I thought I would continue yesterday's theme about losing money reasonably and feeling good about it.

Bottom-feeding (playing beneath league in order to generate a predictable positive Return On Investment) is a good thing I should feel pleased about supporting. Bottom-feeders do after all work really hard, often with long hours, in a job competing with the most tedious to be found in the physical world. I have to assume they do it for good reason.

In my mind, there are two main reasons for bottomfeeding (I have discounted pathologies from my analysis - inflicting the pain of loss on others could be a motivation I suppose, but I doubt it is a winning one):

1. As a supplemental income for real world use.
The world is not an equal place. Some people have crappy incomes due to age or location. I figure that the enjoyment I get from playing losing poker is good enough for me. Why then would I begrudge giving tiny fractions of my losses to this or that player working really hard for money he uses in daily life? That would be petty and not conductive to my enjoyment and learning experience.

2. Bankroll building for play at higher limits.
This is another perfectly reasonably grounds for playing beneath skill level. Extended downswings can happen to anyone and when it does, then recovery at lower limits is simply an aspect of reasonable bankroll management.

In this case, bottomfeeding is simply a mechanism transferring money from one level of play to the next. A trickle-up concept to look at it that way. The player will rebuild his bankroll, then move up to play again in his normal range. But given the circumstances, I rather think the Peter Principle is part of the picture in many cases.

The Peter Principle is simply defined as people tend to be promoted to their level of incompetence. A person can reasonably expect a promotion for doing a good job. The flip side is that promotions then only stop when the person starts doing a poor job at that level. He has reached his level of incompetence and will no longer be promoted.

This would tend to be the case for a player needing to rebuild his bankroll. He is likely normally playing at his level of incompetence (hence losing a sizable chunck of his bankroll) and thus is not really a bottom-feeder, he is a mechanism transferring money from one level of play to the next.

I assume rebuilding bankrolls for this reason happens at all levels. So here is the thing. The money I lose trickles upwards from one level to the next and finally ends up in the pockets of elite professional poker players. In a sense then, I am losing to Money-maker or Wahlbeck. So I have to ask, do I mind losing to them when it only costs me pennies or a buck or two?

Of course not. It is close to an honour and privilege to do so.