Stuck to the Grind.

[bisonbison]

Because long-term poker players are a cynical, sarcastic bunch of hyper-competitive wierdos, we tend to come up with some pretty handy lingo. Someone, somewhere, first used the word "stuck" to mean "down some amount of money for this session/this month/this year," and it resonated with every other poker player ever because when you're stuck, you feel stuck - to the table, to the game, to the image of yourself as somehow wronged by variance; all of which endure until the deficit is closed or internally forgiven.

Someone else originated "the grind", that endless succession of hands and hours that constitutes the committed player's working effort. The grind creates a final result at the cost of some erosion of our selves, some grinding away.

Understand, casual players don't grind, they play when they feel like it. Losing players don't grind, they dump ballast. Only someone who self-identifies as a winning player grinds, accepting, as impartially as possible, the stresses and disappointments of confidence-besieging variance and soul-destroying boredom in the pursuit of the rewards of playing.

Those rewards are manifold. We make money when we win. We feel confident when we win. We feel validated in our efforts when we win. And even when we don't win, we get a certain amount of satisfaction in the challenge and the study and in the comradery of other committed players who are going through the same grind and trying to keep a level head about it.

"Stuck" is evocative, but the "the grind" is more apt for most of us 2+2ers, because we are trying to handle an emotionally draining pursuit in a rational, assertive way. What happens when the process of playing hand after hand "well", in a way that we expect to produce good results, turns out poorly? What happens when we lose to players whose mistakes we can see and whose play is manifestly worse than our own? For all but the best of us, it grinds on us and wears us down. If the positives of poker don't restore the wear and tear, or if poker impinges on the other things in our lives that make us happy, we end up burnt out by those things that make the games profitable.

Of course, it's never as simple as a ledger. Some of us can't forswear poker when it becomes exhausting (because the financial gain is too important). But I wanted to post this in the wake of a lot of non-professional players seeming to burn out in the grind (Festus saying goodbye to 2/4, nothumb moving back down to the micro-micros, and Chesspain's continual Oedipal struggles with 3/6).

We talk about success, but there are a lot of different definitions of success, and we tend to gloss over the costs our poker habit imposes. A bad mood after a losing session has a different valence for someone who's trying to pay the rent than it does for a college student who's playing for the challenge and the possibility of some extra spending cash.

So, with all this in mind, if poker is anything less than a full-time job for you, I'd just like to pose a couple of questions:

When you are exhausted or frustrated by your results, why are you unwilling to take a break?
When you are experiencing bad results or bankroll-damaging variance, why are you reluctant to move down?

If the answers to these questions depend on your sense of pride and you've accepted that variance is a real thing that happens to winning players: how do you expect to deal with your first substantial losing streak? Because your pride will be damaged, and your rewards rescinded, and then you're going to be playing for much more distant rewards, and if you don't have a why, it's going to be hard.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

you write good.

[ErrantNight]

When you are exhausted or frustrated by your results, why are you unwilling to take a break?

Because I'm a stubborn bastard. When bad breaks come, or I make a few bad plays, I convince myself that they were just bad breaks, or that I can correct those bad plays... if I'm at a table of fish this is real easy to do because I see an easy opportunity to turn it around. The more rocks there are, the harder this is, but the more my stubbornness kicks in (I can show them! or, I'll just win back a LITTLE and THEN jump tables!)

When you are experiencing bad results or bankroll-damaging variance, why are you reluctant to move down?

Because I keep telling myself I can turn it back around FASTER at the "higher" limits (which for me, is just 2/4, which seems softer and easier to beat for the most part than 1/2 was... although I will mix in a 1/2 game every now and then). But I'm consistently removing bankroll so every hit on a day at 2/4 seems more stressful and leads to me playing more conservatively until I win back most of my losses (probably limiting my win rate significantly)

If the answers to these questions depend on your sense of pride and you've accepted that variance is a real thing that happens to winning players: how do you expect to deal with your first substantial losing streak? Because your pride will be damaged, and your rewards rescinded, and then you're going to be playing for much more distant rewards, and if you don't have a why, it's going to be hard.

Because I keep telling myself I'm a good player who's getting better and is a better player than I was a few months ago when I thought I was a good player.

I'm probably not a particularly good player (my tendencies to: make iffy calls on close odds situations, to go on tilt for short periods of time, and to not give up on made hands I'm almost positive are 2nd best all work against me), but I'm better than a lot out there, and I've proven to myself that over the long haul I can win... because I'm playing only with profit while maintaining a part time job and going to school full time... because I have a defined goal of what I'd like to win and when I hit it I'll cash out and everything after that is just cake (and yes, I do this every few months... but hopefully a few months from now I'm better than I am today)

I take losing poorly... I get frustrated and occasionally act immaturely (but I'm improving)... and I'm sure this contributes to lowering my win rate... but I keep things in perspective, and win my back hits the wall (or my bankroll gets low) I buckle down and pick myself back up...

Now what happens when I buckle down and STILL bust out on my ass?

Ah well, deal with that road when I come to it.

[x2ski]

Holy crud dude... that is some goot writing.

[cold_cash]

This is good (and timely) stuff.

I have to admit, I was a little worried about you when I saw you referring to yourself in the third person over in the micro-forum, but I can tell from this post that you still possess many of your faculties. Nicely done.

[nepenthe]

Here's my take for some of the players here who are currently having a hard time.

I correctly blame myself for my undisciplined rampage when I have a pretty bad losing session. For me, it's that simple. It has happened precisely three or four times in my rather short career as a serious poker player. If you're on a losing streak no matter how prolonged, question yourself first and foremost because chances are better than even money that you have some leaks, and the sooner you accept this probability the sooner you're going to get rid of it. Either you're not playing as well as you think you are to begin with, in which case the problem is fundamental, or you did not play as well as you could have in a particular session / series of sessions, in which case the problem is mental. Don't go crying to variance each time you lose - although variance is part of the problem, it can also be part of the denial. Be prepared to accept full responsibility, critique yourself objectively without mercy or unwarranted acrimony, and never stop learning.

[Michael Davis]

Why don't you find an outlet for writing that pays so you can move up and not worry about paying the auto insurance?

I don't want to hijack your thread, but there is the potential for a very good poker magazine just by using very good "uknown" posters from 2+2.

-Michael

[bisonbison]

I have to admit, I was a little worried about you when I saw you referring to yourself in the third person over in the micro-forum, but I can tell from this post that you still possess many of your faculties. Nicely done.

Anyone who has met me in person knows that I crave and despise the wierd fame that this forum has given me. I'm always the same self-obsessed, cynical [censored] that I've been for the last X months here.

[edthayer]

I fit into the "college student playing for the challenge and extra spending cash" category.

I've just moved up to 2/4, and I haven't had a big losing session yet at this level. I know that when I do experience a losing session, I get tired of the game. I curse at the computer, and I get upset, and if I lose badly enough, I quit for a day or so, browse the forums here, read a little SSHE, and then I'm back the next day.

I don't think pride has anything to do with it. But I do feel a great sense of confidence when I when. When I win, it's a matter of pride, when I lose, I justify it by saying I'll win next time around.

[brassnuts]

What a great post! You really were an English major weren't you?

[ QUOTE ]
When you are exhausted or frustrated by your results, why are you unwilling to take a break?

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel very unwilling to take a break when I'm stuck on a table because I have this overwhelming urge to get unstuck. Plain and simple. I do have enough sense, though, to realize when I'm actually being outplayed (I hope). This makes me a bit more willing to take a break and come back later. But, most of the time, I feel it's just the opposite. Usually, I'm running bad on a table because I keep having AK cracked by A7 or something. I feel like I just need a couple of my better hands to hold up.

One other thing... do you think the term 'grind' is poker specific or is it a more general term to describe any job?

[nepenthe]

It is most definitely not poker-specific. For any educated gamblers - or investors as they sometimes like to call themselves - grinding is the meat'n'potato of their livelihood. In fact, it is a very common term amongst advantage blackjack players, video poker players, sports bettors, et hoc genus omne.

[MicroBob]

a fine post.
and this...

[ QUOTE ]
Chesspain's continual Oedipal struggles

[/ QUOTE ]

was definitely the best part.

[SomethingClever]

Poker isn't my fulltime job, nor will it ever be, but I almost pooped my pants when I lost $160 at 2/4 a few weeks ago.

Several thousand hands later, I lost $100 and only peed a little bit in my shorts.

Friends, that's progress.

[me454555]

I guess I fit the "college student playing for the challenge mold" except for the fact that I'm not in college anymore. I have made the types of posts that you just talked about in the past. Mainly, its good for validation. When you're running good, the validation is in the $$ you make. Making a couple hundred bucks in a day has its own rewards, including confidence whether deserved by good play or undeserved by good luck.

When you're running bad on the other hand, you don't have that confidence boost so you have to find it from other sources. A couple of bad beats and a small loosing streak is easy to take because you can remember back to those winning days. A long loosing streak however, that is another story all together. You start to question your play, question you're decision making, and questioning the books you read. It's nice to post a rant on this board and hear other posters say "don't worry, you're good. or you've got the skills to beat that game but you're just having bad luck"

In the end, it comes down self control. Its easy to control your thinking when you're running well, tougher to do it when you're loosing. Tougher to control your emotions and tougher to keep that mental edge needed to play winning poker.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you find an outlet for writing that pays so you can move up and not worry about paying the auto insurance?

I don't want to hijack your thread, but there is the potential for a very good poker magazine just by using very good "uknown" posters from 2+2.

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very, very true. Frankly, I really love the idea someone floated to Mason about a book containing selected essays from the forum. I think that it would be easy to create "Poker Essays IV - VI" from the vast tomes that are the 2+2 forums.

Bison, another great post. Don't really have any answers, although this seems to be a post more for musing than replying. Keep up the good work though.

[nepenthe]

But you do need to question yourself, and not just when you're running bad over a prolonged period of time. I hope you equate neither questioning with self-doubt, nor confidence with winning poker. Consistent wins wrapped in humility are far more satisfying than a throng of losses derived from confident but erroneous plays.

Now, I am no Polonius and I do not intend to mimic him, but:

Never stop questioning yourself (this is how you learn). By the same token, never stop doubting your potential to improve (this is how you persevere). Don't automatically point to variance when you lose (so as to take responsibility), nor give yourself undue credit when you win (the way of humility). Practice tempered aggression (general player reads are important) and judicious folds (this is, after all, the majority of your actions). Above all, play well and you will reap the rewards.

[spamuell]

Firstly, great post. I don't know why you're a professional poker player, but I hope it's because you're writing a novel.

When you are exhausted or frustrated by your results, why are you unwilling to take a break?

I'm not, I take breaks all the time. I have played about 500 hands in the last three weeks or so. I don't take a break from the forums though, I enjoy them too much.

When you are experiencing bad results or bankroll-damaging variance, why are you reluctant to move down?

I suppose because after playing for double the stakes that I was previously playing, and becoming used to that, the money does not interest me nearly as much if I move down. Also, I know I'm good enough to beat 2/4, which is what I'm playing at the moment, and even if I lose my whole bankroll playing it (which is very unlikely) then I won't be in any real financial difficulty, I have a job. So I don't see any real advantages to moving down, but do see disadvantages.

[daveymck]

When you are exhausted or frustrated by your results, why are you unwilling to take a break?

Because I seem to be obsessed by this game and live for playing it, probably with working away from home evenings can be a long lonely time and poker fills the gap. When I get sick of the grind I play sng's or a bit of NL, I have recently started playing Omamha, I do other types of holdem to keep things fresh but I am lucky its recreational for me I dont need the cash I generate from poker.

When you are experiencing bad results or bankroll-damaging variance, why are you reluctant to move down?

I have had downswings but generally I have been over bankrolled for the level I am at so have never dropped (or really been close) below the minimum 300bb's required. When playing I am pretty strong emotionally and have only tilted twice in the last year, most times I can take deep breaths after a few bad suckouts and know I will get the money from the idiots long term, I try to embrace the suckouts it generallty means my game selection is good.

[Brian]

Hi Bison,

While I don't fit the criteria of poker not being anything less than a fulltime job for me (because it is), I thought I'd offer my experiences anyways. About this time last year, I was playing either 2 2/4 tables or 2 3/6 tables for maybe 2 hours a day. Whenever I had a good session, my girlfriend and I went out to dinner and to see a movie, and the atmosphere was pleasant. Whenever I had a losing session, my girlfriend and I still went out to dinner and to see a movie (damn girlfriends /images/graemlins/wink.gif ), but I am certain I was pretty unpleasant to be around, even though she usually didn't say so. Even back then, I knew of things such as Hourly Rate and Expectation, but they didn't resonate with me fully. I thought I got it, but I really didn't.

Now, many hours at the tables later, everything does make sense to me, and it is a great, zen-like feeling. That's not to say that I'm not still unpleasant to be around, because I am. But now it's only dictated by more important things in life, such as whether or not my clothes are washed or if the dog has crapped on the floor. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I don't know where others are at in their poker career, but the main words of advice that I can offer are: keep playing well, keep your chin up, and the ultimate reward in the end is well worth it (and I'm not talking $, though that's nice too).

-Brian

[Bob T.]

When you are exhausted or frustrated by your results, why are you unwilling to take a break?
When you are experiencing bad results or bankroll-damaging variance, why are you reluctant to move down?


I've done both of those things.

I also try and limit the amount I play each week, so breaks are built into my schedule. There is a reason, that we only work five days, and forty hours, before we get overtime pay. It isn't just because the government requires our employers to pay us more than. It is also because after that amount of labor, we become less effective in a number of ways. I think that if you want to succeed at 'the grind', you have to find ways to give yourself a chance to regenerate.

Good luck,
play well,

Bob T.

[joker122]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who has met me in person knows that I crave and despise the wierd fame that this forum has given me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will you sign my mousepad?

[uw_madtown]

I want a bisonbison coffee mug.

I'm not even joking...

[TripleH68]

<font color="brown">When you are exhausted or frustrated by your results, why are you unwilling to take a break?</font>
I do take breaks. I know I play better fresh and I do not envy those of you who cannot afford to take substantial breaks from poker.

<font color="brown">When you are experiencing bad results or bankroll-damaging variance, why are you reluctant to move down?</font>
I find taking a break is better than moving down. Moving down is a blow to progress, taking a break is not.

<font color="brown">If the answers to these questions depend on your sense of pride and you've accepted that variance is a real thing that happens to winning players: how do you expect to deal with your first substantial losing streak?</font>
I sent in $500 to start playing online in February. I once built it up close to $1100 only to see it dwindle to less than $100. I was very depressed about it and ready to quit. Then I dedicated time to reading this forum. It has been a very slow climb back to $850. My point is I cannot empathize with you bison until I become a really good player. If I have a horrible week I know there is plenty of room for improvement. When you have a horrible week after all the work you have put into it...it must be infinitely more difficult to deal with from a confidence standpoint. You and others keep repeating not to be results oriented, but in the end money is how you keep score in this game.

Parting thought: I once heard a man say "the reason I don't gamble is because winning $100 is no great thrill to me, but losing $100 really pisses me off."

[Brian]

As long as the mug doesn't have his mug on it, count me in too! Just kidding bison, you're a respectable looking guy, just don't know if I could drink my coffee with you staring at me. /images/graemlins/wink.gif Must be hell on your friends at the 3 A.M. Waffle House chats. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

-Brian

[Humble Pie]

A little to much man-love on this thread. Quit with the [censored] stuff guys.

[jtr]

Great post, Bison. Good to see you channelling the spirit of Papa Hemingway so successfully.

[ QUOTE ]
When you are exhausted or frustrated by your results, why are you unwilling to take a break?

[/ QUOTE ]

Originally I stubbornly refused to take a break out of sheer pig-headedness. I will win all my money back from these idiots, etc. Now I will happily "take a break" in the sense of moving away from a table that I am stuck at, if and only if the game has gone bad. But taking a break in the sense of quitting for a bit because you've lost some money seems like results-oriented thinking to me now. If I noticed that through tiredness or drunkenness or having the flu I was playing badly, sure, good reasons to take a break. But just because I'm losing?

I think I've been helped in cultivating this attitude by being substantially over-bankrolled for the level I'm currently playing at (2/4). If the money won or lost in a single session is not that significant, it's easier to cultivate the right air of zen-like calmness about results that another poster mentioned.

[ QUOTE ]
When you are experiencing bad results or bankroll-damaging variance, why are you reluctant to move down?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did move down from 3/6 to 1/2 when my first $1000 at 3/6 disappeared as quickly as it had come. I suspect I wasn't doing too much wrong, but there were definitely some NL-related leaks in my game (e.g., playing small pairs up front). It just seemed a good idea to get my re-education in limit play at a cheaper level.

This ties in with the fact that you've addressed these questions to those of us who are not professionals. I still see my poker play as being more about education than about serious money making. When I feel that I am absolutely on top of levels like 2/4 and 3/6, and I have something like 100,000 hands with a return like 2.5 BB/100, then I'll reconsider that perspective. Until then, I am trying to be something like a younger, less experienced version of Yoda. "Heh: adventure! excitement! a grinder craves not these things."

[spamuell]

A little to much man-love on this thread. Quit with the [censored] stuff guys.

Good post, full of shrewd observation, cynically expressed through wit as sharp as a bayonet (ah, memories).

Can I have a Humble Pie mug?

[Lawrence Ng]

Bison, while your post is extremely well thought out and written, I have no choice but to find it ironic that a grinder himself wrote such an essay.

Theses forums have been for the most part representing a very minor part of the entire poker population to which the casual player base is by far larger than the professional player base. As such, this little metaphorical "Grinders Anonymous" huddle group between the very few pros is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to the overall merits and benefits this game truly has to provide.

Monetary benefits that derive from this game represent to what I believe a very small part of what this game can truly offer. Yes money, especially from the professional's point of view is extremely important, but still it's a biased objective to work towards imho.

I am one of the larger majority of players who enjoy this game on a casual basis, for the sport of the game. As such I am blessed with the fortune that I do not let the money blindside my true reason to play this game. In fact I would say that many of the subscribers are casual players on this particular board, so there are a multitude of reasons why we choose to play, but the literature on that has been covered more than enough times by respected poker authorities.

Now, I love my job. I would take a 20 percent pay cut and still love my job. How many of professional players are willing to take a 20 percent cut on their grind?

Now I have every respect for the grinder. If you treat poker like a job, then hopefully you will be properly rewarded and compensated for your time,skill and effort. I have zero problem with that. But do remember, that in this world we live in, how much you make in any profession is and should be based on how well you perform.

It amazes still nonetheless that in this particular profession where the possibilities are endless, that people do not invest heavily enough to sharpen their skills. We spend thousands on a post secondary education, thousands on certifications, designations, all for the chance to market ourselves better and find better jobs, better pay in the real market. Yet, the grinder perhaps spends less (percentage wise) with his earnings on truly educating himself and bettering his game. I'm not talking about the few hundred dollars in books here. I'm talking about real poker lessons from real professionals. I'm talking real coaching. Surely if a university degree that cost well over $10,000 to attain is worth that $40,000 a year job, then a few thousand dollars to grab a top notch coach to help you is surely worthy and is +EV if it will help you boost your current game and further games down the road.

[Holm Fries]

[ QUOTE ]
When you are exhausted or frustrated by your results, why are you unwilling to take a break?


Interesting question. When I am mentally fatigued to the extent that I can identify gross errors in my play, I do take a break. And not coffee break, more like a get a good night's sleep, take care of the rest of my life tomorrow and see you in a few days break. The issue is when a bit of exhaustion causes me to be just off my game. This is much harder to identify and deal with.


When you are experiencing bad results or bankroll-damaging variance, why are you reluctant to move down?


This seems much easier, at least for me. No pride involved, I can and do move down if necessary.

how do you expect to deal with your first substantial losing streak?



I'll let you know when it happens. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif



[/ QUOTE ]

[I Play 2 Ski]

Awesome post!

[turnipmonster]

only comment I have is I've never understood people stepping back and examining their game when they're running bad. Why not do this all the time, since leaks are leaks and it really doesn't matter how you're running?

my personal answer to these questions is I play poker because I enjoy it, and at this point I could care less how I'm running. When I have bad streaks I generally don't play as often and play short sessions when I do play, that's about the only change I make. I think most people would do well to focus on making good decisions 100% of the time, and not worrying about money. that's what a roll is for.

--turnipmonster

[Ponks]

Excellent writing, I'm going to have to show this to all my friends I'm trying to teach poker.

Ponks

[ftball0000]

I stick to it for the same reasons:

I played Mike Tyson's punch-out so much, even though that bastard kept TKO'ing me 1 minute into the first round

I love playing against a person better than me in sports

It's a challenge and I like to win. In video games, it is the challenge of beating the board or the boss. I can't play madden anymore b/c it's gotten too easy /images/graemlins/frown.gif. In sports, it's the pride of doing battle w/ someone and beating them, a macho thing. In poker, money is the "points" I win. And it's pretty cool to show your friends stuff you've bought with money you've won from other people, or online, which seems like a video game to me.

-Ftball

[Number4]

Good post. I would fall into the college student category, though I do play a good amount. After playing for a while now, I can recongize when I need to take a break - whether from a specific table or from poker in general. I don't "have to play" to try and make the money back like I did when I first started.

As far as moving down, I have faced that dilemna somewhat recently. I hate to move down, as I convince myself I am "good enough" to stay where I am. It's pride talking, simple as that. But moving down is not a big deal to me now - simply a matter of keeping my bankroll intact so I can move back up once I am fine.

[MRBAA]

If you've been playing 20 hours or more per week online for a year and aren't playing at least 10-20, you're not a very good player. Look at David Ross or GOT or Joe Tall if you want to see the rare, really strong players. Some players may take longer to mature than others, either because they spend less time/energy or because they are slower learners. But I think a lot of the frustration comes from players who overrate their own abilities. I think from reading the posts of some of the regulars here that many simply don't play that well. With good game selection, these players can still be winners. But in even slighly tougher games, they may not be. There's no shame in this by the way. I put myself in this class -- I'm a winning 5-10 stud player, winning 4-8 hold'em player, losing 1-2 n/l player (all live). I have no illusions about my ability to beat bigger games than that at this time. But I do think there are many good recreational players right now who aspire to do more with the game than their abilities may merit.

[Danenania]

Nice post. I think the main problem is that we've all grown up playing games where the score is right in front of us. The better you do, the higher your score. There's no waiting to find out.

In poker, you can spend all day playing and have no idea what your score was. So you made 100 BB/hr. So you lost 100 BB/hr. So what? Talk to me in a month. There's no concrete number right there in front of you that can validate the slavish efforts of your day. All you have is a vague feeling that you either "played well" or "played poorly", which is probably more based on mood and insignificant results than anything objective.

I think the key to poker, psychologically, is learning how to keep score. This comes with experience and knowledge. Everytime you correctly isolate a maniac with a mediocre hand, only to lose to flopped quads, well, you should be giving yourself points. Everytime you correctly call a million bets with a good draw in a big pot and don't hit it, give yourself more points. If you raise preflop with AA, bet it the whole way, then lose to a 2-outer on the river, more points for you. And everytime you do something wrong like stay around without odds, bluff a calling station, go on tilt, then take some points away.

The "score", of course, is what we refer to as EV. And the trickiest part about this system is that you have to KNOW in the first place which plays are correct and which plays are wrong. But when you finally reach that level where you understand, where you can see a play for its true value, not its immediate results, I think that is when the grind goes back to being a game. That is when the piddling bumps in the bankroll that we all worry so much about will stop mattering to us and we'll focus on what counts.

[nolanfan34]

This post stinks.

OK, maybe not, but someone had to stall the love-fest temporarily. You're going to have your own stalker soon Bison.

Seriously though, as a non-pro player, I'll take a crack at these with my perspective.

[ QUOTE ]
When you are exhausted or frustrated by your results, why are you unwilling to take a break?

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I do take breaks. It's called having a wife. She has an incredible knack for wanting to use the computer about 10 minutes after I've finally gotten settled into my 4 table setup. (This is being remedied, as she's getting her own computer...)

Anyway, I think the feeling of being stuck probably applies more to the pros/grinders than the casual playing types like me. Or at least it SHOULD mostly apply to them. Because if you're a casual player, who's playing for sport, or small financial gain, then having a losing session shouldn't weigh heavily on your conscience.

I will say that frankly, I play NL tournaments more for the sporting aspect compared to limit. As I move up in limit maybe this will be less the case, but as I've progressed through the micros, it really is just more of an auto-pilot bonus-clearing grind than "sporting fun". Is it really competition playing .50/1 and 1/2? I think it's part of the reason people have trouble making the jump from 2/4 to 3/6 and higher. We THINK we're thinking at the table, but we really aren't when we're playing against unthinking opponents at the lower levels. Most of the posts I've seen about people struggling after making a jump inevitibly include the mention that they're 4-tabling their new level.

This is part of my strategy of avoiding the "stuck" feeling in the first place - gradually including tables of a new level instead of jumping in head first. Certainly limits the frustration level when struggling at a new limit.

Now - don't let me fool you, I get frustrated like everyone else. Having your AA cracked is never any fun. But the key for me, and the only way I can play this game long term, is to be at a place where the money isn't important in the long run for me. I work a regular job, and always will probably. Poker only provides me with means to buy things like this. (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&amp;category=70380&amp;item=5128342 193&amp;rd=1&amp;ssPageName=WDVW) If the money I'm playing with was vital to paying the bills, etc, then I don't know if I could play without frustration.

The important thing as a part time player, is that I know this fact going into it. I may lose on a given night, that's a fact. Last trip to the B&amp;M I dropped $200 in about 5 hours, and didn't sweat it at all. It was a hit to my bankroll, but I played as well as I could, and just experienced the downward extreme that variance has to offer.

In the end, online I help to temper any feelings of frustration by chasing bonuses whenever possible. This provides me with a goal per se, as even though I may have a losing session, I end it with a feeling of some accomplishment, as I have played X number of hands to move closer to clearing the bonus.

[ QUOTE ]
When you are experiencing bad results or bankroll-damaging variance, why are you reluctant to move down?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't played enough at a level where this has been an issue yet, as I've stayed far above the 300BB level when possible.

One note on this, that I've mentioned on this site before that I think people would benefit from thinking about. I really think that 300BB's is not enough to move up if you're multi-tabling right off the bat. People may disagree, but as I mentioned earlier in this post, a lot of the posts I see from people who are dropping down levels or had a huge losing session seem to involve on one hand "I had the 300BB required" but also "I was 4/6/8 tabling". I don't think 300BB is enough to handle the potential variance of multi-tabling a new level right off the bat. Just my opinion.

[J.R.]

If you've been playing 20 hours or more per week online for a year and aren't playing at least 10-20, you're not a very good player.

This is silly. Bankroll considerations control the moving up schedule, and I know many excellent players who have the skill and ability to do so, yet have drains on their bankroll (e.g. debt, they rely on poker for supplemenetal income, unexpected expenses). While these players may be more the exception than the norm, its quite a leap to state that anyone playing for a year who is not playing 10-20 is not a good player.

But I do think there are many good recreational players right now who aspire to do more with the game than their abilities may merit.

I agree with this, but will point out that one reason to keep plugging along and to set goals above your current level/skill is that a player's abilties can grow and develop with persistence and dedication. If you mean that there is a ceiling imposed by ones intelligence, I agree, but I don't think the ceiling is so low as to prevent a decent 2+2er who is persistent and dedicated from climbing the party ladder.

[JimRivett]

Because long-term poker players are a cynical, sarcastic bunch of hyper-competitive wierdos

I have to take exception to that statement, I don't think you meant to offend anybody by it, and I'm not offended by it, however I know quite a few long term poker players, some are in fact professional and some, like me, play for fun/social/recreation. Without exception these guys are pleasant, intelligent people, the pros are successful at poker, the non pros are successful in their business endeavours (and do OK at poker). (All right, I'll give you the "competitive" adjective /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

In response to your questions, I don't feel I get frustrated by results, I realize that's it's one long game. I fit poker in whenever I can and I make sure it doesn't interfer with the important things in my life.

As to moving down, that should be no problem for anyone who enjoys poker, I play low limit on line and mid limit live. I have to wonder how many non pros have a specific poker bankroll, I don't know of any who do.

Regards,
Jim

[MRBAA]

I really think it's a select few who can make a good living from poker. And I think those who can will move up fast if they play significant amounts of poker. Certainly, the three young players I cited all did that.

That's not to say that the rest of us can't improve -- clearly we can. But I think the gap between the few who can play for a living and the number who think they can is pretty wide right now.

[CCCCC]

I just tell myself things like "If luck weren't involved, I'd win every hand."

Then Norman Chad makes fun of me.

[MRBAA]

Jim, sounds like you and me are in very much the same place. I am a recreational player who keeps a separate poker bankroll. I won't move up limits until I have 300bb. I don't take expenses out of my poker bankroll (such as books, travel to casinos, meals while playing). However I also keep non-playing poker-related earnings separate (these would include bonuses if I played online, and do include a significant advance and any future royalties for my forthcoming 'Pocket Idiot's Guide to Hold'em" )

Within those parameters, I expect never to play with non-winnings again.

[J.R.]

Who said anything about playing for a living, much less making a good living? You said

[ QUOTE ]
If you've been playing 20 hours or more per week online for a year and aren't playing at least 10-20, you're not a very good player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I say BS.

[ QUOTE ]
And I think those who can will move up fast if they play significant amounts of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

For many this is true, but lets take Homer for example. When he occassionally posts here these days, he still seems to be playing 2-4, and he was postiggn 2-4 hands a year ago. Homer is a very good player (I apologize to Homer if I am mistaken about this). There are countless other examples of 2+2ers who are good players playing below 10-20.

BTW, is davidross "young" (not a knock to david), he has a daughter that is a teenager.

[ QUOTE ]
That's not to say that the rest of us can't improve -- clearly we can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you taking about "us", and who is this "us" you refer to?

[ QUOTE ]
But I think the gap between the few who can play for a living and the number who think they can is pretty wide right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree wholeheartedly. But in you orignal post, you said:

[ QUOTE ]
But I do think there are many good recreational players right now who aspire to do more with the game than their abilities may merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I responded by pointing out that its the aspiration to play better and/or to move up that will lead many decent 2+2ers to improve their abilities. There is a huge difference between have an inflated view of oneself, in which one believes he or she currently has more ability than he or she actually possesses, and recognizing one's current shortcommmings and aspiring to do better. There is also a big divergence between the rereational player and the 2+2er/serious/studious player. The latter can and will move up, because they will improve their abilties through study and serious thought about their game.

[Danenania]

What levels are you talking about? I think you're right that most of the current SS probably won't ever be ready for the 200/400 games that David Sklansky plays in. Many would have a hard time squaring off against truly tough players.

But the 15/30 on Party? Come on. As it's been often stated, though you do need some skill, it doesn't take a poker genius to beat that level of game. And even a moderate winner can make pretty big bucks multi-tabling, at least for the time being. I think you're overstating your case. I think the main factor in keeping most of the better SS posters out of that game is not ability, but bankroll limitations and psychological fear of the swings.

[MRBAA]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on the moving up point. I think the vast majority of players with really outstanding poker talent are going to be playing 10-20 or above after a year of putting in hours (and probably before).

On who "us" is...well it's the rest of us, the good playing, winning or breakeven low stakes players who post here. We're all trying to improve and many of us will likely be winners for life.

As to who said anything about playing professionally, many posters here refer to low stakes online poker as a second income source. Some treat it as their main income source. And I think that's where some of the frustration comes from. When you start relying on earning a return for the time you play, and then you have a month where you make very little over a lot of hours, or even lose a small amount, I'd imagine it's very frustrating.

[MAxx]

[ QUOTE ]
What levels are you talking about? I think you're right that most of the current SS probably won't ever be ready for the 200/400 games that David Sklansky plays in. Many would have a hard time squaring off against truly tough players.

But the 15/30 on Party? Come on. As it's been often stated, though you do need some skill, it doesn't take a poker genius to beat that level of game. And even a moderate winner can make pretty big bucks multi-tabling, at least for the time being. I think you're overstating your case. I think the main factor in keeping most of the better SS posters out of that game is not ability, but bankroll limitations and psychological fear of the swings.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's almost exactly what i was thinking. especially in the sense of overstating the case.

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Chesspain's continual Oedipal struggles

[/ QUOTE ]

was definitely the best part.

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet he meant to say "Sisyphean". Unless he was implying that running bad is a motherfucker, which it definitely is.

I /images/graemlins/heart.gif Bison.

/mc

[MRBAA]

I believe the players who truly dominate the low stakes games and have the skills and heart move up. The rest of the lower stakes crowd probably can't beat 15-30 Party yet. Some may get there. One of the benefits of building a b/r is it also forces you to build skills. I remember when Joe Tall was playing 5-10 wi/ kill at Foxwoods and making a major breakthough in his skills. It didn't take long until that skill was reflected in a move up to 10-20 and now 20-40. I've played with 2+2ers and others who talk about the game knowledgeably, read books, etc. but still don't play that well.

[MAxx]

your points are good. i think some of us just wanted to make you aware of the fact, that there are probably many more out there.

people take different paths, and your test for success ignores too many variables. just b/c some players do not go from 0 to 60 in x time... doesnt necessarily mean that they will not eventually arrive at the same level as someone else who did shoot up quickly.

at the same time i agree that many of us do not have the talent. but still if that turns out to be the case, it still doesnt matter that much as long as you enjoy the ride.

[MRBAA]

Talent is relative. I think bison, stellarwind, bdkclash3(sp?), sfer, johnny boomboom and others who post here are very likely solid winning low stakes players. That puts them probably in the top 10% of people who play hold'em. I don't want them at my table. But there are a smaller number of players who are even stronger -- that's who I'm talking about. For those few, moving up almost takes care of itself. If you read David Ross' diary last year, he was ultra-conservative about b/r and very slow to move up. Yet he was up over $80,000 and playing short-handed 10-20 by year end, I believe.

[MAxx]

i agree. you are talking about the ones that are less than a fraction of a percent. you do not have to be like that to be successfull IMO, which goes back to what you are saying about talent being relative. eye of the beholder, etc., yada yada, and so forth. i hear you.

[LikesToLose]

When you are exhausted or frustrated by your results, why are you unwilling to take a break?
When you are experiencing bad results or bankroll-damaging variance, why are you reluctant to move down?


I can say that I experienced this problem. First, I consider myself to be a serious recreational player. I don't need to win any money (but really want to). I have deposited a total of $300, so I never put myself into a position that busting out would hurt me financially, so I was playing with money I could lose.

I have a goal for creating a second income stream from poker or $2,000 per week, with about 2bb/100, 4 tabling 15/30 for 16 to 17 hours per week. I don't see any reason in the world that I cannot succeed in reaching this goal, even though I have just acquired 300bb for a stab at the 3/6 level and do not even have a significant number of hands to be confident of my win rate at $2/$4. I will reach this goal because others have and I am just as good or better than them.

And thus my down fall and greatest strength.

Playing at the No-Limit Party tables, I sufficiently crushed the $25NL buyins, read a couple books, had a good idea of starting cards, and didn't make all the obvious mistakes my opponents made. So I moved up to the $50 with about 25 times the buyin (some from casino whoring). Plenty of cushion and plenty of winning under my belt. I was a good player and I knew it.

Except I wasn't.

Every losing session was varience and every winning session skill. There is no lack of confidence, for we are men. Noone will tell us we are lacking and we will hear none of it. And of course since there is nothing wrong with us, there is no reason to examine our play, no reason to take a break and get back to our A game, no reason to step down because we are the better player.

I am not alone in this mental lapse. Several co-workers have uninstalled Party because they are tired of depositing money every month or so. They know they are good players, yet have no basis for the knowledge. In fact, an objective opinion indicates the opposite.

So my 25 buyins for the $50NL dwindled to 3. I could no longer deny a problem. I stepped back to $25 finally and crushed the games again. It was very easy. I remember think once that it seems like all my opponents were the WinHoldem poker bot.

Long story short, boom bust cycle repeats more or less. I caught it a lot earlier and decided that I could not currently beat the $50NL tables. I took my $1,200 bankroll and moved to $2/$4.

But I took a new attitude. I ordered SSHE. I re-studied a couple books then, slowly chewed through SSHE. I applied concepts. Then I played my first Limit hand in 6 months. The game flow comes a bit more clearly now. There is more often a right decision and wrong one. I pick the right one a bit more often.

Guess what? I ran well, then had a downturn. It wasn't varience. My play sucked again. I was too indiscriminately aggressive and had loosened up a bit too much and stopped giving my opponents any respect. While I didn't move down, I did take a break and I hit the books again. This downswing was only about -75bb and I have not yet looked back.

The 2 different results are the answer to your question. People do not take a break or step down because they cannot be honest with themselves. They don't need to study a book, or hand histories, or work on their game in any way. For they are men, and better than average at that. It is the same thing that allows them to deposit month after month and still say they are good players. It is also the same thing that allowed them wrestle a sabre tooth tiger or charge a machine gun nest on the beaches of Normandy.

It is also why the games are profitable. The ability to admit you aren't the best player you can be. That is the line between fish and profitable.

As a last note: If you have not met your goal yet, what have you done this week to improve your game?

Fish?
<font color="white"> Did I out bison, Bison? Doubt it, but worth a try </font>

[bdk3clash]

"Because long-term poker players are a cynical, sarcastic bunch...."

Gee, that's real perceptive.

(I may or may not post my actual thoughts on this thread at some point. I just wanted to get my smartass response out of the way.)

[Cerril]

'precisely three or four times'? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Sorry, that has nothing to do with my post. Anyway, you made some interesting comments that I wanted to respond to.

Your comments about skill are a good complement to a post from awhile back about how we don't tend to give luck enough credit in our wins or our losses. What you say - that any losing streak should cause us to examine our game - isn't at all opposed to that in my opinion.

First, just because your actions have caused you to hemmorage money for the last six sessions (your value raises never caught cards, you were drawn out on the river every time you had good hands and put in a lot of money against maniacs, etc.) doesn't mean you were doing anything wrong. Changing your game to adjust would be terrible once things start turning around. You'd be losing the most and then winning less for it.

Second, if you examine your game intelligently every time a losing streak causes you to question it, you'll probably end up finding genuine leaks among the perceived ones. An intelligent player will be able to differentiate where he's losing theoretical as well as actual money and fix the right leaks, so losses can cause you to do the sort of introspection you need to be doing as long as it isn't purely reactive.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
And I think those who can will move up fast if they play significant amounts of poker. Certainly, the three young players I cited all did that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's important to note that with, say, examples like David Ross, you are also talking about someone who was playing full-time. I think there's an enormous difference in the energy level and ability to think and learn on a high level of a person after a full day of work and driving or taking the train to and from work. The truth is, lots of people give a lot of the best of themselves at work. We're diurnal animals, and poker for many of us is nocturnal; we begin it when we've already been expending our energy for 10 hours or more, at a time when our body starts shutting down, not when it's at its peak. Even night owls find a day's worth of work sucks energy out of them.

I would expect improvement in skills among people of equal intelligence to be far slower if they already work full time, have a busy school schedule, or for a great many, both work and go to school. For most people, after life's responsibilities eat up the best of us, poker gets stuck with the rest of us. Not very auspicious.

Improvement is still possible, but I would expect it to be much slower than it is for someone who can concentrate on it as a profession, and probably play and study at the peak of his physical and mental energy rather than handing that energy and drive over to line the pockets of some boss.

[bisonbison]

In response to MRBAA and others:

Clearly, we're all beautiful unique snowflakes with different potentials of snowflake poker play. But my point is less about our ability to win than about our ability and desire to keep playing.

In short, I've just come to think that if you're a serious recreational player (which I think covers most regular 2+2 posters) and you're playing when poker is not enjoyable for you, you are doing something wrong. And by enjoyable, I don't mean profitable, though they're often correlated.

You may be playing too many hours, you may be spending too much time on these boards or reading about poker, you may be playing with money you don't feel comfortable losing, you may be playing at a level where your winnings are not consistent enough or large enough to satisfy you. In fact, you may be trapped by the gap between your current abilities and expectations: you may not be able to win consistently enough at a level where the wins are big enough to satisfy you.

If you're playing professionally, you're subject to the same problems, and a few others, but you've chosen to play professionally. If poker's just a hobby and you continue to play when it's not enjoyable, when you continue to let it grind on you without identifying why it's worthwhile, you've jumped the rails somewhere.

Next time you find yourself playing and unhappy to be playing, it'll really help if you take the time to ask yourself: why am I doing something that frustrates me?

[razor]

[ QUOTE ]
When you are ... frustrated by your results, why are you unwilling to take a break?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I can beat this limit... and this table.. and eventually things will turn around and who's to say it won't be the next hour... the next orbit... the next hand. And because I am frustrated by the results not the game itself. I may curse and/or smack my monitor when things go awry yet again... but then I get dealt a new hand and I calm down and try to play it the best I can.


[ QUOTE ]
When you are experiencing bad results or bankroll-damaging variance, why are you reluctant to move down?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am playing a limit well below what my bankroll allows.

[sprmario]

I have the same feeling but often times it isn't worth it to beat "this table". I was getting crushed at one particular 3/6 table. I finally moved and proceeded to crush the next one and win my money back there. There is no reason to continue to try and beat a tough table when there are easier ones to be found.

[ QUOTE ]
Because I can beat this limit... and this table.. and eventually things will turn around and who's to say it won't be the next hour... the next orbit... the next hand. And because I am frustrated by the results not the game itself. I may curse and/or smack my monitor when things go awry yet again... but then I get dealt a new hand and I calm down and try to play it the best I can.


[/ QUOTE ]