When are you a loser?

[CardMinger]

I know this might have been asked before but I never exactly have read it being asked in this manner.

I have heard in numerous posts that by playing just around 100 SnG's of a certain limit you should be able to tell if you are a winning player or not...does the same apply for if you are a losing player?

When is it time to give up and quit, move down or re-evaluate your play?

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
When is it time to give up and quit,

[/ QUOTE ]
When you run out of money.

[ QUOTE ]
move down

[/ QUOTE ]
just before you run out of money

[ QUOTE ]
or re-evaluate your play?

[/ QUOTE ]
All the time. Pro golfers go to the driving range after their rounds. Most country-clubbers only go before.

[beeyjay]

100 isnt enough to tell if you are a winner or a loser. over the last 130 I'm a big time loser. Over a few thousand before that I'm a pretty big time winner.

The only thing you can maybe tell from 100 is how you compare to the competition. if most of your losses are sustained when you are a (heavy) favorite in a hand then you could very well be a winning player getting unlucky. if most of your losses are sustained where you are a dog and your usually winnin only by getting lucky, then you obviusly need to re-evaluate.

statistically speaking though, 100 isnt anything.

[citanul]

you should constantly re-evaluate, and if you're losing, you should stop sometime before you run out of money you can afford to lose, if you care about such things. you should be able to get a feel, if you are honest with yourself, about whether you are a losing player in less than 100 sngs. this doesn't mean that if you are down money, you know you are a loser, but it means that you should be able to honestly evaluate your performances, and have a feel for if you are beating the game.

if you're on the "unsure" side, you should consider moving down until you are sure. meh, i'd write more, but i'm worn out from a long day of posting. and being nice.

citanul

[raptor517]

hmm, do i think 100 is enough to determine if you are a winning player or not? i have to go with a definitive no. over 100 sngs im sure i have had a -30% roi. over 100 sngs im sure i have had a +50% roi. 100 sngs is one day. if i won every day i would be very rich. but i dont win every day, so 100 cant be enough.

my advice to you is to keep playing every day if possible, and get in as many as you possibly can. i play about a bajillion sngs a day if i can. play about a trillion more sngs and keep us all updated on how its goin /images/graemlins/wink.gif not everyone wins in their first 100 sngs. holla

[citanul]

to be clear, i didn't say you could "determine" but i did say you should be able to "tell." big difference, i think.

citanul

[raptor517]

didnt mean the post to criticize cit, was just making an example about how 100 isnt enough to even tell really. it should be enough to give you an idea though. keep playing, youll get there. you are already 10 steps ahead of the game by even posting here. holla

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
When is it time to give up and quit

[/ QUOTE ]

Never.

[ QUOTE ]
or re-evaluate your play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Every day of your life.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]

I have heard in numerous posts that by playing just around 100 SnG's of a certain limit you should be able to tell if you are a winning player or not...


[/ QUOTE ]

A winning player should be able to tell looking through 100 HHs whether or not someone is most likely a winning player. But doesn't it seem likely that a losing player, breakeven player, or even marginally winning player will have a hard time knowing whether or not they are 'winning'?

[ QUOTE ]

does the same apply for if you are a losing player?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if you're a losing player, you can be making better plays than the complete 'monkeys' and think you're actually a winner.....but you're not. At the same time, it's also possible for losing players to realize that they have huge leaks (even if they don't know specifically what they are) and that they are very likely losing money at their current skill level.

Do you think you're a 'losing' player? If so, why? If not, why not?

[ QUOTE ]

When is it time to give up and quit


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you feel like quitting?

[ QUOTE ]

move down or re-evaluate your play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you feel like moving down?

Are you interested in getting 'better' and/or making more +$EV decisions during SNGs?

All of this talk about 'losing' and 'winning' is highly dependent on the person and their own capabilities concerning self-evaluation and current actual skill level.

I'm still not exactly sure what you're original question is getting at.

Yugoslav
Who noticed Scuba's lack of Socratic dialogue in this thread, /images/graemlins/shocked.gif.

[poker-penguin]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, if you're a losing player, you can be making better plays than the complete 'monkeys' and think you're actually a winner.....but you're not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Either this is the exact opposite of what I was going to say, or I've missed your point here.

If you are making better plays than the 'monkeys' (and not just thinking that you are), then there's not a lot you can do about financially negative results (aside from improving your game to make even better plays).

Sure, you might not be financially up right now, but does that make you a "loser"?

I think I've totally missed the point of Yugo's post, haven't I?

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, if you're a losing player, you can be making better plays than the complete 'monkeys' and think you're actually a winner.....but you're not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Either this is the exact opposite of what I was going to say, or I've missed your point here.

If you are making better plays than the 'monkeys' (and not just thinking that you are), then there's not a lot you can do about financially negative results (aside from improving your game to make even better plays).

Sure, you might not be financially up right now, but does that make you a "loser"?

I think I've totally missed the point of Yugo's post, haven't I?

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is far from clear here.

A losing player can be playing better than the monkeys and still lose in the long run due to rake and better players taking away some additional $EV from him/her.

I guess what I mean is that I bet some 'smarter monkeys' think they're winning b/c they think the 'dumber monkeys' play so much worse....but in reality they're only playing marginally better or simply confirming their presupposed opinions on the 'dumber monkeys' by only remembering the horrific plays.....and not the good or even semi-decent strategies employed by 'smarter monkeys,' decent players, good players, and sharks.

Is that clearer? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Yugoslav
If not, feel free to PM me....although it's prolly not worth your time...

[ilya]

When you start making jokes about thread names on a poker forum.

[TheUsher]

[ QUOTE ]
didnt mean the post to criticize cit, was just making an example about how 100 isnt enough to even tell really. it should be enough to give you an idea though. keep playing, youll get there. you are already 10 steps ahead of the game by even posting here. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

hey raptor, would you happen to be one of these names? Just say yeah or no or if you don't want to tell, that's fine too. I assume you play the 55's right?

citrus_100
valorous
daybluffer
jb_licas
grah29
veryezjob4me
briti
yimmymass
memphie
hotchick44
ic_fish2
crazymoneygt
badicabod
jggt21
john_feeney
bigpads
suzuki_450
dkpker
gelias03
tricky21
paulkaulbach

These seem to be my most noticeable opponents so I figured since you were going crazy at the 50's I might be running into you sometimes. /images/graemlins/grin.gif No disrespect intended if you're insulted in me asking you. Have a nice night.

[The Yugoslavian]

He's never been shy about posting his screen names on this site.

I don't believe any of those are his.

Yugoslav

[raptor517]

hey yugo, this is about a bajillion times ot, but u got time to dominate me at chess real quick? aol is raptor51786, hollatme

[raptor517]

nope, none of those are me, and yea u do have some good names on there. my accounts i 8 table on are Bebop86 and NurseLadyLV /images/graemlins/wink.gif i havent played in about a week cuz im taking a break, been playing the NL cash games. mmm, 2100 in a month kinda burns ya out a bit. ill prolly be back soon tho, holla

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
Bebop86 and NurseLadyLV

[/ QUOTE ]

We've played quite a bit, btw. I recognize those names.

[raptor517]

/images/graemlins/wink.gif nurselady pwnz hollatme next time u see me. prolly wont be for a while tho. im depressed from sngs, lol

[Pepsquad]

When you are no longer able/willing to deposit more money and you are not +$.

[lorinda]

If your ITM is 33% or less over 100 games, you should probably consider dropping down.

If it is then 33% or less over the next 100 games, you should probably drop down.

Lori

[TheUsher]

[ QUOTE ]
nope, none of those are me, and yea u do have some good names on there. my accounts i 8 table on are Bebop86 and NurseLadyLV /images/graemlins/wink.gif i havent played in about a week cuz im taking a break, been playing the NL cash games. mmm, 2100 in a month kinda burns ya out a bit. ill prolly be back soon tho, holla

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup I recognize both those names /images/graemlins/smile.gif The names I posted were just people I had 500+ hands on so no real order on skill or anything. Are you playing in the WSOP circuit this weekend?