The Most Toxic Poker Mindset You Must Avoid at Any Cost

19 Jun 2025

Intermediate

This material is for medium-skilled players

Today we will talk about the most toxic poker mindset that destroys careers right at the root. It torments poker players for years and leads to all sorts of mistakes, sadness, depression, unhappiness and constant anxiety.

And this is the «I'm entitled to win» mindset. When a player believes that he is entitled to win in exchange for something he did before.

Understand, learn and accept that both life and poker are unfair. I constantly hear players complaining like «How the hell is this possible? How much more can this go on? There is no limit to the unfairness here! How did I lose again if I was supposed to win here?»

For example, a player goes all-in with AA preflop against some nonsense from a fish and loses. After that, he runs to the forum / writes in the chat about how unlucky he was with AA against J4o and all that stuff. That is, he thought it was natural to win with aces every time he went all-in preflop.

But in reality, AA only has 87.5% equity against J4o and will lose the other 12.5% ​​of the time. Not so little, right? Their mathematical expectation says so. But we, living people, are used to thinking that if the probability of an event is below 30%, then it is extremely unlikely and often perceive them as zero. However, 12.5% ​​is very far f.rom zero - that's a fair chunk of time when you look at it on a large sample scale. As much as 1 time out of 8. Sometimes such supposedly incredible events can happen 3-4 times in a row (and there have been complaints about that too).

Among those who aspire to become my students, there are already good players who are trying to grow in skill. And yet, some of them still think that winning tournaments often is normal for them. They say, like, Jonathan, help me - I'm tired of constantly taking 7-6 places. Like. I want to win tournaments.

But in fact, the fact that they even get so far in tournaments is already a great event, and they have no reason to complain. For example, let's take a tournament for 1000 people. For a player who is breakeven, it will be normal to get into the top 10 players only 1 time out of 100. For a more or less good player - 1 time out of 70 attempts. Therefore, those who do not like 7-6 places should be happy with their turn of events - they have objectively had a lot of luck, because their distance did not even exceed 100 tournaments.

I remember recently being in Vegas, where I ended up in the big prizes twice, finishing 7th and 8th. To do that, I had to get into the top 10, of course. Both times I was a big favorite 70/30 and lost both times. Do you think I wasn't upset at all? - Yes, I wasn't. Because I've learned to calmly accept that this 30% chance of losing such an important hand exists and can really happen to me. Not somewhere in the long run, but right here and right now.

Depending on what tournaments you play and their variance level, it can take months or even years to win an MTT. This is especially true if you play well and your playing behavior does not change at all, despite the fact that you are tired of seeing yourself eliminated, while others get to the top 3-2-1 and win orders of magnitude more.

I also want to say a few words about chip leaders in the late stages of tournaments. If a player has a stack in which as much as half of the chips of this tournament are in the bag, and thinks that the victory is already in the bag, then he is very much mistaken. There are so many stories about how the undisputed chip leaders crashed out at the final tables, losing 2-3 all-ins because the cards fell that way. If a player has 50% of all the chips, then he will win on average from 50 to 65% of such cases, depending on many things. But not 100%.

I recently noticed on a forum that «Someday you'll be dealt worse than you ever thought possible.»

I can confirm this with authority: I've been dealt incredibly badly at one point (and will probably do so again), and every player in the world will sooner or later be dealt in a way that will drive them crazy. If you think you know what that's like, you're probably wrong.

However, the ups and downs that usually happen are much less dramatic, so you can get used to them.

Seriously, think about this question in your head from time to time.

It's worth adding my two cents about upswings. I've heard of many people who soared from the lowest limits to high stakes in a year. Maybe skill really did play a role, but it's much more likely that during that time of play, variance was the main factor, so that they mostly had good luck and in the right place. In poker, there are those who are so unlucky - even at medium term - that they don't want to play at all, and there are those who, no matter what they do, will still win. However, most are somewhere between these extremes.

When a player gets into a prolonged upswing and his results exceed all normal values ​​for a skilled regular, then the player in such an upswing

• Becomes overly confident =>
• Gradually gets used to acting cheekily  =>
• And then completely recklessly, because in the upswing he got away with a lot.

But sooner or later this juicy upswing ends, and if the player's hit by a downswing immediately after the upswing ends, and the player has an unstable bankroll, then he can be swept off Olympus with the same speed with which he flew there - luck has stopped, there is not enough skill, and the bankroll is now in ruins. As a result, the player falls into a stupor, confusion, and later into depression because he did not know what a long, harsh downswing is and was not prepared for it in any way: neither technically, nor mentally, nor financially.

Now you only care about the long term, and you no longer view a cool win rate for 20-50-100k hands as entirely your merit - you only admit that skill can be a large component, but you also remember about the influence of variance. And the «I'm entitled» mindset gradually dissolves - as the volume and regularity of the game increases.

I advise you to open any variance calculator, enter data that would indicate that you have a small advantage over the field (a small win rate for cash and a low ROI for MTT) and run a dozen simulations. You will see on them that in cash and in tournaments, you will be strongly shaken up and down. In tournaments, these ups and downs will usually be much more sweeping due to their nature, but in cash games it won't seem like much either.

Even if you find charts of top poker players, there will also be big ups and long, deep drawdowns at times - this is normal in any type of poker and at any limit, when your advantage over the field is not so huge.

• You will definitely - guaranteed - experience downswings.

At times, the game will seem completely pointless to you and that there is no longer any profit to be made. Money will melt away, opponents will beat you, and you will not know what to do with it.

Imagine how you play a large series of tournaments or a long session in cash for 10+ thousand hands. When you have a big and solid bankroll, then losing 1 buy-in out of 200 is a mere zilch (0.5%), which practically does not put any pressure on you, because you clearly know that you are so firmly on your feet that you can do it 20-30 more times, and in a row. The same goes for cash in dispersion games - in fast poker or in regular cash, but with very difficult opponents. When the bankroll is big, you are confident in your rear.

But if the bankroll is small (in buy-ins), then as soon as it drops below some comfortable indicators, you start to feel quite uncomfortable. - Have you noticed? - It seems like you still have money, but losing a few more buy-ins will put you on the edge. Under such mental conditions (fears, lack of freedom of action and everything that comes with it), showing a good game simply won’t work - you, as a living person, perfectly feel the imminent collapse.

If you are still at the beginning of your poker path / some «attempt» to start a career again or are just moving up in limits, and at the same time you have a main source of money, then aggressive bankroll management is acceptable - play as you want then. But if poker is your main source of income, then a large bankroll is critically necessary for you to not go down in limits when you start to be hit by a brutal downswing. Because if you go down at least 1 limit, then this is already a much smaller $ / hour. => And this starts a new round of headaches . . .

In essence, to make money in poker, you don't need that much. The general recipe is quite simple:

• Find the games in which you can consistently win,
• Play them as much as possible and
• Have a reliable bankroll.

This is the basic scheme, to which you can also attach the limit level, win rate, rakeback and all that other stuff. But if all 3 of these components are summed up, then the money will definitely be - as the volume of big blinds won. The only question is their absolute value. Now let's briefly go over each component, and then we'll wrap up.

Find a game in which you can consistently win

These are the conditions where you have a stable profit over the long term. It's simple. And these conditions can be formed in different ways: either you are much more effective than the average opponent at the limit, or you play with absolute fish - the main thing is that an EV advantage is formed, which gradually flows into monetary profit. To be better than opponents, you need to learn, develop and actually outplay them, which leads to a flow of chips in your direction. It would be good to also select correctly so that the game composition is as soft as possible.

Play as much as possible

It is necessary for 3 main reasons.

• The first reason is to even out the consequences of the variance that throws you either against the floor or the ceiling - downswings are balanced by upswings, so a very jagged graph becomes much smoother when scaled up.
• The second reason is to scale the profit from one hand. That is, simply multiplying the small in absolute average EVbb/100 by the number of hands played. For example, if your EVbb/100 = 10, and the main limit is NL10, then for 100 hands you win 10 x 0.1$ = 1 dollar. For 1000 hands - 10$. For 50k hands per month it is already 50 x 10$ = +500 dollars. How much you play is how much you earn.
• And the third reason is rakeback and other related percentage accruals. It is no secret that even at micro limits rakeback can make up a significant share of the total income and $/hour. And it is directly proportional to the number of hands and the average pot. The more hands you play, the more $ rakeback you receive. And since many poker rooms have a progressive % rakeback, it becomes even more profitable to increase the volume of the game many times. Well, at high limits and/or tough fields rakeback can generally be the main source of income from the game.

Have a reliable bankroll

Everything has already been said about the bankroll in the section on proper bankroll management. Even for a semi-professional player this is very important, because it gives much more peace of mind in the game. And for a completely professional player it is the cornerstone of his success. Moreover, often in life in general.

The «I'm entitled» mindset gets carried away with volumes and regularity of play. When you see for months that variance doesn't matter, what you think about your rights and variance itself, then it resolves itself (most often), because gradually we come to terms with many inevitabilities in our turbulent environment.

And regarding success in poker, I would like to add the following words. Most poker players will not succeed in it - even many talented players eventually fade into the sunset. Not only because they were unlucky with variance throughout their careers. - No. - It's a matter of banal hard work and a serious attitude to the game.

• Some people lack modesty and discipline, so they clash and fight for +1 bb/100 with strong opponents and sit at the same stakes for years (if they even win). Meanwhile, others win +15 bb/100 due to selection and do not worry about what others think of them, most of whom they will never deal with in their lives. => There is something to adopt.
• The second ones play rarely, little by little and very irregularly. Sometimes they play 5-10k hands at once and disappear for a week. - This approach is also ineffective and is related to weak discipline. The distance is played for an extremely long time, the total rakeback is small, the average EV per hand is multiplied by too few hands, so in the end the player still works at work and does not play poker like a professional. => But this can also be fixed.
• The third ones play with a very limited bankroll, so they are always playing in a wrong style, they are tight and generally on the verge of ruin. - Another one. - Then either, - like the second ones, - they take a break from the game or replenish the cash immediately and continue to play more or less the same. => Although they could have made a bigger deposit at once and played seriously and confidently.

Playing with the full sum of these components, profit will become inevitable. Gradually, ups and downs will become less sensitive and the game will become a simple monetization of the mathematical model of your strategy - what you can do and what you are ready for. Rakeback and other surcharges add up as a bonus, multiplied by the volume of hands played. You will play in profitable conditions + large volume + at the peak of your skills.

Over a long distance, you will really get what you are entitled to - without quotes. But the difficulty is that this long distance will have to be covered, play millions of hands and / or play tens of thousands of tournaments so that what is due to you according to EV is equal to the actual profit. Those who do not pass - will not get theirs. It's simple.

And as for the various «champions» of large live events like WSOP, you should not consider them phenomenal players by default - there is many times more luck there than technical skill. Success is a concept for everyone, but on average, poker success is measured over a long distance. And only a player who shows good results over a long period of time is usually called successful.

However, if the same began to register victory after victory in many tournaments in a row, then this already begins to speak. However, this is a completely different story.