devastate you.
Second, how will feel when you fail? And sooner or later you will certainly fail. You, and
I, and everyone else have limits, and they may be much lower than you would like. We all
know players who beat up little games, but got wiped out in larger ones. Even if you can
move up again and again, only a handful of players can beat the biggest games, and there
is only one World Champion each year.
When you reach your limit, you may feel like a failure. Its illogical, but it happens
everywhere. Countless super-successful people in business, sports, politics, and virtually
every other competition feel like second raters because someone is above them. For
example, some Wall Street people are miserable because they made only $1,000,000
(or $5,000,000) last year. In many hierarchies one of the unhappiest people is in second
place; nearly everyone is below him, but he cant push out the SOB on top. If you doubt
it, just read the words of former vice-presidents of the United States. Most complained,
and John Nance Garner said the job wasnt worth a bucket of warm spit.
In other words, dont let your feelings about yourself become too dependent upon poker
(or anything else). Some $2-$4 players are great human beings, and some high limit
players are bums.
Developing Your Game
If it is too easy to beat your current game, you cannot reach your potential as a player. If
you can win enough playing your B game, you wont play your A game or invest the time
and effort to improve it. You need better competition to force you to play and improve
yourself. If improving your game is important to you, you probably have to move up,
even if it temporarily converts you from winner to loser. It clearly violates the Winners
are selectively aggressive principle, and you should do it only if developing your game
is more important than your immediate profits.
To become a much better player, you must make some short term sacrifices. Every person
who goes to college or serves a low paying apprenticeship does the same thing. The
training costs money in the short term, but ultimately pays off.
THE LEVEL OF MOTIVATION
Even if moving up would satisfy most or all of your motives, it might be a mistake. In
fact, if you are too motivated, your satisfaction and results will probably suffer. The
higher risks, tougher players, challenge to your self-esteem, and other factors can make
you "play scared" or otherwise harm your game (and more important things such as your
self-image).
The research on motivation clearly proves that moderately high motivation produces the
best performance. If motivation is too high or too low, performance declines. If you don't
care, you will perform badly. Many high stakes players are Magoos in low stakes games,
as you and I would be if we played for pennies. If the stakes get too high, performance
will deteriorate because we will not have a detached, objective attitude. Instead of
regarding bets as "just chips," we'll think, "Oh my God, I have to risk my next vacation or
house payment.
Lets look at a classical illustration: People have to walk 30 feet on an 8 inch wide board.
If you lay it on the ground, some people will walk so carelessly that they fall off. If you
raise it three feet, most people will be careful enough to get to the end. If you raise it 100
feet, most people will be too scared to take a single step. The board and task have

remained constant, but performance varied enormously.

I am not recommending that you stay at your current level, just that you know what you
are trying to accomplish. If the gains exceed the costs and risks, go for it. If not, stay
where you are and enjoy it. If you really want to move up, you must ask yourself the
questions of the next column: Do I have the necessary talent and bankroll?
FREE COACHING
30 Minutes, no obligation
Send your email and phone number to alannschoonmaker42@gmail.com