Daliman on the edge.... [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

Daliman

01-07-2005, 11:30 PM

Well, as a few of you may have seen by playing at the tables with me recently, things have been going horrendously bad for me.

I got back from vacation on monday, after having dropped 2250 in 4 hours of 15-30 on PP, and decided to take a crack at a 1k step.

I got 3rd place, played another, ened up cashing all 5 of my first 5.

I had ~$7700 in my account, and 5k coming from my affiliate pay. Life was good.

Since then , I have played 23 more steps tournaments, and 22 $200 SNG's.

and I'm now broke.

I've lost allin preflop with an overpair 9 of the 17 times i have had it, 4 times in steps at the bubble, 1 more time 3 handed in a step, therefore costing me a minimum $700 and likely $2700 as I would have had ~7300 chips if i won.

Races seem pretty bad too, but I'm not going back to count them all.

I've twice flopped full houses; I lost both.

The last 2 1k's I played, I won a total of one hand and one blind steal at level 3.

Worst hand of all of them was a hand where I had KK in The SB and ~3k in chips, 5 handed, and UTG has under 300 chips left at 150-300 blinds. The BB is the only other stack near my total, about 80 less than me. All fold to me, I raise it allin, just because I don't want to play it kinda slow and see an ace flop the way things had been going, and even though I should encourage bad calls, I really just wanted the blind steal at the moment. The BB called me allin with 33, and turned a 3, of course. I had another chance tho, since I had 80 chips left and 3 hands more til my blinds, but, of course, the other short stack won his allin and I lost my next hand i had chips in in the BB.

Of course, the other short stack won the next hand, and I was screwed.

Once again, I am at the point where I'm not sure if I can take the swings anymore. I yelled at my wife yesterday while playing(baby was crying for like 20 minutes and she wouldn't pick him up), and I'm not sleeping well. My play may or may not have suffered. I think I'm probably playing TOO aggressively now, and am not being rewarded for it thus far. Anyways, baby crying again now, and since I;m broke now, I guess I;ll go take care of him and quit wallowing.

$200+15'ers, enjoy the clearer waters.

Jman28

01-08-2005, 12:14 AM

Sorry to hear that Daliman. Probably more bad luck than bad play I'm sure.

If you can't take the swings, just don't play the Steps man. You didn't have the BR for it, and you know it. Keep grinding it out, and forget about the big scores. Maybe even drop to the 100s or 50s /images/graemlins/blush.gif.

Hope you're able to get back in the game soon, and I hope you feel better emotionally. In the meantime, enjoy your family more and maybe some other hobby or interest you have. Your baby is only this age once. Soak it in. Good luck man.

-Jman28

Myst

01-08-2005, 12:38 AM

Dali, you gotta start playing on an appropriate bankroll man. You are a winning player. You know these swings CAN happen. Bankroll is of utmost importance.

Mr_J

01-08-2005, 12:39 AM

"Maybe even drop to the 100s or 50s"

Yeh, I'm no poker pro but if you put in the hours, someone with your skill should be able to get the BR back up there reasonably quickly.

UMTerp

01-08-2005, 12:40 AM

Dali, my condolences for the bad run. We've all played over our bankroll and gone broke before. Live and learn. Good luck when you get back in the game.

The Yugoslavian

01-08-2005, 12:51 AM

You only have ~13,000 and expect it to be enough to play the 1Ks without going broke? Hell, I'm sure you could play perfectly and still have a pretty high ROR. If you're going to get fed up with losing all your $$ you *have* to play to protect your bankroll. I know you must know this.

If you must play some 1ks, then play them sparadically with 215 winnings. If you fall below a certain level, go back to strictly 215 SNGs.

Hearing about all the times you go broke due to poor bankroll management when we all know the caliber of skills you possess is gonna make *me* tilt one of these days.

Take a break and try to devise a gamplan for NOT squandering your bankroll. If not for yourself, for dalibaby! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif.

I can only imagine what losing so much at the high buyins feels like. It would seem even more important to protect your bankroll and psychological well being at those stakes.

Gramps

01-08-2005, 01:09 AM

Sometimes, even as a winning player, taking time off (short or long) from poker has got to be highly +EV life-wise. Sounds like it's time for a break. In the scheme of things, it's only a game, there's plenty of other ways out there to make a living/be entertained. One's sanity and well-being is much more important. There's many people out there living fully enriched lives who have never played a card game in their life.

Whether the break is short or long, best of luck.

wiggs73

01-08-2005, 01:49 AM

Take some time off. Trust me, this is the best thing you could possibly do. As much fun as poker is, you sound like you have a lot more going for you than being a good poker player right now. A wife and a kid is something a lot of people would give anything for... take some time away from the tables and enjoy them.

We all know you're quite a good poker player, so we know you'll be back at the tables. All you can do now is enjoy a short break and come back to the tables with renewed focus and determination. No shame in dropping a few levels to the 50s or 100s to build back up your bankroll. Like someone else said, we've all played above our bankrolls, no big deal there. You know this.

Bottom line is you're a great player who suffered an untimely downswing. Take a bit of time off, concentrate on the more important things in life, and then come back and play good poker. Hope you feel better bro, if it's any consolation you've got lots of 2+2ers here who feel where you're coming from on this and wish the best for you.

Daliman

01-08-2005, 02:24 AM

I greatly appreciate the words of encouragement. Yes, I know I was playing above my BR(always have, really..) and i HAD said I will play steps only to a certain level, then I will go back to 215's, which I did do, but then I figured I'll just play one step tonight, maybe win it, and be right back on track. I AM a gambler...

Gonna take a day or so off. I got A couple G's out on loan that I can call in, so hopefully i can get back on track with it.

Next DaliFlameout is scheduled for April 2005; mark your calendars.

P.S. Dalibaby hopes you all had a great holiday season!
http://img131.exs.cx/img131/8720/xmaspics052a9qh.png

Danielih

01-08-2005, 04:26 AM

Daliman- Please take a step back and evaluate your situation. All these people are telling you that you are a great player but are you? I do not want this to come out the wrong way but you need to evaluate your play and you need thousands of SNGs to have an accurate winrate. From what it sounds like I dont see how you could be beating the 1k or the 215s. Also 2-3k loan is surely not enough for even a good player to play the 215. Maybe you should drop back to 100+9 or 50+5. Being over confident can be a seriously bad thing.

Also the long term is really really long and people are susceptible to get lucky for extended periods of time. And when I say that you should consider that. I am talking about you getting lucky, not your opponents. Maybe it is not just that you are playing above your bankroll but that you are clearly playing out of your league

Best of Luck
Danny

pokerraja

01-08-2005, 04:47 AM

I think this is a really good point danielh brings up. Im not in any means trying to dog you here, but i'm wondering if some of these posters are actually giving you bad advice and/or false hope. Maybe its not just variance and bad luck that is draining your bankroll. And maybe things wont turn around for you. Be honest with yourself. Just something to think about. Or, on the other hand you are very good player and things will change for you. Regardless, you need to do some poker soul searching. I dont think its too healthy to have the attitude "i can get a loan for a couple G's". Whats this going to do? are you going to go through the same cycle? play out of your bankroll and lose again and then come back here all depressed again? I hope not dude. cuz ive been there and done that. not at ur stakes, but fairly relative. anyways, im not gonna tell you that you are a great player and that you will make it back, cuz, thats not fair to you. goodluck, and get clean man.

pokerraja

01-08-2005, 04:56 AM

I just reread my post, and sorry if i came out a bit rude. But im going through some crappy times also pokerwise, and im in a way just venting. and i need to re-evaluate my game also. Good luck again.

DonButtons

01-08-2005, 04:57 AM

this is crazy!

7k and your trying to play step 5s for direct buy ins!

I tried them with around 20xBB br but figured I wouldnt be able to handle the swings, so I stopped down/up 1 buy in after like 7 tries.

Actionmonkey told me he took a 27k down swing during the leaderboard tournament, so I think Ill stay clear of those.

I think you need to take like a week off, and just straight up think about bankroll management (what games to avoid, play, when to stop playing during a session, etc.)

I went broke before b/c of bad bankroll management not because of bad play, but b/c of improper bankroll management which couldnt handle the variance in poker.

We are playing a game, where even if you play your hands perfectly, you can still lose.

Irieguy

01-08-2005, 05:15 AM

You're gambling... you're living. It's good.

You know none of this is a surprise. You were playing with a 100% Risk of Ruin with that bankroll... I love to do that too. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

We both understand, but do it anyways. Perhaps the answer is simply to be at peace with it... and then re-buy.

Irieguy

Irieguy

01-08-2005, 05:26 AM

Furthermore, some of these other replies may be taking themselves too seriously.

The term "soulsearching" is not really appropriately applied to a bad run of cards. Traditionally, that term refers to grapling with the existential dilemma vis a vis your own religious biases. There's a pretty good chance the hitch in your giddy-up is quite a bit less significant than all of that.

I will have to respectfully disagree with tone of most of the previous responses. I'm sure you've lost more money with more on the line at some point in your life before. And you know you haven't seen anything yet.

The only thing you "need" is a grain of salt.

Good luck, my friend.

Irieguy

pokerraja

01-08-2005, 05:35 AM

im sorry if i used the term "poker soul searching" inappropriatley here. And I dont think my tone was too serious. I obviously dont have the same relationship with daliman as you obviously do. But judgeing from the tone on his post, hes reaching out to us for help. So I figured i would give some advice. But maybe im way off base here, and like you said, he should just reload and go back to work. peace out.

adanthar

01-08-2005, 05:47 AM

Daliman: you're a great poker player. When I was starting out, I read all of your posts religiously; you've really helped me with my game. There's no question you're one of the best of all time at 200+15...

...and you have a wife and child to take care of and are playing above your bankroll. Maybe you're rich enough to afford that, but if not, this is not a good sign.

You have a family to think about. Contrary to what Sklansky says, there's playing poker and then there's gambling. What you're doing right now is gambling with your family's money. Stop it. Please.

I think I'd much rather quit poker than do what you did.

lacky

01-08-2005, 07:26 AM

You know, I always thought the bit in rounders about everyone going broke from time to time was a joke. I play for a living and I have never come anywhere near losing my bankroll.

I have at all times 50 buyins for the level I'm playing (or more, I'm mostly playing $109's with an 11K bankroll). If I drop below that I move down. After moving down I have 100 buyin's again. If I lost to under 50 I would move down again, but that never happens.

I took a shot at 15/30 last week too, 9 hours and -$2500. But I had already set $3000 as a limit, becouse that was how much I could blow and still pay myself and have 100 buyings for $109's. It hurt to lose that money, but living with the stress that you guys must experience when your are risking it all would be unberable to me. Maybe I'm just a wimp, but being in the middle of a 27 buyin downturn and still having 96 buyins in the bank lets me sleep at night.

If you are going to do this for a business you need to run it like one. When you get that cash, play where it equals at least 50 buyins, and move down if you drop below that, and move up when you have 50 for the next level. I know it's embarasing moving down, but just start a new account till you build back up. No one needs to know where u are playing, and you can get off the rollercoaster it sounds like you've been on. It just doesn't have to be that way.

I've been fulltime for 1 1/2 years and have never had a bankroll issue, and you are better at this game than I am.

Steve

SlowStroke

01-08-2005, 12:46 PM

Years ago I read an interview with Chip Reese. He said that he won, and then lost a million dollars (his whole bankroll) at least twenty times in his career.

It happens. That is the style that he (and maybe you) like to play.

Life is long and the game never ends.

Hang in there, be happy, you are alive and that is all you really need.

se2schul

01-08-2005, 01:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]

If you are going to do this for a business you need to run it like one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really like this piece of advice. It's a hobby and a lifestyle, but also a business.

daboze

01-08-2005, 01:37 PM

Good luck Dali.
You're a good player, and I have always enjoyed your posts.
Thanks for the picture of the baby. Very cute.

I hope you can take a week off and get your head right. Hard to play when your frustrated and just waiting to lose.

thanks again for all the help with my game!

partygirluk

01-08-2005, 01:37 PM

Daliman you have a beautiful baby and seem very happy with your wife. Don't let your poker ruin that. That is the ultimate bad beat.

eastbay

01-08-2005, 01:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, some of these other replies may be taking themselves too seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you know something I don't, otherwise I'm a little perplexed by this attitude.

Are Daliman's wife and child provided for by some other means? If so, fine, this poker stuff is all just recreation, and if losing it all thrills you and hurts no one, so be it.

But if they aren't provided for elsewhere, and need the money to pay the bills, then "it's all good" is all wrong. I won't be so tedious as to explain why; it's too obvious.

eastbay

Daliman

01-08-2005, 02:43 PM

From AleoMagus's confidence calculator, after 3018 SNG's played at the 200+15 level;

Confidence in average profit per tourney +/- profit per tourney. This is WINNING confidence 100.00%
In other words, 100.00% confidence that actual profit is between $0 and $53.08 per tourney

Confidence that profit per tourney is +/- $1 per tourney 12.58%
Confidence that profit per tourney is +/- $2 per tourney 24.86%

Confidence that profit per tourney is +/- $3.00 per tourney 36.53%

99% confidence that actual profit is between $10.28 and $42.80 per tourney
95% confidence that actual profit is between $14.16 and $38.91 per tourney
85% confidence that actual profit is between $17.45 and $35.63 per tourney
75% confidence that actual profit is between $19.28 and $33.80 per tourney
65% confidence that actual profit is between $20.64 and $32.44 per tourney

Look, I don't mind people restating the obvious, yelling at me for doing things I know better than to do, or even just telling me I'm stupid. But I'd appreciate it if people wouldn't just assume they know more than I do about my situation, my skill, or my viability as a pro at these levels. It seems as if you are the only one specifically doing so though.

[ QUOTE ]
From what it sounds like I dont see how you could be beating the 1k or the 215s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, because I am down $4700 actual $$$ in 28 1k buyin tourneys and $1400 in my last 22 $215 SNG's, you don't see how I can be beating these things? For someone who knows the long term is really really long, you don't seem to understand how bad the short term can be.

[ QUOTE ]
Also the long term is really really long and people are susceptible to get lucky for extended periods of time. And when I say that you should consider that. I am talking about you getting lucky, not your opponents. Maybe it is not just that you are playing above your bankroll but that you are clearly playing out of your league

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you are trying to help, but WOW, are you off here. Yeah, in the 25-50 NL game, I might have been in deeper than I should have been, but in the SNG's at any and every level spread on party, I can guarantee you i am not "playing out of my league" and I am NOT on a 3000 tournament lucky run.

Daliman

01-08-2005, 02:52 PM

I appreciate the sentiment and the honesty, and don;t worry, I;m not taking it wrong, but I'd like to clear up what seems to be a common misconception about my 2nd post in this thread. [ QUOTE ]
I got A couple G's out on loan that I can call in, so hopefully i can get back on track with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Means I have about 2k LOANED OUT to people, which I can get back from them, not that I need to borrow $$$..

Even if it were the case that I did need to borrow, I have many friends who, bankroll allowing, would be more than happy to do so, and have, as have i, numerous times over the last year.

Again, yes, it all comes down to BR management for me. I short-BR'ed myself some for holiday/vacation spending, then took a shot at the 1K's; it didn't work out, wasn't too smart, and I felt the need to vent. I guess I just like being the poster boy for BR mismanagement; a harbinger for the smarter of you who keep 30+ buyins at ALL times that shows you what might happen if you were to press. Like I said before, I think it's just that I still have a bit to much gamble in me, even though most of my pro friends think I am a nut peddler.

Daliman

01-08-2005, 02:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, some of these other replies may be taking themselves too seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you know something I don't, otherwise I'm a little perplexed by this attitude.

Are Daliman's wife and child provided for by some other means? If so, fine, this poker stuff is all just recreation, and if losing it all thrills you and hurts no one, so be it.

But if they aren't provided for elsewhere, and need the money to pay the bills, then "it's all good" is all wrong. I won't be so tedious as to explain why; it's too obvious.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Irieguy knows something you don't here, which Is not your fault; my wife works as a pharmaceutical rep and makes a very good living. We could easily get by on her income alone. My income mostly pays for luxurys, etc., although it DID put down a majority of the $$$ on our new home.

Irieguy

01-08-2005, 03:02 PM

This post by Lacky may be the most solid, straightforward, and spot-on money management post I've ever read.

It's perfect advice for any of you aspiring pros.

Irieguy

Daliman

01-08-2005, 03:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You know, I always thought the bit in rounders about everyone going broke from time to time was a joke. I play for a living and I have never come anywhere near losing my bankroll.

I have at all times 50 buyins for the level I'm playing (or more, I'm mostly playing $109's with an 11K bankroll). If I drop below that I move down. After moving down I have 100 buyin's again. If I lost to under 50 I would move down again, but that never happens.

I took a shot at 15/30 last week too, 9 hours and -$2500. But I had already set $3000 as a limit, becouse that was how much I could blow and still pay myself and have 100 buyings for $109's. It hurt to lose that money, but living with the stress that you guys must experience when your are risking it all would be unberable to me. Maybe I'm just a wimp, but being in the middle of a 27 buyin downturn and still having 96 buyins in the bank lets me sleep at night.

If you are going to do this for a business you need to run it like one. When you get that cash, play where it equals at least 50 buyins, and move down if you drop below that, and move up when you have 50 for the next level. I know it's embarasing moving down, but just start a new account till you build back up. No one needs to know where u are playing, and you can get off the rollercoaster it sounds like you've been on. It just doesn't have to be that way.

I've been fulltime for 1 1/2 years and have never had a bankroll issue, and you are better at this game than I am.

Steve

[/ QUOTE ]

No fair doing this intelligently. This is GAMBLING, dammit!

Congratulations on being one of the likely .01% who actually DO it the way eveyone else says it could be done.

eastbay

01-08-2005, 04:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Irieguy knows something you don't here, which Is not your fault; my wife works as a pharmaceutical rep and makes a very good living. We could easily get by on her income alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good! I feel better about the whole thing now. Although I think you'd have more luxuries if you weren't an a-hole with your bankroll!

eastbay

AleoMagus

01-08-2005, 04:26 PM

Here's a little thought experiment for the 50-100 buy-in bankroll crowd. This may shed some light on this discussion.

Let's say that Daliman wants to make himself $100,000 playing poker this year.

He has $2000 to do it.

A) He can start now playing $30+3 and can jump up to $50+5 when he's got 2750 (50 buy-ins) and so on, all the way up to $215.

OR,

B) He can start playing the $215s again and just play till he busts.

Lets assume that if he loses his roll, it will take him a month to get another $2000 together to try again.

Lets also assume he gets the following ROI values

30% at 30+3
25% at 50+5
15% at 100+9
10% at 200+15

Lets also just assume his finish distribution is evenly split between 1st,2nd,3rd (for SD purposes).

Which plan for play Will get him to $100,000 faster? How close is it? What if it only takes him 2 weeks to get another 2K. What if it takes him 2 months?

I don't know the answer to these questions exactly, but I have a hunch. Anyone want to give it a shot?

Regards
Brad S

PS - Anyone who thinks Sklansky does not consider poker gambling, undertands neither poker, nor Sklansky.

scalf

01-08-2005, 04:30 PM

dali..

sounds like some of the streaks i have encountered,

but

you are due

you might win the big one

gl

if your kid is healthy

hey wtf

you're hot

gl

p.s. i got a kid 3 and 1.5

gr8est feeling

but you or i will win/place big in a large tourney within 2 years

gl

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/wink.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

Daliman

01-08-2005, 04:32 PM

Damn you Aleo!

THis is REALLY interesting, but i Don't have the time,(and possibly the intelligence..) to figure it out right now.

I'm thinking that the 200's would be the fastest way with the 1 month, but I also think that an integral cariable is missing; SNG's played per active month. Makes a HUGE difference.

AleoMagus

01-08-2005, 04:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
SNG's played per active month. Makes a HUGE difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

of course you are right.

Lets say... 500 SNGs per month.

and I'll add one more question. How many SNGs does it take for this problem to swing from option B being the fastest to option A being the fastest?

Anyone? Anyone?

Regards
Brad S

Atropos

01-08-2005, 04:59 PM

I find this quite interesting too. If I find the time I will try to do the maths, but at the moment I think that a third method would be best (I think its ChrisD bankroll management plan, but not sure).

Method C) He should start playing the 200s, drop down to the 100s when he hits around 10 buyins there, drop down to the 50s if he hits 10 buyins there and so on... This would give him the chance to have a great run at the beginning at the 200s and only play there, but no bad run could be bad enough to cause mabye 2 or 3 weeks were no playing would be possible at all.

Jman28

01-08-2005, 05:04 PM

I know I wasn't telling you anything you didn't know about BR. I'm a gambler too.

Also, your baby is adorable.

Good luck man.

-Jman28

adanthar

01-08-2005, 05:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Irieguy knows something you don't here, which Is not your fault; my wife works as a pharmaceutical rep and makes a very good living. We could easily get by on her income alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good! I feel better about the whole thing now. Although I think you'd have more luxuries if you weren't an a-hole with your bankroll!

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, me too...but if you're yelling at her, something's still wrong.

It's very tough to keep an even keel after a run like that - I've fixed it in the past by *instantly* switching from my regular game to low buyin sats the minute I feel tilt coming on - but if it affects your marriage you can't keep doing that.

eastbay

01-08-2005, 05:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
SNG's played per active month. Makes a HUGE difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

of course you are right.

Lets say... 500 SNGs per month.

and I'll add one more question. How many SNGs does it take for this problem to swing from option B being the fastest to option A being the fastest?

Anyone? Anyone?

Regards
Brad S

[/ QUOTE ]

Use the Java, luke... this one screams "brute force by computer." It's not just interesting enough to me to bother.

eastbay

Mr_J

01-08-2005, 06:31 PM

Well if he wanted he could make 100k just at the $33s.

3 hrs a day (7 days a week), 6 tabling and rakeback would get you there with 30% ROI.

I don't think the 'start at $215s' and drop to $109s when he has 1k left would be a good idea. It'd take less than a month playing $50s then $100s to get a roll big enough for the $200s. I don't know if it'd be faster, but I doubt it's much slower.

citanul

01-08-2005, 06:44 PM

I also find this problem not entirely interesting.

Like one of the other players, I am predominantly an incredibly responsible BR player. I've got a 10k bankroll for playing hte 109s right now, and it feels great. Personally, I know I have the BR for playing the 215s as my only game, and I am pretty sure I beat that game, but seeing as how I hate the size of the swings psychologically at that level, I've moved down for the time being. Knowing that the BR is padded to kingdom come is a great feeling. I understand that even some of the "best" players at the highest limits have quite a bit of Gambler at heart. I find it unfortunate.

I personally feel that in the sngs, amongst the top possible skills for a player to have are: (and in a way, I actually think I might rank these above "good NL play")

a) ability to never tilt, or stop playing immediately upon the instinct to change your playing style due to current events

b) bankroll management

I in no way think that I am a good NL player. But I have found a bit of science to be had in the SNGS. I could list you some things that I feel are weaknesses/exploitablilities in my game (hell, you probably could too, seeing as we've played together a couple times) but I work on those constantly. However, playing outside of bankroll limitations is something completely foreign to me. I deposited X dollars (actually started out staked by another 2+2er) a while back, with the decision that I was going to play in such a manner that I was never going to redeposit, because doing so would make me ill. And so I've just played in that fashion.

I'd be interested to see the results ot Aleo's question, but not interested enough to personally do the math (possibly majority due to the fact that I'd be doing it by hand). I am curious how, in Aleo's posited question, it is that one "comes up with" $2k in some time period. If you're unemployed, and your only income is from poker, what is it that one does to get $2k? Keep in mind, that if the answers possibly include say, playing low limit poker of some type, and it takes 2 weeks, that's $52k a year. It's possible that doing *that* at twice the limits is the way to go for such a player, instead of the 200s...

Dali, I am sure that you are a winner at the 215s. Neither of us is sure that you are a winner at the $1000s. Not even close. I'd advice that if you must play them, take a shot at one or two when you have a huge up day. Or, as I saw you doing once before, take a few shots starting from step 3. Direct buyin + possible -ROI is a bad thing. -ROI at step 5 isn't so bad if you get an overlay based on beating step 3 and 4 though.

I'm glad you're taking the weekend off, though I might suggest taking the whole next week off and just enjoying life, chilling with the family. I took the last week of December off, made a couple of adjustments to my game, and have been smoking ever since.

Good luck,

citanul

lacky

01-08-2005, 09:40 PM

Wow, I took a nap and come back to all this. Of course the nap did end up being 6 hours long...

I don't know what the spacific answer is to your question is, and if I had the talent to figure it out (flunked calc BTW) it would be -EV time wise. But I think the point your trying to make is valid. Being too consevative bankroll wise is costing me money in long term earnings. There is no doubt about that, and I already know it. (there is a chapter on this in Mason's poker essay's also)

I am trading some total earning's for peace of mind and consistancy. I started this whole venture in June of 2003 with a $50 deposit to Party. Yes, I had lost maybe $1000 before that at planet and paradise. But at party, I've only deposited once. I like that, so I try hard to maintain it. Maybe too hard.

Last year I averaged 25 hours a week and made $54,501. If I wasn't a wimp I think I could have doubled that. I started the year playing $11's and $33's then won a 400 person $55 multi which doubled my bankroll. So I went to $109's and couldn't stomach the swings. I went to $55's and just stayed there. In April my wife went back to work from maturnity leave and I became Mr. Mom. Sng's suck for doing while watching a kid so I ended up at 3/6 limit. Played 3/6 with a $12K bankroll for a month before it just seemed silly. I didn't want to learn 6 max so I made the jump to 15/30. Started out well, but by the 50,000 hand mark I was averaging .7 bb/100 and had lost confidence. I went back to 3/6 and 5/10 6 max and played most of the rest of the year with half-hearted attempts at 15/30 thrown in.

I took most of November off for Elk hunting and moving into a new house. When I started back to work I found it imposible to get in the 30 hours a week I try for. I finaly realized I was sick to death of limit. It is such a grind day after day. So, I went back to $55 sng's mostly with some limit and NL ring while I'm watching the kid. Poker is fun again, and I'm playing 35 to 40 hours a week.

(BTW, full ring games I 8 table, 6 max I play 6 tables, sng's I start 6 or 7, play till they are done, then start a new set)

Dec. 21'st I decided I was being a total pussy playing $55's with a $12K bankroll and moved to $109's, then last week I started playing 2 $215's and 4 $109's per set. Results have been good so far, and I hope it continues, but with the struggle I've had at 15/30 I don't have that "I'm the greatest player in the world" confedence that would be nice to have.

I want to double my earning this year, so I am willing to try to play where my bankroll puts me. But I have no problem moving down if the bankroll says to becouse I generally don't really know I belong at the higher games anyway. I sure hope I do.

I started last year with the goal to make $30,000. So it was a good year. But compared to the money that can be made it sucked. I see the potentail of what can be made, I just hope I can get there.

Steve

AleoMagus

01-08-2005, 10:28 PM

The point of this example is just that what seems like irresponsible bankroll management is not always actually that bad.

Now, I'm sure that most of you figured this out, but I still don't think it is ringing through to some people. For example,

[ QUOTE ]
I understand that even some of the "best" players at the highest limits have quite a bit of Gambler at heart. I find it unfortunate.

[/ QUOTE ]

says to me "It's too bad that so many people who are otherwise very skilled at poker, have such poor money management skills" as if these bad money management skills are somehow costing them. I'd also suspect that many people here are really turned off by the idea of a gambling mindset. We want to think that we are so much smarter than the silly 'gamblers' and that for us it's not gambling because we have such a constant and positive expectation with no risk of busting.

Well, if you are in this game to really maximize your earnings, gambling will be involved. It's not stupid and it is not irresponsible either (necessarily I mean). To have a gambling mindset does not imply that sometimes we just do dumb things becasue it is so much fun. It implies that sometimes we take risks because our expectation is greater that way.

Not to mention the fact that this is all somewhat meaningless anyways. There is no appropriate level of play which we should be at given our bankroll. It's an illusion created by our own psychological needs and so long as we are winning, we will realize our expectation eventually. If some of you aren't mentally tough enough to handle the swings with what seems like a short bakroll, then fine, I understand your decision to play with whatever number of buy-ins you feel you need. Not everybody is going to need as much though, and as long as they can show a long term profit, their 'irresponsible' bankroll management is really only going to add up to a greater profit.

Regards
Brad S

burningyen

01-08-2005, 10:29 PM

Please take this post with a huge grain of salt because I'm just a $20+2 player, but what's the point of "taking a shot" at a game for which you are underbankrolled, even only occasionally? It seems like this kind of thing is bad advice for anyone who has bankroll management issues. A couple of good results is just a whiff of crack, a couple of bad results will wipe out a good session.

Big Limpin'

01-08-2005, 10:44 PM

I'm sure you have thought of this, but....

How about changing your username?

I'm sure many of your opponents know who you are...it wouldnt make MUCH difference, but it couldnt hurt. If being well-known is knocking, say 1% off your ROI. For the amount of throughput, it couldnt hurt to try.

Of course i know this isnt the reason for your downturn, just thought id toss it into the fray.

burningyen

01-08-2005, 10:47 PM

I'm confused. It sounds to me like you're saying that what we call our "bankroll" is only a psychological limit. That's probably true for recreational players like me. But it sounded to me like Daliman hit an actual limit in liquidity beyond which his family might be affected. I think for a lot of pros, their bankroll is not just a psychological limit, and risk of ruin isn't just a theoretical construct.

Mr_J

01-08-2005, 11:06 PM

"I think for a lot of pros, their bankroll is not just a psychological limit, and risk of ruin isn't just a theoretical construct."

I agree, but it's not as important in poker, and especially for sngs. BRs can be easily replaced given some time. For sngs, you only need a couple of hundred to start back at the $10s where you can rebuild. A loan from a friend or maybe you pick up a part-time job. If things had gone the other way then Daliman would be laughing.

Risk of ruin is obviously much more important when you are dealing with capital that is not easily replaced.

Financial repsonsibilities have a pretty large influence too (as you pointed out). Obviously if you have kids and a morgage (and this is the sole income) then you have to be much more responsible. If you can afford to take a shot (if you're young or bf/gf or spouse can support you), then there's really nothing wrong with it.

Mr_J

01-08-2005, 11:08 PM

I'd think being well known is a bonus. Your rep keeps other sharks out of your pond?

Big Limpin'

01-08-2005, 11:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'd think being well known is a bonus. Your rep keeps other sharks out of your pond?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ohhhhh. Good point, never thought about that.

Jman28

01-09-2005, 02:07 AM

Great posts in this thread Aleo.

You're absolutely right. Ciaffone has a chapter in 'Improve Your Poker' kind of like this, where he claims that many of the math guys are too conservative, and to maximize profits you need to have some ROR.

Thanks for sharing the insight as usual.

-Jman28

Daliman

01-09-2005, 03:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you have thought of this, but....

How about changing your username?

I'm sure many of your opponents know who you are...it wouldnt make MUCH difference, but it couldnt hurt. If being well-known is knocking, say 1% off your ROI. For the amount of throughput, it couldnt hurt to try.

Of course i know this isnt the reason for your downturn, just thought id toss it into the fray.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting idea, but I think my notoriety HELPS me, in that many top players use selective tabling, and many people know that messing with me too much if the ARE in a SNG with me is usually not a good idea, therefore reducing my variance, and ergo my hands played vs good players, and sort of increases my % of hands vs bad players.

Gramps

01-09-2005, 03:32 AM

I agree with the notoriety helping in SNGs. When I switched to Empire, I had a hard time at first with a lot of players sitting down at my table that I didn't want sitting down (and weren't doing it on my old Party ID). I'm little lazy with game selection at times, but you can't keep getting up/trying to wait for a table to mostly fill with no-names if you're 4-tabling (unless you don't mind taking a lot longer per SNG).

Maybe the Steps just took most of the sharks away, but after 2 months on my new ID, I don't have that problem much anymore. But the lag period probably does hurt the earn a little.

PrayingMantis

01-09-2005, 10:58 AM

Hi guys,

I'm reading this thread, and I find it interesting though funny on a few levels.
First, I respect Dali's game. I have no doubt Dali is a strong and winning SNG player at the $215 level. However, judging from previous threads, I think Dali certainly has some sort of a "problem" handling his BR, and playing within its limits. Now, does this mean he's not a strong poker player?

I'd say that on first glance, managing BR is for me just a part of being a strong player. A player that is not capable of fighting the temptation of playing at the highest limits (while he's not really BRolled for it), is very similar (IMO) to a player who can't fold a nice hand that is obviously losing (in a particular situation). But I believe Dali is not a good example for this, as I feel he's not that kind of a player, but since he (constantly) finds himself in situations where the risks he takes are (probably) a bit too big, he could be, on the long run, hurting his potential as a winning player.

Example: take a guy that is a 1.5bb/H winner at some 15/30 game (B&M). He's a winning *poker* player. However, every time he leaves the card-room, he manages to drop half of the money he won at the parking lot nearby his car (or something), and he loses it. He has this problem, he's very unfocused when it comes to handling cash. So overall, he is actually winning much less than he could, due to some "non-poker" behaviour, that has (a lot) to do with his poker winnings. Since this problem is non-seperatable from his actual "poker-ability" (in the profitability sense), it makes him a much worse poker player, than if he didn't have this "problem". I think that problems that have to do with managing BR, are similar to this. One can be great at actually *playing* the game, at whatever limit, but some problem about "bringing the money home" can prevent him from really maximizing his poker potential, and thus, is a part of his "poker game", IMO. I don't know enough about Dali, but I suspect he's maybe somewhere in that category.

Another thing is, that it seems to me that people in this thread are looking at BR at very different ways, as if they were talking about different things. For instance: Dali said that after winning x sessions, plus getting rake back, he had about 13K as his BR, and lost it all ( got broke) playing $215 and 1K SNGs. Now think about it: it means that at certain point Dali was left with about 1K as his BR, and registered into a 1K SNG (or: left with $215 as a BR, and registered into a $215 SNG). Regardless of how some people here see "taking shots" as a good thing for a strong player (i believe in it too, FWIW), this is not about taking shots, it's about being suicidal with your BR.

OK, so maybe Dali feels he can replenish his BR, no problems, even if he loses it all that way (i.e, putting his "last" 1K into a 1k SNG). BUT THEN, his concept of BR is now different - his BR is actually bigger (in some ways), than the 13K he was talking about. How bigger is it? We don't know. Maybe it isn't actually a number, but some function of things, like his wife's salary, his ability and patience for being able to grind a bit a lower limits to build it up again from nothing or so, etc. But again, if that's the case, he probably should have begun doing it earlier (when he was down to his few last hundreds or so).

Anyway, it seems that since people have a different understanding of the term BR, they have completely different reactions to Dali's storty here. If you understand BR as I do (i.e, you have some amount with which you're playing poker. If you bust - you have to start with about 0 again, which will take some time (not too long, maybe, if you are not lazy and don't have ego problems) ) this stroy is problematic. If you can rebuild your BR putting a few K into it from whatever sources, than your BR is actually bigger than "what you say", and therefore, you didn't really bust.

IMO, mangaing BR has a lot of psychology into it, like AM has mentioned. People who can handle swings good, and be very discplined about going down again, can play a riskier game. For others it is much more dangarous, and so, obviously, ROR, as I see it, is also a big function of one's personality, and not only his ROI, ITM, buy-ins and BR, as some like to see it.

That's about it, sorry for the long post.

And Dali - I wish you all the luck and I'm sure you'll be back killing the highest SNGs. These big swings are part of *your* particular game, and it's your job to get used to them (without it hurting your family life). If these swings do hurt your famility life, then I think you should consider being more conservative with your BR management, which is a game by its own. Only my opinion, of course.

Daliman

01-09-2005, 01:16 PM

Yer a bit off on my last $$$; I had ~2350 in my acct, played a 1k because there was alot of weak $$$ in it first, and played 6 215's, losing all of them. Even I may not be stupid enough to play a 1K with only 1k left. But hell, what I did ain't far off. Funny thing is, one of the best MTT players online does this kinda thing consistantly. Not saying who, so don't ask.

dankhank

01-09-2005, 03:14 PM

first of all, this is a very interesting thread.

i'm one of those people who fall into the remarkably conservative with bankroll category and when i started reading this thread and saw posts like lacky's i thought to myself, 'here is the right answer and it is so easy to do it this way that i don't see why some respondents consider it such an achievement.'

as the 'taking a shot' argument evolved into a fully rounded argument related to maximizing earn and the relative ease of rebuilding a bankroll if you're a winning player i started to question my own approach. i do, afterall, have the means to re-fund myself if i went bust or got shortstacked (although it's important to note those means include using money earmarked for paying off student loans, which i really don't want to touch).

but pretty quickly in questioning my own safe approach i came to the realization that i would never, ever play above my bankroll in order to maximize my earn. i am highly stress adverse. if i start losing at a higher level i will no longer be enjoying myself while i play: instead i will be slightly-desperate to 'make my money back' and i will be slightly worried about not being as good a player as i thought. past experience tells me that when i'm not fully relaxed while playing poker, i do not play my best game.

and so when PrayingMantis considered both approaches to bankroll and framed it as a personality issue as much as a numbers one, i thought he was exactly right. and one of those 'confirmation light bulbs' went off in my head.

i'm glad to know where i fall, and i grind on. to you other-types: gamble it up if you're able?

Big Limpin'

01-09-2005, 03:38 PM

Yes, absolutely, what Dr J said...the pluses of notariety (avoidance by other skilled players) should more than offset any negatives (loose action).

As my old boss used to say...theres no bad ideas when brainstorming, just unsucessful ones.

Big Limpin'

01-09-2005, 03:53 PM

I have seen only 2 Daliman crash and burns since i started reading this forum. Personally, i have had more than that. Granted, i play no higher that $33, so re-upping my bankroll is as simple as returning some empty beer bottles playing 10+1 for a few days, but....

I came to the realization that i should have a "emergency bankroll". So, about 6 months ago, i bought a $500 (CDN$, like $400 US) term deposit, that matures every 30 days.
It gets re-invested automatically if i dont tell them otherwise, but the money is availible at the drop of a hat if i should need it (weekdays, anyways).

The idea of the term deposit is that if i just left the money in my bank account, well, i'd buy stuff with it. Because it is seperate, and involves going in person to the bank to cash it out, i will feel too much self-imposed guilt. This money is there for ONLY ONE REASON. To buy bankroll if i bust out. Hopefully, it will still be there 10 years from now.

Now, i realize you would need a much larger amount (5000?), but of course, you win alot more than me too, so as a percentage of profits, its about the same.

Of course, i know this is far from revolutionary idea to set money aside, but what i want to emphasize is that:

BECAUSE IT IS A TERM DEPOSIT, CASHABLE FOR ONLY ONE REASON< IT WILL STILL BE THERE WHEN I NEED IT.

Daliman

01-09-2005, 09:10 PM

I'd just like to add something in here that would have helped people understand a bit more why I was playing the 1k's even as my BR dropped precipitously; Gigabet, tipsyjoker, ZeeJustin, and adrtho, plus a few more, were all gone in the bahamas by tuesday, therefore clearing the 1k waters a TON. I thought it was a excellent opportunity to play in MUCH softer games than I would usually find, and it was. It just didn't work out.

lorinda

01-09-2005, 09:20 PM

Dali.

You're an awesome player, but there is a famous phrase "Never give a sucker an even break".

Playing above your bankroll gives the idiots an overly fair chance of getting your cash, I don't like the thought of idiots running around with Dali's cash.

Lori

microbet

01-09-2005, 10:29 PM

I know you don't care what I have to say, but I'm trying to move up my number of posts anyway.

My sympathies on the bad streak. I have been lurking for a while and appreciate all of your posts.

I know it can be hard playing with a wife and a baby in the house. I usually don't start until everyone else (an older kid too) is asleep. The one thing that really puts me on tilt is if the baby wakes up crying.

p.s. I wish my wife was pulling in pharmaceutical-rep type jack.

Irieguy

01-09-2005, 11:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Playing above your bankroll gives the idiots an overly fair chance of getting your cash,
Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree, Lori. While Lacky's post on bankroll management above is the most sound I've seen from a psychological standpoint, Aleo's comments on the significance of playing above your bankroll are exactly right.

If your expectation per SNG at the $215's is $35, it doesn't matter whether your bankroll is $10,000 or $215... your expectation for the next SNG is $35. The fish don't have a better shot at beating you just because you are on the felt. (Assuming, of course- and this is a big assumption- that your game is unaffected by your impoverished state.)

In terms of pure earning potential per event, you should always play the highest stakes that you can possibly beat. The reason why most of us don't is merely because going broke keeps us out of the action, at least for a little while. The time spent on the rail could have been time spent earning if the bankroll was apportioned a little better.

In this case, the sharks had swam to the bahamas and Daliman took the open shot. Seems like a sound decision to me. The common thread amongst great acheivements has always been and will always be the willingness to assume great risk. The annals of any pursuit document this fact clearly. Risk-averse decision making guarantees mediocrity.

Irieguy

ilya

01-09-2005, 11:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]

In terms of pure earning potential per event, you should always play the highest stakes that you can possibly beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a silly mistake or is there something I don't understand? I thought that if you wanted to maximize your earning potential, you should play at the stakes that give you the highest hourly rate, at least most of the time...or are you factoring in the presumption that you improve faster when you play higher stakes?

yoshi_yoshi

01-10-2005, 12:02 AM

> I came to the realization that i should have a "emergency bankroll". So, about 6 months ago, i bought a $500 (CDN$, like $400 US) term deposit, that matures every 30 days.
It gets re-invested automatically if i dont tell them otherwise, but the money is availible at the drop of a hat if i should need it (weekdays, anyways).

Being a college student who knows nothing about how money works, I find this to be an awesome idea. How do you go about getting a term deposit, and how does the term deposit work (ie. how much does it pay, how do you get your money in/out)? Should I just go to my bank an ask them?

And the second question - is it a lot more profitable to get a term deposit than just leaving the money in a bank, which is where my bankroll is at now.

Lastly, how quickly can you get your money out, if say, some site was having a reload bonus?

Thanks,
John

The4Aces

01-10-2005, 12:10 AM

another idea would be to buy a savings bond. They take time to mature but you can always get your money you put in out at any time, and because you get more the longer you leave them in it is less likley for you to take them out unless its a true emergency

CardMinger

01-10-2005, 12:51 AM

I know this is slightly off topic but going along with the idea of having an "emergency bankroll" I think if you can afford it one should purchase a vanguard index fund from Vanguard.com. The fund mirrors the S&P 500 and best of all can be linked to your bank account so that if you ever need to cash it out its there in 2 days max which is porbably the amount of vacation time needed after you bust anyway.

The minimum deposit is $3000 initially but you can then make deposits of as little as $50. The fees for the fund are extremely low... .03% I think.

Ok well thats just my .2c

P.S. I am in no way affiliated with Vanguard.

The Yugoslavian

01-10-2005, 01:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In terms of pure earning potential per event, you should always play the highest stakes that you can possibly beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a silly mistake or is there something I don't understand? I thought that if you wanted to maximize your earning potential, you should play at the stakes that give you the highest hourly rate, at least most of the time...or are you factoring in the presumption that you improve faster when you play higher stakes?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think when he says 'beat' he means 'beat for a higher hourly rate.' You're right that in some (many?) cases one can move up stakes and beat them but the hourly rate at the higher stakes is actually lower.

As you know, Irie is a big proponent of multitabling smaller stakes since this often will give one a higher hourly rate with lower variance rather than moving up stakes, needing to plaly fewer tables in order to beat the higher skill level there.

Yugoslav

ilya

01-10-2005, 01:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In terms of pure earning potential per event, you should always play the highest stakes that you can possibly beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a silly mistake or is there something I don't understand? I thought that if you wanted to maximize your earning potential, you should play at the stakes that give you the highest hourly rate, at least most of the time...or are you factoring in the presumption that you improve faster when you play higher stakes?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think when he says 'beat' he means 'beat for a higher hourly rate.' You're right that in some (many?) cases one can move up stakes and beat them but the hourly rate at the higher stakes is actually lower.

As you know, Irie is a big proponent of multitabling smaller stakes since this often will give one a higher hourly rate with lower variance rather than moving up stakes, needing to plaly fewer tables in order to beat the higher skill level there.

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, that makes sense.