My Plan--Long Term Goals and an Interesting Idea

[sthief09]

First, I just want to thank everyone for responding to my post about quitting for a while, and to those who PM'ed me. This place is so much more than just a forum to discuss strategy, and that's great. I knew I "should've" posted that in the Psychology forum, but I knew I'd get the best responses here, because, in all honesty, this forum has the highest concentration of intelligent and knowledgeable posters. I learned so much from reading through that thread (believe it or not, I didn't read the responses to that post until recently. I didn't want to until I was ready to make this post), mainly 2 things:

1. so many people go through what I go through. it's a complicated and involving game, and it's easy to let it consume our lives. I assumed the college kids like myself would be able to relate the most, but I got IM's, PM's, and responses to the post that made it seem like adults, with wives and kids, also experience the same problem. fortunately, I haven't heard any horror stories about angry wives or neglected children, and hopefully I never will.
2. balance is the key. poker isn't the problem, but it's the time that I let poker take. If it either takes too much time, or time that should be spent doing something more important, than something needs to be done. so many people manage to keep the game as a part of their lives without it actually being their lives, and that's what I need to do.

So here's the plan:

Playing time: I finish work Friday, I go to school Saturday (28th) and don't start for another week. I can log in a bunch of hours during the day for that week. After that, I'm going to keep away from poker (for the most part) for a month or two, until I'm aware of my schedule and know what time periods I can dedicate to playing. I'll still play an hour here and there, but no serious playing. My #1 goal is to make deans' list both semesters this year, and any poker goals fall as a distant second (or third or fourth or fifth...).

Money/Bankroll: Right now I'm basically broke as far as expendible money that I can set toward a poker bankroll. My original goal was to set $100 toward .5/1 and hope for the best. I did that over spring break last year and I did well, so I know that it's viable (I'd be willing to reload).

But I've come up with an idea with my friend, Justin (that I mentioned in my quitting post, and the Turning Stone hand post). We're going to basically start from scratch. He's going to put $2000 in an account (or split it in 2 accounts) and we're going to play with a shared bankroll. He'll be entitled to the first $x worth of profit, and the original $2000. So let's say we decide he's entitled to $500 (any suggestions on a fair amount?). $2500 will immediately be his. We'll play 3/6 until we get up to $5000. Then we'll play 15/30 until we're at $14,000. When we hit that, he'll cash hour his original $2000.

As far as whose money is whose, we'll do that in terms of hours logged. We play the same (to the point that we're able to call out each others' exact hands while playing live), so even though it's just our bankroll, it's only fair that if he logs more hours, he's entitled to more money.

I think this is a good opportunity for both of us. For him, he's always "taking shots" at 15/30 with a ridiculously small bankroll, and he never sets goals. He wins and wins and wins, and cashes out most of it. Then, he complains about the swings at 5/10. He's made well over 10k since New Years', yet he has like $400 in his poker account now. I know the right way to go about building a bankroll, so I'll set the goals and make sure he doesn't do something stupid, like play 15/30, or cash our half hour bankroll.

For me, I get to play 3/6 from the start. He's basically staking me at the beginning, then once I work off my stake, we'll have a shared bankroll.

So eventually, we'll have a 12k bankroll and we'll both play 15/30. Is this a bad idea for any reason? We both play equally well, so it's as if we're logging twice the hours, instead of having twice the people.

What do you guys think?

[sfer]

I think he should just stake you. That arrangement is clean and precise and doesn't have the risks of bad feelings if one runs well and the other runs bad and the entire roll goes poof.

Welcome back. This forum is much better for having you post again. Should I quote The Godfather Part III here?

Addendum: Josh, you're a winning player. You know this, I know this, and so does everyone on this forum. People are willing to stake you here. Don't waste your time starting small and building a roll from scratch. Everyone should do it once, but the primary reason for doing so is to determine what we already know about you, i.e. that you are a consistent winner. Get rolled adequately and play at your normal level and build back up that way.

[Michael Davis]

It's only a bad idea if the other person is untrustworthy. Recognize, however, that the effects of one person running bad while the other is running good could be bad.

Also, I have no idea what your financial situation is, but I see no reason for you to play low stakes unless you are underfunded, which I think you are, if I correctly remember a BoomBoom post from way back.

When I started graduate school, I took almost the entire school year off to concentrate on my studies, playing only on Thanksgiving break and such. I was so successful in concentrating on my studies, that I am currently finishing up a paper due in about 34 hours that was originally due in March. If I don't finish it, I owe UCLA $10K, and I will lament that I took so much time off. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

-Michael

[sthief09]

I don't think there will be any hard feelings if one person runs bad. I've gotten him to believe in "the long run", and we've played enough together and talked about the game together enough that we trust each other to play well. He trusted me enough to play 10/20 with his money. I know I personally wouldn't care if he ran badly, because if I got his cards, I would've lost basically the same amount.

have you still been going to NYPC much (I know you are/were in Cali, but before that)?

[bisonbison]

When I started graduate school, I took almost the entire school year off to concentrate on my studies, playing only on Thanksgiving break and such. I was so successful in concentrating on my studies, that I am currently finishing up a paper due in about 34 hours that was originally due in March. If I don't finish it, I owe UCLA $10K, and I will lament that I took so much time off.

Thank god you're posting here then.

[sfer]

It's easy to believe in the long run when a friend convinces you but burning through two dimes can unconvince a lot of people. People under stress have the ability to behave in ways that aren't pretty--I've personally seen good friends turn into business partners and then into basically a divorced couple several times. But you know him better than I do.

Yup, NYPC still. Same with Boom Boom and some others. 5/10 has replaced 3/6 and 6/12. I smell a big-time Foxwoods outing for the NYC crowd.

[sthief09]

yes, this is all easier said than done, as I don't know what it'll be like if I have a huge day and he has a terrible won, leaving us even, or down. I don't think it'll be a problem, though. I just consider us as one person in this arrangement. As far as trust, I've known him since kindergarten, so that isn't an issue at all. The only cause for concern is that he won't log his hours, because he's the laziest human being alive.

good luck with the paper.

[MarkD]

I agree with everyone else. A stake is just "cleaner" all around. There will be no way for any possible disagreements in the future. The arrangement you outlined could have disasterous unforeseen results in the future.

With a stake everything is out in the open and there shouldn't be any problems.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
I smell a big-time Foxwoods outing for the NYC crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you guys plan this a week or two in advance I'd love to come down and meet you all. I'll try and cut loose from work if it's humanly possible.

NT

EDIT: I think you should just get a stake as well. Get some pledges together or something. I bet 20 people here would toss you a hundred bucks.

[sthief09]

OK, being that everyone has suggested this, I have to start considering other options.

I have 3 questions:
1. what if we kept track of what we won/lost, and played with a shared bankroll but owned the amount of money that we've physically won.
2. what's an example of a stake? I'll try to find the post about Dcifrths's stake deal, but for now, is it in terms of time taken to pay the staker off? what's an example of a fair staking deal, for, say, $1000 at 2/4?
3. is there any problem with 2 winning players playing under the same bankroll, if neither person minds the other dipping into his half. if we have $5000 at 5/10 and we each have 2500, and one person gets into the red, that person keeps playing, but under the other person's 2500. basically, can two people play 15/30 under one $12,000 bankroll?

[MarkD]

Staking just keeps the business relationship as simple as possible IMO. The most your friend can lose is the money he stakes you (if you lose it or decide to steal it). In a shared bank roll one of the partners could screw the other one and just take the 12k and run. Not saying that either of you would do this but it is a consideration. Also, staking avoids the potential nightmare situation where one of you is running great and the other is running horrible. That could create conflict which would suck.

But, on a theoretical level the plan is sound.
1. what if we kept track of what we won/lost, and played with a shared bankroll but owned the amount of money that we've physically won.
Sounds like a stake if you eliminate the shared bankroll.

2. what's an example of a stake? I'll try to find the post about Dcifrths's stake deal, but for now, is it in terms of time taken to pay the staker off? what's an example of a fair staking deal, for, say, $1000 at 2/4?

This I don't know. I've never staked anyone nor been staked myself. The only deal I've ever heard is the staker gets 50% of the stakee's profit for the duration that the stakee is staked. Obviously the staker assumes the risk of the stakee losing the initial stake.

3. is there any problem with 2 winning players playing under the same bankroll, if neither person minds the other dipping into his half. if we have $5000 at 5/10 and we each have 2500, and one person gets into the red, that person keeps playing, but under the other person's 2500. basically, can two people play 15/30 under one $12,000 bankroll?

If you eliminate all of the psychological problems this type of situation could create then of course this is theoretically possible. Essentially you are just trying to double the number of hours you play by having two players playing from the same roll. This would allow both you to advance to the higher levels faster. It just has way too much potential for disaster for me though. I would rather just get staked and keep things seperate and simple.

What if someone decides to play Omaha or NL or PL. He may not be good at these forms of poker and thus may be assuming more risk than normal. These types of situations would be tough to deal with.

[MarkL444]

What are you going to do if you both want to play at the same time? Only one of you will be able to log in some hours and "make money".

[nothumb]

I think your modifications to the plan sound like you are trying to just get him to stake you but don't want to ask him. Which is fine. It also sounds like we are planting the seeds of doubt about his play in you after all. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

As far as a fair deal for staking someone, I have often heard something to the effect of half the profits until the stakee has enough to play on his own or cashes out. I bet something better could be put together for you if a bunch of people were tossing in a relatively trivial amount, however.

NT

[BottlesOf]

Yo. Ed Norton was at NYPC tonite. I wasn't planning on going, but I went hammered, for a bit.

When can I expect to next see you there?

[Michael Davis]

Hey, I have my priorities. And every five minutes of writing requires about an hour's break, no?

-Michael

[Blarg]

Say you've got your bankroll to the level where you're able to play 15/30. You're liking the game, too.

Then he has a nasty streak and suddenly you can't play 15/30 anymore, maybe for a long-ish time.

Do you feel the urge to "fix" the bankroll by playing more and potentially neglecting your studies?

What if it's you who hits the bad streak? Do you feel somehow "obligated" to keep your partnership at the 15/30 level -- obligated enough to start playing more than you intended and put your grades at risk?

Not necessarily ruining your grades I'm talking about -- but just putting them "at risk." Maybe doing a little less well. Settling for less.

My take on it is that in a partnership you usually feel obligations. But your obligation is and should for a long time be your schooling, not your poker bankroll.

If you're on your own, a bad turn of tides won't necessarily make you want to play more; it might make you want to play less. If you're in a partnership, the same stimulus might make you want to react by playing more so you're either "keeping up your end" or making up for the other guy's end. Two different scenarios that could tempt you to neglect your studies that you just wouldn't have had if you were on your own.

And that's not even addressing whether you get mad at yourself or him for taking a big loss, and the psychological downside and interpersonal pressures of that.

Also consider -- you can have a partnership that dissolves earlier, too, by design. You could dissolve it when "X" amount of money is won that isn't quite enough to play 15/30, but well ahead of where you are now.

[cnfuzzd]

First and foremost, welcome back sir, you have been missed, and we are all smarter for everything you say.

Second, i would be willing to stake you, but i recently went through almost the same exact situation you did, and am now climbing back up through the micros. Although i should be able to go back to 2-4 this week. Yippeee

Finally, if you two are into friendly competition, why not split the thousand in the staking deal mentioned by others, then "compete" against each other starting in the 2-4. This would slightly underroll you, but the extra 50BB'sis negligble. This would start you off to working back up, and allow your friend to have a nice "check" on his game. I agree with others on this forum that sharing the bankroll is a dangerous idea, although i think it has been done several times before.

Again, welcome back sir.

peace

john nickle

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
I smell a big-time Foxwoods outing for the NYC crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]

You whippersnappers have to let me know when you'll be roadtripping back up to the 'woods. We'll burn up a 5/10 kill game (and maybe even hold a druken home game in a hotel room /images/graemlins/grin.gif).

[charlie_t_jr]

...something similiar to a blackjack team arrangement?

stheif09, this maybe totally irrelevant, but when the issue of staking comes up, I've wondered why poker players don't approach it more like blackjack players.

I'm not intimately familiar with the details, but I think dogmeat has mentioned play on a blackjack team in the past.

My basic understanding of team bj, is that there's a couple of ways to go about it. A group of players combining their BR so they can play at higher level, without increasing ROR.
Or, an investor putting together a BR, and "hiring" players.
The players would be paid a certain hourly wage, and the ivestor would assume all risk. He would take the loss or profit, after the players are paid.

This second example, I suppose, would fit your situation. Basically, he's putting up the money, and hiring you to play. Say you two agree to try this for 1 month. You're going to play 3/6 for a month(or whatever time period) not moving up or down, unless you lose a cetain amount(like half) of the BR. You agree to a certain hourly wage, which you will be paid at the end of the month, regardless of win or loss. And he takes all the profit, after your paid.

If you've had a winning month, you could take what you made, and combine it with his original BR and his profit, for a new BR. You could then become a playe/investor to the BR. Still playing for your "hourly" wage, and taking a percentage of the profit, relative to the amount of your investment.

This is kind of the idea behind bj team play, woudl it work for poker?

Hope this gives you something to think about, sthief.

[tolbiny]

I'd be willing to put up 200$ or so because

1. I like to trust people- i can either get really angry and beat the hell out of my punching bag, or feel justified in my trust- Its Win Win BABY!!!

2. i enjoy being involved in ramdon activities for brief periods of time.

3. being able to stake someone gives me the feeling of being wealthy (which i ain't).

So if you want to start a forum stake im in.... remember to ask greg rainer some advice, he picked up stakers a couple of years ago to to to the WSOP.

[razor]

for that amount and those reasons, I too would be willing to get involved in such nonsense...

[Evan]

What was Ed Norton playing at NYPC?

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
What was Ed Norton playing at NYPC?

[/ QUOTE ]

Insert dumb Rounders joke here.

[bisonbison]

hehe, just busting your nuts. I wrote an undergrad thesis back in the day. 9 months of work and I wrote the 5 page conclusion in the last 8 hours.

[nothumb]

I definitely did some of that nonsense. I wrote 100 pages of my 130 page thesis in under 72 hours (without sleep).

Count me in for a stake too if need be. I will come eat your lunches at a drunken home game if it happens!

NT

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
First, I just want to thank everyone for responding to my post about quitting for a while, and to those who PM'ed me. This place is so much more than just a forum to discuss strategy, and that's great. I knew I "should've" posted that in the Psychology forum, but I knew I'd get the best responses here, because, in all honesty, this forum has the highest concentration of intelligent and knowledgeable posters. I learned so much from reading through that thread (believe it or not, I didn't read the responses to that post until recently. I didn't want to until I was ready to make this post), mainly 2 things:

1. so many people go through what I go through. it's a complicated and involving game, and it's easy to let it consume our lives. I assumed the college kids like myself would be able to relate the most, but I got IM's, PM's, and responses to the post that made it seem like adults, with wives and kids, also experience the same problem. fortunately, I haven't heard any horror stories about angry wives or neglected children, and hopefully I never will.
2. balance is the key. poker isn't the problem, but it's the time that I let poker take. If it either takes too much time, or time that should be spent doing something more important, than something needs to be done. so many people manage to keep the game as a part of their lives without it actually being their lives, and that's what I need to do.


What do you guys think?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you realize poker takes up too much time, why would you be considering this as school is about to start up? Worry about college, you have an oppurtunity to get a great education.

[Tosh]

You're not going to have trouble getting staked, if that is an option you prefer. Obviously 2 of you playing 15/30 with 5k entails risk.

[sfer]

It's a deal.

[IndieMatty]

Yeah, well P-Station had free Quiznos last night...

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, well P-Station had free Quiznos last night...

[/ QUOTE ]

They do that every Sunday, I think.

[IndieMatty]

Yes, and Pizza and Subs on Tue. It's quite the scene when those guys get a free meal.

[MaxPower]

I think you are taking the wrong approach to this. You are obviously a very smart guy and are attending a very prestigous university. The sky is the limit for someone like you in terms of career as well as personal life. You need to focus on these things.

You should not have any goals when it comes to poker. You should treat poker like your other leisure activities. Do you have goals about how many movies you are going to see or how often you are going to go out drinking? Do you have goals about how many pick-up basketball games your are going to play?

If you don't set any goals, I think it will a lot easier for you to balance poker with your life and not become consumed by it.

I don't know you at all, so I could be completely wrong here. Your motivations may be very different from what I am assuming. Just my suggestion.

[MrHorace]

sthief,
I'm a bit late on responding to this, but wanted to give it some thought before getting back to you. I would suggest not playing for a while. Give yourself some time to think about what happened, how you could keep it from happening again, and what tactics can you take to become even a better poker player than you already are. Oh yeah, and I forgot the most obvious...ensure you do make the Dean's List both semesters.
I'm afraid if you get back playing again so soon, the thrill will be intensified and you might make the same judgment calls.
Notice I didn't say leaving the game, but take a break from playing for a while. Still continue to post here (Lord knows we can all use your sage advice), continue to read/study the game, and maybe coach your friends on their weaknesses.
My belief is that if you step back for awhile, and take these suggestions, when you do come back and play, you will be a much better and improved poker player. And a wiser human as well.
Sometimes it's difficult to be patient with things you really love, but in this case I think the return you stand to gain is HUGE.
Good Luck in whatever choice you make.
David