Exercise in humility

[eastbay]

Well, after a horrible stint in the $109s followed by a horrendous and ill-advised stint at $5/$10 6-max that I never should have played, I am "this" (holding up fingers) close to busting out.

Now, really, I could reload no problem from my day job. But there is a pride factor here. I've often bragged about never having to put money in after a deposit many moons ago. I want to keep it that way.

I have exactly $287.66 in my acct. So I'm slumming it in the $10+1s for a little while. Hopefully I can rebuild from here and be back on my way before too long.

Not sure what the point of this post is, other than to pump myself up for it.

eastbay

[dogsballs]

there was an argument in a thread a while ago about being able to make 100 into 1000 in 40 hrs/wk of play. I firmly believe it's possible. Thinking about it, I decided I'd play the 15 turbos on stars and take it from there, if I tried it.

So I say you should be ok with 287, so long as you're a winning player.

[The Yugoslavian]

If Jason can 'slum' it up in the 30/3 games, then I don't think there's any shame in you terrorizing the 10/1 SNGs until your bankroll is nice and fat again, /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

*insert Rocky theme music here*

You can do it!

[Jason Strasser]

Stick your pride in your back pocket, reload, and play at a level you are used to.

-Jason

[SmileyEH]

I think you would be fine in the $20's eastbay...ROR is probably < 2%. No need to sacrifice so much earn rate /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

-SmileyEH

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Stick your pride in your back pocket, reload, and play at a level you are used to.

-Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

There's definitely an argument to be made there. And if it wasn't for an agreement I made with my soon-to-be-wife about it, I'd be on it.

But alas, "I only play with my winnings." Shouldn't be long before I'm back on top of it.

There's also an element of self-flagellation for losing discipline and playing $5/$10 when I didn't belong there, either experience-wise or bankroll-wise.

eastbay

[stupidsucker]

Well pride can be - EV for sure, but going against the wishes of a woman can be leathal!

If you feel awkward at that level imagine being in Daliman's shoes.

I had to humble myself and get a job for 3 weeks, ug the humanity! Not an easy task after bragging to childhood friends about being a pro poker player.

I think it can be a learning experiance anyways. STart at the 10s and move up the ranks as you have the 30x (or 20x) BR. Remember what got you into trouble and stay away from my tables when you hit the 30 level.

[Bremen]

Well, I must say I'm jealous. I only got to $300 (from $50) before I got overconfident and busted out :0) Not too bad considering I learned to play by watching the WPT! Anyway, I understand your future wife not wanting you to put more money in. Although if I do say you should have no trouble. It'll probably just take longer than you'd like. Good luck dude!

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Well pride can be - EV for sure, but going against the wishes of a woman can be leathal!

If you feel awkward at that level imagine being in Daliman's shoes.

I had to humble myself and get a job for 3 weeks, ug the humanity! Not an easy task after bragging to childhood friends about being a pro poker player.

I think it can be a learning experiance anyways. STart at the 10s and move up the ranks as you have the 30x (or 20x) BR. Remember what got you into trouble and stay away from my tables when you hit the 30 level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, so much for my "never even coming close" to busting out, eh?

I'm working on a 15x bankroll progression. Living dangerously...

eastbay

[Murilo]

Humility is the root of all virtue.

[tallstack]

eastbay,

I want to say that you are one of my most repsected posters. I would not have started playing these SNGs if it were not for reading the archive posts from yourself and a few others. I am sure that you will be back up to your usual level in no time. It is very strange though, how so many of the big hitters in this forum are playing at lower levels lately.

I understand completely the desire to avoid the re-load, when judged in the context of your relationship with your wife-to-be and others. I have used the "playing with my winnings" line of logic in many discussions with my wife. She has supported my habit (or what ever she would call it) for 4 years, despite some personal misgivings. Her support is always a little thin when times are bad and the money is going out while at the same time my mood is sour. <Note to self - maybe I should concentrate on maintaining a positive attitude when times are bad as a means of preventing future discussions.> Many times my wife has thought that if I lose my bankroll then I should walk away. Thankfully, this has not happened since my early bust-outs in 2001. I believe that if I did re-load it would not be the end of the world, but I would choose to avoid it if at all possible.

I have also used this line of thinking with friends and family members. I have used it so many times, that it has a developed an intrinsic worth of its own. From a pure income point of view you would be much better to reload, and your pride would recover. However, avoiding the reload will likely serve you very well in future key moments when the support from others starts to wane.

Good luck with climbing up the ladder quickly,

Dave S

[Jman28]

Hey east,

I assume you've made many withdrawals in the past... right?

Also, how bad exactly was the streak? Depending on this, it might not be a bad idea to take a good look at your game during a 1-2 week break.

-Jman28

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure what the point of this post is, other than to pump myself up for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Posting losing streaks like this (in a non-complaining manner) is great for other posters who think that the best players here are almost invincible.

It'll probably help a few people deal with some bad runs.

Thanks.

-Jman28

[eastbay]

I appreciate the kind words and I can tell you know where I'm coming from on this in the "credibility with the skeptical and vaguely disapproving" dept.

Now, I better figure out how to play these dang $10+1s... a very different game indeed!

eastbay

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey east,

I assume you've made many withdrawals in the past... right?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Monthly.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, how bad exactly was the streak? Depending on this, it might not be a bad idea to take a good look at your game during a 1-2 week break.

-Jman28

[/ QUOTE ]

The streak was a $1700 loss in $109 SnGs, followed by an $1100 loss in 5/10 6-max.

All within statistical reason, I think. And besides, I don't really know my elbow from my a-hole in limit. I never should have been in that game, especially for -100 BB.

But still, as this is about the 4th time I've taken a beating at $109 SnGs, I'm sure there's something amiss there. Which is odd, since I regularly crush the $55 level for 30%+ ROI. I can't put my finger on what could be so different.

eastbay

[MaGi]

In the spirit of sharing losing streaks:

Though I'm unknown trust me when I say I am a winning player. I am making about 2.75 big bets an hour over the last 1500 hours at 10/20 6 handed game at Party, I also have had some success in the higher sit and goes and in multis.

My worst losing streak was 250 big bets before having a decent win. I took a week break from playing and I came back to continue where I left off. Finally I came back and broke nearly even the next week (hell of a week of poker for me seeing as I only play part time)

It happens, don't overstep your bounds, if your bankroll can't take it then you're doing the right thing. Never be afraid to play lower than you are used to if you have to.

Good luck to you, youre doing the right thing, you should be fine.

[Gigabet]

I have played hundreds of S&Gs at every level(building period), starting at $20+2, except the 200+15s, and i have played 1000s of those.
I remember very well the 55 level and I think I can PROMISE you that if your ROI is 30% at the $55 level, you can beat
the 100+9 level. My highest ROI was at the 100+9 level, and my lowest......$50+5. Besides the 200+15s I have also played more 55s than any other. Just trust the way that you play, go over your 109 hand histories and make sure that you are doing everything the same that you would do if it were a 55.

Your bad swing that you just had is not even a speed bump in the scheme of things. I hit the equivalent of that swing at least once a week in the 215s.

About a month ago I started my session around 8:00pm on a Friday night(if there is an easier night, it is wed) playing strictly 215 S&Gs. I finished it around 10:00am the next am. -7000. That is over 30 buy ins. Sleep for around 8 hours. Start playing at 7:00pm that Saturday, play until around 9:00am.....almost dead even. Got to sleep, wake up around 7:00pm, start at 8:00pm, play until around 11:00am. -7000. Once again, 30 buy ins. Monday, I pored over my hand histories, and came to the conclusion that I have made very few mistakes, and it just happened to be the worst swing that can be thrown at a player. Although I have never heard or seen any other player talk of such a negative swing.

That 1700 loss is so routine, you will get used to it, after a time.

[Irieguy]

Eastbay,

I'm in almost exactly the same position myself right now. I had been playing the $55's comfortably and cashing regularly for a few months, and made the jump to the 109's. I ran cold and moved down. Then I built up and tried again, and ran super cold. So I moved down again but the pain continued. My practice in the past (this has happened several times) was always to simply play through it, rebuy if necessary, but never move back below the 33's. But a few weeks ago I made this stupid, pointless goal to myself of having 20 consecutive cashouts so that my PP cashier history would be completely full of cashouts... something that none of my poker-playing friends and relatives (some of them very successful) have ever done.

Immediately after making this goal I started running horribly bad. But still, I had this goal. I have no problem with re-buying, and generally agree with Strassa's advice... but sometimes you just don't feel like going broke. So I moved as far down as the 11's with my roll getting as low as $380, and now I'm back up to a grand and seeing the light again. In a few weeks I'll be back at the 55's, and in a few more weeks I'll be trying the jump to 109's again.

My point is that if you were beating the 55's, you'll have no trouble at all at the lower levels. You also don't have to worry about earn rate in the interim, because your ROI keeps going up as you move down, so the marginal difference in theoretical win rate is not very big. So, if your goal is to not go broke... you are doing the right thing by moving all the way down to figurative SnG gutter to stay alive. It worked for me.

Play the right way,

Irieguy

[eastbay]

Jiminy Christmas, this is going to be slow.

I played 19 of these things tonight at 15% ROI for a whopping profit of $31. I ran a little sour, but I'm also just kind of rediscovering how to play these little buggers.

Don't bluff, don't think cold-calls are traps, and don't value hands as they match up against monster "calling hands" (ha!) for blind stealing at the end. K2o is far superior to T9s in these things, because you will get called by stuff like Q9o, if not far worse.

It's a very different game. Hopefully one I won't be inhabiting for long.

eastbay

[Gigabet]

i'll bankroll you in 50s if you give me 50% for 500 tourneys.

[ReDeYES88]

[ QUOTE ]

Don't bluff, don't think cold-calls are traps, and don't value hands as they match up against monster "calling hands" (ha!) for blind stealing at the end. K2o is far superior to T9s in these things, because you will get called by stuff like Q9o, if not far worse.


[/ QUOTE ]

eastbay .. .jump to the 20s. .. there REALLY isn't a big difference, you will almost double your return, and there will be one or two more "typical" players. . .

.. just be very aware of the adjustments that you mention above, and remind yourself to re-adjust back to your previous style as you move up the ladder. . .

best of luck

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't bluff, don't think cold-calls are traps, and don't value hands as they match up against monster "calling hands" (ha!) for blind stealing at the end. K2o is far superior to T9s in these things, because you will get called by stuff like Q9o, if not far worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

This actually messed me up a lot when I first started playing the 55's. I just never realized how much better T9s was for stealing than A5o, because at the 20's and 30's I would be getting called with Kx, like, constantly.

It's taken me over 100 tourneys at the 55 level to fix that and I *still* hesitate to all in a suited connector on the bubble for fear of getting called once in a while.

To give this post a point: The *other* leak I definitely have at the 55 level is not folding good second best hands (bottom 2 pair, a weakish overpair, etc.) and overvaluing pair+draw type hands. This is just about the opposite of a leak anywhere lower than this. If you have 2 pair and you think you are beaten, don't (unless, of course, the flush card hits the river).

[PrayingMantis]

eastbay,

I know where you're standing, because I'm coming from the "never deposit again" school. Forget about your ego, forget pride. They are 2 completely unnecessary and dangarous things for a poker player. Go down, play your best game, analyze thoroughly the differences in style and strategy. It will improve your game a lot, in every sense, and many of the things you'll learn will be very relevant for the higher buy-ins, when you're back playing them.

Many times I've taken this route, climbing up and going down in limits, due to cash-outs and bad runs. Each of these situations was an opportunity to develope my skills, no matter if it's a $5.5 SNG or a $215. The ability to adjust, to forget about "how good you are", and "how much money you used to make", and to truely think and understand how to play in each situation, without underestimating your opponents (even if they're complete fish), is the greatest virtue of a poker player, IMO.

It's a good thing that happened to you, not a bad one. You learn so much more when you are forced into tough situations, when you have to rethink everything you're doing. Each time I've moved down and then up again, I felt I'm a better, stronger, more ego-less player. Embrace this opportunity. Good luck!

[eastbay]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'll pass.

eastbay

[The once and future king]

East.

One of the best things that happened to my poker game was taking a heavy smack down in one day at the 100s -2200$. This and other less brutal losses lead to me having my first losing month -780$. I do this for a living, so to not make money for a month came as a rude shock.

Luckily for me, the month before this had been my best ever +6000$. So I was able to retreat back into the 50s.

However I spent the month after my retreat in a state of perma tilt. Having played online for a year and a half without having a losing month, I had become extremely complacent.

I read posts by older more experienced players who talked about the inevitably of having a losing month/s and the big BRs you needed if you wanted to do this for a living and thought they were just a bunch of fraidy catz. Having never lost and consistently beaten the game and moved up from 10 to 30 to 50 to 100, I had no concept of the reality of poker.

Of course Hubris leads to a fall. After the loss, I was in shock. Poker in its true essence had introduced its self to me quite rudely.

For the next month I played with this sense of massive injustice, I seriously entertained thoughts that the deal must be fixed if I could lose. Every suck out just enraged this sense of injustice and I tilted easier than a see saw. As a result the next month I spent at the 50s I bareley managed to break even.

Now, I live off Poker, that means Im a Pro right? Was I being proffesional was I feck. Rent was due and the pressure was on. Luckily the crucible of this pressure led me to my road to damascus moment.

The skies cleared, and suddenly the obvious truth dawned on me. There are swings in poker. Whilst I had paid lip service to this before, I had never truely understood it before. Now I know this truth.

As a cosequence my patience has deepened considerably, my tilt shields have magnified in power to a level incomaparable to what they were before. I take suck outs and streaks of coin flip lossage with an equinimity of a monk. To be any other way now just strikes me as ridiculous.

Streaks and negative variance are the reality of poker. How one reacts to this is in my opinion the most important aspect of ones game (assuming one has a game).

Before I truely understood this I was in my own opinion a rubbish player, or at least a totaly rubbish "pro". Hopefully I have just started to learn what that word means.

So that beating was in poker terms the best thing that ever happend to me.

[Grivan]

Eastbay,
If you have withdrawn every month technically these are also your winnings. You just overextended your bankroll a bit and need to redeposit some of your previous winnings.

[byronkincaid]

Just to join in the spirit of this thread, I had become stupidly over confident jumped up to the 200s from the 50s, down $2k in 2 days.

Think I'm probably gonna take a week off and read some books again. At least I've realised that I'm not the dogs bollox at this game. What's that saying.......If it doesn't kill you it makes you stronger.

[Jason Strasser]

Im still confused.

You are great at math, you seem disciplined, why do you withdraw money monthly which prevents you from earning more later down the line?

-Jason

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still confused.

You are great at math, you seem disciplined, why do you withdraw money monthly which prevents you from earning more later down the line?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I can reply to this (I'm speaking for myself here, I don't know about eastbay) - when poker earnings are a big portion of your earnings in life, if not all of it, there are many situations where you cashout because you need the money in the real world, and you need it very much. So it makes perfect sense to go down in buy-ins sometimes, if your bankroll is getting reltively small. It's very natural.

SNGs are much more convinient in this repect than ring games, because with a relatively small BR you can still make quite a lot of money pretty fast, with a small risk, and climb back to your original higher buy-in.

[Grivan]

[ QUOTE ]
If I can reply to this (I'm speaking for myself here, I don't know about eastbay) - when poker earnings are a big portion of your earnings in life, if not all of it, there are many situations where you cashout because you need the money in the real world, and you need it very much. So it makes perfect sense to go down in buy-ins sometimes, if your bankroll is getting reltively small. It's very natural.

SNGs are much more convinient in this repect than ring games, because with a relatively small BR you can still make quite a lot of money pretty fast, with a small risk, and climb back to your original higher buy-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is he says he can reload from his day job no problem. This leads me to believe that the money isn't all that important or at least not all that vital to him. So, it is probably safe to say that it wasn't mandatory for him to withdraw money at any point. Of course this is just me drawing conclusion from one line in the original post.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is he says he can reload from his day job no problem. This leads me to believe that the money isn't all that important or at least not all that vital to him. So, it is probably safe to say that it wasn't mandatory for him to withdraw money at any point. Of course this is just me drawing conclusion from one line in the original post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you're right. I forgot this line, so I was speaking basically about myself (and others). However, I have some sentiments even for the idea of not depositing again, especially if you feel you've made a mistake by playing too big, or getting over-confident, or just playing bad and so (almost) busting. Building your BR again (if it doesn't take too long, or too difficult), is a good way to improve your descipline, and other important factors in your game. That's my opinion, at least.

[jedi]

Eastbay,

I haven't totally read all the posts yet, but I was in a similar situation. Deposited $500 to start with a year ago, ran it up to a good number. I have a good job, able to reload, but I'd rather keep my poker bankroll intact without "outside" money.

On at least 2 occasions now, I hit what I thought was a bad patch of tournaments. I lost over 10 in a row and was wondering if I had finally reached the level where I wasn't good enough to win anymore. Well, after some subtle changes to my game (not assuming all my opponents are idiots, and not playing 4 different tables at the same time), I finally got to the point where I was winning my coin-flips, getting my money in with the best of it, and finally WINNING.

Start over like you're doing. Analyze the situations you get yourself into, good or bad. If you're comfortable with those situations and happen to lose, just go get 'em next time. You're a good enough player to take a step back and analyze this objectively. Don't worry about slumming down at 10+1 or even 5+.50. Take your time, kick some ass and get back to it.

And avoid any tournament where I'm at /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Good luck, play well.

[ThorGoT]

I really appreciate this entire thread, many of the responses, and other long-time posters' willingness to discuss the same issue when it happens to them. Here's one additional thought. There are only three kinds of players likely to lose substantial amounts of money playing poker.

(1) Someone rich, who isn't hurt by the losses. If this is you, well, it's your money -- or, at least, it *was* your money. Throw some more our way! Anyway, if you're this kind of losing player, your losses aren't serious (by hypothesis).

(2) A BAD player, who keeps throwing the money away despite (a) having no reason to believe it's a profitable endeavor and (b) being hurt by the losses. Why you would do this, I don't know -- I assume this is representative of gambling addiction. The BAD player loses money because they dip into pre-poker savings. This is dumb, beyond a certain point (you generally have to lose money to learn the game, after all). As long as you regulate how much in pre-poker savings you put into the game, though, you can't be *this* kind of losing player. And this kind of player is relatively easy to identify as, by definition, they are dipping into savings. The only hard part is figuring out how much a losing player is 'allowed' to spend to learn the game/enjoy yourself. The best way to protect yourself from being this kind of player is to set a fixed stop loss, a point beyond which you will not go. For me, I will define this (after the fact) as $1,500 (my total deposits so far), plus $100/month (since the point of last deposit, and assuming current income/saving remain the same) if I ever bust out completely. Hey, now I can never lose lots of money in this way!

(3) A GOOD player, who *develops* -- or has *revealed* -- a previously unrecognized flaw in their game. This could be a good player in a low-level game who jumps to a higher-level game, or a different kind of game, that they're not ready for. Or it could be the player who moves from Stage One to Stage Two of the Gambler's Life (an attempt to refer to the Ray Zee (?) article), and doesn't realize it. Or it could be someone who played well before, but has now gone on tilt and isn't playing well anymore. The GOOD player loses money because they throw away their poker winnings -- i.e., that's why they have the money to lose in the first place. It's not as bad as losing $20,000 from savings, but it's still $20,000 that you once had, but no longer do. Despite the fact that I am a beginning player, my biggest losses are actually of this kind: i.e., I never lost more than $1,500 from pre-poker savings (which I have regained, in any event), but I lost $2,000 of poker winnings (which I have not regained). [Translation: Deposited $1,500, got up to $3,500, dropped to zero, still on the way back up]

What are the players on this forum most at risk of being? I would say player #3. And note that this type of player, by definition, is a GOOD player. (Just not in all games, or all the time.) So to say, 'hey, I can dip into previous withdrawals, or spend down my poker winnings, because I'm a GOOD player' isn't a guarantee that you won't lose a lot of money. (Note: This is exactly what the original poster is *not* doing, but I would submit that some advice given in response was that he should do so.) In fact, it is only BECAUSE you are (or were) a good player that you are in a position to lose a lot of money, in this way, in the first place. Good players can be playing in the wrong game. They can develop a flaw they didn't have previously. Or they can go on tilt. Past performance, in other words, is not a guarantee of future success -- and this applies no matter how many hands you've put in, as the problem isn't that you weren't playing well (by hypothesis, you were), but that something has changed.

Good players don't always recognize that something has changed. Nor do those who know them (by their postings, or otherwise.) Happily, the original poster seems very self-aware -- kudos to you, sir. I wish for the same self-awareness myself in the future. And I would submit that the original poster's plan is an excellent one to avoid the possibility of being Player #3.

postscript: If this merely repeats what some eminent gambling authority has already written, I wouldn't be surprised -- I haven't read those books, though.

[NegativeEV]

eastbay-
I agree with Tall Stack's statements and want to add a couple thoughts. As a young married person, I am very familiar with the impact that a time consuming poker hobbie (obsession?) can have on a relationship. My wife and I have frequent "discussions" regarding the amount of time poker absorbs, and I've been able to leverage the fact that poker is a + $$ hobbie to support my commitment of time to the game. The fact that I have not and will not draw from our family income is a crucial point (other than the single $100 original deposit), and I think this hobbie becomes much less attractive when you no longer have that leverage. The balance of a relationship and poker is a challenge for some of us, and reloading from your family funds will damage that balance. Rebuild on the $10's and adopt a very strict view of Bank Roll Management.

One other thing you may consider that has worked well for me: set up a separate poker bank account. I use my separate account for all withdrawls I make from the on-line BR, and this makes it clear when I'm drawing poker funds to supplement our normal family income which increases the goodwill you need to maintain in your poker/wife relationship. As with any hobbie (sports, etc.), balancing time between your soon to be wife and the activity will be a challenge, and having it be a $$ drain will add to the challenge dramatically so avoid the "reload" temptation.

[Gramps]

I'll second that a $1700 loss at the $109s is well within the norm. There's just a ton of variance in these NL SNGs, and (naturally) the higher you go, the more variance there will be as your ROI drops.

I haven't played a bunch of 55s, but after moving from there to the 109s, I was shocked at what little difference there was in the competition - a few more good players, but not that many. There's plenty of loose/reckless players at the 109s to make them plenty profitable.

I respect making what are -EV decisions in the short run to reinforce self-discipline, and in the long-run forcing yourself to earn your BR back up instead of re-depositing may be the right move...but if you're doing 30% at the 55s (over a sufficient sample size), you're CLEARLY going to kick arse in the 109s in the long run...

...Once you get your bankroll back up to where you're playing the 55s again, a good idea might be to throw in one or two 109s along with your 55s (if you multi-table). That way, you can gain experience/build your confidence at that level, while minimizing your downside a bit. Also, that way you can build a database on both levels, and compare profit/SNG to see which level is best to play in the long run.

[stupidsucker]

slightly of topic.

Let me selfishly hijack this post for a moment.

Everyone is saying that his roi he will do fine at the 100s.

I am a 30s player looking to expand into the 50s. my roi while 4tabling is about 32% at the 30s. I should do fine at the 50s right? I tried it once a couple months ago and got rocked for 1k. I couldnt find any huge errors.

Trying a stab again now with a 1800 BR. If I drop down to 1k I am heading back to the 30s.

[Gramps]

An 18 buy-in loss happens. I'm of the opinion that when you move up to a new level too, you tend to not have the same confidence/belief in your game until some positive results come your way - hence if you start off on a bad run, you're more likely to compound mistakes (at least I've been when moving up).

I think if you haven't played at a higher level, it's always a good idea to work it in slowly - maybe 2 of your old level and 2 at the new level if you 4-table. No shame in sacrificing a bit of EV to minimize your downside - good strategy in investing, and that's all SNGs are for a winning player anyhow...short-term high risk investments. Divesrify your portfolio with some lower-risk investments if your bankroll health/risk tolerance/stress level would be better off doing so.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Im still confused.

You are great at math, you seem disciplined, why do you withdraw money monthly which prevents you from earning more later down the line?

-Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it doesn't.

That is, until I do something foolish like stubbornly drop most of my bankroll in a limit game I shouldn't be playing.

However, I have gotten a very good feel for how much I can draw down each month and still rock on at the $55s. I am not bankroll limited in moving up, I am experience and confidence limited. However, that all assumes no loss of discipline about not blowing a wad at something else at which I am not sure to be profitable, which after a 6 month period of flawless discipline, I faltered and did. Live and learn.

There's also the factor that I don't think it's wise to keep tens of thousands of dollars in some account in god-knows-where controlled by god-knows-who, that could run into legal or some other form of trouble at any time.

eastbay