After reading 'My failure as a poker pro (very long)' by Ten7offsuit

***For those of you who do not know what 'My failure as a poker pro (very long)' is, check out the post list in this 'General' section of the forum. It is one of posts in this forum.

----------------------------------------------------------

I first want to thank Ten7offsuit for sharing his sobering story with all of us here. It was the post I was looking for so long.

------------well... let me introduce myself first-----------

I am turning 25 this year, and a graduate who have a BS degree in Aerospace engineering from one of better universities in the USA. I am outstanding in math just like other good engineering students. (I have perfect scores on all of the math tests you are aware of.) ....enough for bragging. Now let's go to my unsucessful poker story.

I have been playing poker for about a year now and have been losing money consistently even though I really believe that I play solid. (I could feel Ten7offsuit. I have also won a few tournaments like him ($5 buyin-200 entrants, a freeroll- 8k entrants) and been to final tables of a lot of online multi-table tournaments)

Straight to the point... I have lost about 1k-2k playing poker for about a year. I can't just figure out what I am doing wrong. (I have been playing 2-4 and 3-6.) I have studied a lot of hold'em books and am following 'Small Stakes Hold'em' by Ed Miller as my guideline. I seldom get on tilt.

Is it possible that I am on bad streak? for a year? or there should be something wrong with me?

Thanks,

GOMOOJOOL

PS. I want to be a pro poker player. (I really want to try out before I get older.) What's your advise? Are there any good posts in this forum that you want to advise me to read? Thanks.

[whodaman]

what kind of a bankroll do you have?
are you currently employed full time?
dont even dream of going pro until you are crushing the games for a long long time.....

How many hands have you played in the last year? It is hard to say if one could have a losing streak over a year without the number of hands. $2,000 at $3/$6 is only a little over 300 BB. My biggest downswing that I have record of was around 200 BB over the course of 7,000 hands. Losing $1,000 or $2,000 at $2/$4 or $3/$6 does seem like a lot but without knowing the number of hours or hands you've played I would say it is definitely possible to lose within that range at these limits. I like to look for ways to improve my game whenever I hit a losing streak. If you have PT stats, you could post those for some helpful advice.

I have a bankroll of about 10k and am a full-time employee.

Thanks for your advise. I think that you are right. I was too ahead of myself. I do not even win money consistently yet. (well.. I am losing money consistently.) I think that I have to understand this game better first before I dream of being a pro. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I think that I have to understand this game better first before I dream of being a pro. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You can always dream of being a pro without turning pro. You have a clear cut goal in mind, now you just need to work towards it. Keep playing part time and working on your game. As already stated in this thread, be sure that you are beating the game for a long time before you actually go pro. No harm comes from having a dream.

[stu-unger]

i don't know that variance can be the reason for a 1 year losing streak, im not saying its not possible. how many hands have u played in that year? do u use pokertracker? do u post questionable hands? r u just playing or are u trying to improve your play? do u have a proper BR for the game u r playing in?

if u want answers to if u r a victim of variance u should post the ansers to these questions. as for going pro. i don't understand why people dream of going pro. i love poker, i mean i really love poker. i think about it all day, i play all nite, and i dream about it in my sleep. but i have no desire to use it as a career. if u want to read some articles on this subject check out the magazine on this site for the last 3 months. there have been several very well written articles on the subject.

I do not know how many hands I have exactly played, but let me estimate... In most of times, I play only one table at once. I can say that I have played about 10k-15k hands. I guess that I am doing something wrong then. Way too many hands to be considered to be downswing... hmmm...

thanks...

Are you a pro?

[Subfallen]

If you look at the highly successful pros (Schneids, bike, gonores, DcfrThs) on this board, a few things really stand out.

- They are very intelligent. I think Schneids once said that after he's played with somebody once, he can remember their weaknesses months later. Sobering if you're like me and have to check player notes every 15 minutes. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

- They don't tilt much. And if they do, they make sure they run good (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=2149418&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&fpart=1&vc=1) while tilting.

- They have good intrapersonal IQ...i.e. they know how to figure out what's making them feel angry, or frustrated, or bored, or whatever. Just read either of the 60k quests and you'll see what I'm talking about.

- They study hard. Gonores mentioned that for the first part of his pro career, he had the highest study time/game time ratio of anybody he knew.

- They keep the game in perspective, mostly at least, e.g. "summer > poker." I assume this reduces risk of burnout.

- They have enough balls to take shots when shot-taking time has arrived.


How do you stack up? Be honest with yourself.

Thank you so much for your comments. I have been working full time for a few years, so BR is not a problem.

To the questions you listed...

I guess that I have played 10-15k hands over that span.

I do not know what the pokertracker is. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

This is my second day to the forum, so I have not posted any questionable hands yet.

I am trying to improve my plays, but I have to find out what I am doing wrong somehow. There should be a lot of things that I am doing wrong since I lose money consistently.

Thanks again,

GOMOOJOOL

[stu-unger]

i agree with what sub said.

15,000 hands is not very many at all to be down 300bbs. i dont think that it is all variance but, that isn't a big enough sample size to judge winrate.

oh yeah and buy Poker tracker. its like $55 and is a must for anyone who plays online. this will allow u to evaluate your play and give u info on your opponents while u play.

[ QUOTE ]

Are you a pro?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm still in college and have no desire of becoming a professional player. I play part time whenever I can and really log in the hours during summer. I have only been playing seriously for about a year or two. So far I have managed to do quite well and have made a nice $28k profit to date ($20k from online). Like a lot of people, I currently 8 table $2/$4. I've only logged 90k hands since I've moved to 8 tables of $2/$4 but so far it is going good. I'm only getting 1.95 BB/100 so I feel I have room to improve, but with rakeback added I seem to be getting around $45 per hour. I'm happy where I'm at right now and am about ready to move back to $3/$6 (I used to 5 table this limit but couldn't handle 8 tables).

I found that Pokertracker and hand analysis really improved my game. I went from someone getting around $30 per hour ($20 per hour derived from bonus/prop money) to making around $45 per hour of which $33 per hour is playing profit. I'm also about ready to move up in limits again.

A few months ago I joined pokementor.net and that helped my game. I think some of the people from there post on this site (Ponks, mentor). You might want to check that out as it is a way to go over a lot of hand histories in a very quick time. I'd appreciate it if you sent me an email letting me know if you sign up.

In your situation, though, you should definitely look at your game. 300 BB over 15k hands is a lot of money and there are probably some leaks that need to be fixed. Get pokertracker, review your hands, and post/look at hands that you have questions on. Learn the basics first. For example, don't ask what to do when you flop a straight flush. That never happens and it isn't worth your time to learn how to play it. Learn how to play hands like top pair with and without position; with and without a good kicker. If you really aspire to go pro, put in a lot of time studying the game. It'll really pay off. Approach it like college or high school. If you want to do good in anything at life you have to study/work hard at it. Poker is no exception.

Lozing

[ QUOTE ]
i agree with what sub said.

15,000 hands is not very many at all to be down 300bbs. i dont think that it is all variance but, that isn't a big enough sample size to judge winrate.


[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely agree with this but I think it should be stressed that it is very likely that he needs to work on his game. He should take this as an opportunity to improve. I know a lot of people who do not improve thier game because they keep telling themselves that they could only be losing due to variance. They play 10k hands, lose 300BB and say it was variance. They convince themselves that they are playing good and that they will "know" how they are doing if they only keep playing more hands. I try to ignore the results of anything I have done in the past and try to focus on improving my game. Personally, I'd rather spend my time talking about strategy rather than playing.

Lozing

[ QUOTE ]
I do not know what the pokertracker is. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

www.pokertracker.com (http://www.pokertracker.com)

Lozing

Thanks a lot of your advises again. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[SpicyF]

Of you teach me how to build planes, i will teach you how to win at poker. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[TazQ]

I'm about to graduate with a EE degree. I've been playing poker part time for a living now for the past 2 years while in school.

I'm getting a "real" job as soon as I can. If you're as smart as you say you are, poker will become boring, real quick. Aside from the competition aspect, there really isn't much else after a certain point. I think someone of your intelligence will reach that point much quicker than others. Ya, you'll learn new stuff every now and then and continue to improve, but it can't compare to some of the crazy [censored] you can do with high level math and physics.

Anyways, of the people who can pull in $200/hr+, I don't know many who can put in 25+ hrs a week consistantly. These guys are young too, like early 20's. This is a LOT of money to them (at least to me anyways), and still they have trouble putting the hours in. I know I sure do.

So unless you can put in 30-40 hr weeks and make $200-400/hr I'd take the job and play poker on the side any day of the week. Even if you could do all that, I think you'd have a much funner time with an intellectually stimulating job and a profitable distraction on the side.

For me, it comes down to if I want to get ~5-10 hrs a week more of poker in (because even if I did it full time like this summer, I know I can't do more than 20 hr weeks easily) and have more freedom, or get a full time job and play nearly the same amount of hours on the side.

Thanks for your input.

I still love playing poker even though losing fraustrates me once in a while. I just hope that it does not become boring. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

GOMOOJOOL

[stone_7]

Despite the fact that you are over bankrolled for it spend some time at .5/1 until you can beat it. There is no shame in playing lower limits while you are learning. I lost for a while until I got Poker Tracker and promised myself I would not move up until I had at least 10k hands and a solid 2bb/100 winrate. To keep myself motivated I chased bonuses which meant I was still earning money. In addition you have to learn to think in terms of Big Bets or similar non dollar amounts. Winning $50 may not excite you but winning 50BB is cause for celebration. I also find that I play better and tighter if I multitable. When I play only 1 I get bored and play too many hands. Avoid this by playing 2 or 3.

[SpicyF]

[ QUOTE ]
I got Poker Tracker and promised myself I would not move up until I had at least 10k hands and a solid 2bb/100 winrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not math geek, but i'm pretty sure you can't have a solid (thrustworthy) winrate after 10k hands.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I got Poker Tracker and promised myself I would not move up until I had at least 10k hands and a solid 2bb/100 winrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not math geek, but i'm pretty sure you can't have a solid (thrustworthy) winrate after 10k hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why you're not a mathgeek, and that's why you shouldn't be giving advice.

[trainslayer]

you lost any equity you had built up here by posting
this bullshit (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=3143184&page=0&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1)

after you posted this bullshit

get a life and quit trolling

/images/graemlins/smile.gif I am sorry, but I am not understanding you. What do you mean? It would be really nice if you explain you meant by this message.

Thanks,

GOMOOJOOL

[Neurotoxin]

Well here's some math. You have a degree which would probably get you a $100k/year job, and you've lost $1-2k this year playing poker during the easiest time you're ever going to have it.

[Stephen Gray]

Umm... it takes a lot more than 10,000 to have a good indication of true win rate. Also, SpicyF's advice is among the best available.

[morello]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I got Poker Tracker and promised myself I would not move up until I had at least 10k hands and a solid 2bb/100 winrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not math geek, but i'm pretty sure you can't have a solid (thrustworthy) winrate after 10k hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why you're not a mathgeek, and that's why you shouldn't be giving advice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since Spicy is apparently giving false advice, why don't you do all of us noobs a favour and correct him? I would certainly love to see how a winrate of 2bb/100 can be shown to be reliable after a sample size of 10k hands. Because, a non math-geek like me would plug in a reasonable number for a standard deviation, and get results that say his win rate number (2bb/100) would have a huge variance using a 95% confidence interval.

Please enlighten us.

After you've done that, maybe you can teach SpicyF and I how to play poker. Right now we're just grinding out the 0.05-0.10 games on stars and we want to move up, but we need a mentor with superior abilities. Can you teach us how to become great players??

[LImitPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I got Poker Tracker and promised myself I would not move up until I had at least 10k hands and a solid 2bb/100 winrate.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I am not math geek, but i'm pretty sure you can't have a solid (thrustworthy) winrate after 10k hands

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't

[LImitPlayer]

Is it just me or are the new posters getting more arrogant then the old arrogant posters?

I swear get a couple hundred posts in the 2 + 2 forums and people thing they are know it alls

[Alex/Mugaaz]

Sorry, I completely missed the can"'t". I thought he said you could. I apologize, I was at the tail end of 30hr shift.

[Losing all]

Like the name..

[mudbuddha]

well, once u have a bank roll set aside, it doesnt matter if you work full time or not.. IMO.. your job should not be funding your bank roll...
poker money grows from poker trees.. so.. if you need to keep putting money in, somethings wrong and your definately not crushing any games

[hotsauce615]

Why dont you just be an engineer, you make much more consistant money I'd think. Is full time play that much more fun than full time work? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Hehe.. I think that it is all the same for all of us. Every job gets boring after a while. My engineering job is pretty boring, and every other job looks more exciting than mine... hehe...

GOMOOJOOL

[shant]

[ QUOTE ]
Why dont you just be an engineer, you make much more consistant money I'd think. Is full time play that much more fun than full time work? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, working full time blows.

[adamstewart]

why are u purple?

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
Way too many hands to be considered to be downswing...

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

[helpmeout]

Being intelligent and good at mathematics doesnt make anyone a poker player.

People who are good at poker are usually exception at strategy games such as chess.

I think you are just trolling anyway so I wont bother too much.

[shant]

[ QUOTE ]
why are u purple?

[/ QUOTE ]
I won a photoshop a logo contest thingy in OOT and I'm purple for a week.

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
Of you teach me how to build planes, i will teach you how to win at poker. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

do model and/or paper count?? cuz I'd glady take you up on that offer

[driller]

When I first started playing poker about 1000 years ago in junior high, I thought I was smarter than all the other players (better grades and test scores). Because of this, I thought it would be easy to win. Wrong. Cards don't care about your grades or test scores. I didn't even start breaking even until I was a senior in high school. Of course there were no good books back then, no internet, no 2+2, so I had to learn from just playing once or twice a week in nickel-dime-quarter games.

Obviously there are game playing skills that sometimes are not directly related to your ability to do well on the math aptitude tests. Anyway the results speak for themselves. But there is no way to know what your problem is. Post some stats.

[danzasmack]

Clearly this post is a joke.

If you are smart as you say you are you will do yourself a favor and spell advice right.

[stone_7]

I never meant to say that you could have a reliable winrate after 10K hands. However if you are not winning after 10k hands you are almost certainly not a winning player. I would think that it would be fair to say that if you can not acheive a winrate of 2bb/100 hands at .5/1 with a minnimum of 10k hands then you are clearly not a winning player. Obviously you can't PROVE that you are a winning player but you will have some confidence and experience and judgement about your readiness to move to the next level.

[Danenania]

Wrong.

[SpicyF]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of you teach me how to build planes, i will teach you how to win at poker. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

do model and/or paper count?? cuz I'd glady take you up on that offer

[/ QUOTE ]

Thinking more like a DC-9....

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
I never meant to say that you could have a reliable winrate after 10K hands. However if you are not winning after 10k hands you are almost certainly not a winning player. I would think that it would be fair to say that if you can not acheive a winrate of 2bb/100 hands at .5/1 with a minnimum of 10k hands then you are clearly not a winning player. Obviously you can't PROVE that you are a winning player but you will have some confidence and experience and judgement about your readiness to move to the next level.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how long you have been playing poker, but it is possible for a winning player to lose over 10,000 hands. I've done it a number of times. It would be tough to do at .5/1, but I'm sure its possible.

That said, the original poster is inexperienced and clearly need to study more and play more. He just needs to work at it.

[aargh57]

Got this from a poster named pzhon:
"After n hands, a 95% confidence interval for your win rate in BB/100 is roughly results +- 300/squareroot(n). So, if you win at a rate of 3 BB/100 for 10k hands, your 95% confidence interval would be 0-6 BB/100."

Using this formula you can see that 10k hands is not that significant. So, if he lost $2000 after 10k hands his win/loss rate is -1bb/100. With this formula his 95% confidence interval would be between -4 and +2 BB/100. In other words he could be a decent player running bad, a bad player running as expected, or a horrible player running good. The sample size really isn't that big.

[stone_7]

[ QUOTE ]
it is possible for a winning player to lose over 10,000 hands. I've done it a number of times. It would be tough to do at .5/1, but I'm sure its possible.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. The key point I am making is that is is virtually impossible for a losing/break even player to have a winning record over this sample size. I have appx 50 k hands 10k at .5/1 30k at 1/2 and 10k at 2/4. I did not move up until I was beating the level for a respectable rate. I fully understand what people say about sample size and true win rate but from everything I have read even Doyle Brunson does not have enough hands to be certain he is a winning player. I am happy to say that I am 75% sure I am a winning player. There is no reason to apply the same stringency to my skills as a poker player as a scientist who is working on a cure for cancer. 95% is the standard taught to science majors in every university but it is just a standard for peer reviewed science not a law set in stone.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Thanks for correcting me. As you may have noticed... English is my second language...

GOMOOJOOL

[zephed]

Drop down to Party Poker's $0.50/$1.00 limit tables and learn how to beat this game.

Scour the micro limit forum and pick up as much as you can.

Also, chase bonuses.

Never turn pro.

[LethalRose]

go to Poker Stars and play 5NL until you can beat the level for 30k hands or so. You have to move up slowly with poker. Its like riding a bike, learn the basics and move up, you cant jump up too fast.

also, A lot of players here including myself played poker because we really enjoy it, and eventually we turned into winning players and use it as a large source of income. Dont dwell on trying to become a pro just try to learn something everyday and work on your game.

What books have you read? Can you explain gap theory to someone else? How often do you cold call two bets?

I would suggest moving down in limits. The 1/2 game on PP is crazy easy. Play three tables at once. Read / Study and then give yourself several months to evaluate. Post hands here and get advice.

I agree with the reading that Poker is more closely related to Chess than pure IQ. Chess requires you to analyze data not create it. The keys to sucess are study & experience.

B-