People Who Quit

[Jorge10]

I was browing through the net, you know bored, went to some other forums and they had some bad beat posts and in those I saw about 3 posts by different people saying they were quitting poker because they kept losing. I dont know why, but I felt sorry for them, in my mind I was thinking I know if they try they can at least be break even players and have some fun with poker or something. I normally dont feel sorry for people but I really felt sorry for them because they said they had like 10 books and kept reading the forums and what not, which made me wonder, why cant they be break even players? I mean whats the problem, I dont know it just made me think. I know its hard to be a winning player, but break even shouldnt be too hard specially if they own books and think about the game, I mean it has be possible. I dont know can anyone answer this, Why cant players who read books and go to the forums be at least break even players? I guess I felt sorry for them because it seemed unfair since they put in some effort.

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
I was browing through the net, you know bored, went to some other forums and they had some bad beat posts and in those I saw about 3 posts by different people saying they were quitting poker because they kept losing. I dont know why, but I felt sorry for them, in my mind I was thinking I know if they try they can at least be break even players and have some fun with poker or something. I normally dont feel sorry for people but I really felt sorry for them because they said they had like 10 books and kept reading the forums and what not, which made me wonder, why cant they be break even players? I mean whats the problem, I dont know it just made me think. I know its hard to be a winning player, but break even shouldnt be too hard specially if they own books and think about the game, I mean it has be possible. I dont know can anyone answer this, Why cant players who read books and go to the forums be at least break even players? I guess I felt sorry for them because it seemed unfair since they put in some effort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not everyone can win, or break even. Even by trying hard
and studying. If you think about it, you will understand.

[KeysrSoze]

Even if they are a winning player, they probably see it as a get-rich-quick plan, and don't have the mindset for it. They watch the WPT and WSOP, read some books, and would now like to drag huge pots from the fish making thousands a day and never lose, rather than grind it out over an extended sample size. Same can be said for most of the people who get into day trading and real estate.

[MediaPA]

Reading books and visiting forums is only information. If you don't know how to apply the information that you've obtained properly, then it's actually pretty useless.

I know my game struggles immensely due to lack of patience and desire to take shots. I'm trying to grind it out having learned from my mistakes. I put 1k online to play $50Max NL. I've already played 400Max and 1000Max with the money.

Key thing is there's more to success than just books and forums. Game selection, personal issues, situation analysis, etc all contribute.

[CaptSensible]

[ QUOTE ]
Why cant players who read books and go to the forums be at least break even players? I guess I felt sorry for them because it seemed unfair since they put in some effort.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been playing for about a year and still consider myself a novice. Now if you put me in a game where no one has played before I would destroy them. Put me in with pros and I'll get destroyed.

When I first started playing I didn't understand the "play the player not the cards" concept. I thought "how can you win if you don't have the best hand?"

The more I play and learn the more I understand this concept. There's a great book called "Aces and Kings". It's about some of the best players who've ever played the game. It gives great insight into why the top players are the top players. It really has very little to do with the cards.

There's a chapter on Howard Lederer. He lost consistantly for two years and at times was sleeping on a park bench having lost everything.

The more I learn the more I realize how difficult this game is. Most of the greatest players have been playing for years and years, starting when they were very young. They also spent the early part of their poker careers losing.

I don't know how long the people you're referring to have been playing but my guess is not very long.

Poker is a very tough game. I guess it's really like anything else. I consider myself a great bass player and a pretty good songwriter BUT I've been doing it since I was 12. My first songs sucked! It's taken years to become a more accomplished songwriter. Pro baseball players have been playing since they were little kids. Spending most of their lives learning how to be good at what they do.

I think poker is like anything else. To be really good you have to devote yourself to it and be willing to spend a LONG time becoming accomplished at it. Even then, like writing songs or playing baseball there is no guarentee that you'll be great at it. The main reason for doing anything you devote yourself to should be because you love it.

[runout_mick]

[ QUOTE ]
Not everyone can win, or break even. Even by trying hard
and studying. If you think about it, you will understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think that those who actively study the game are a vast minority. As proof of this, look at the number of active posters here (easily the most informed poker site on the net), compared to the number of players who play just at party. Not to mention the players on the hundred or so other sites out there.

I believe very few players give it more thought than they do to playing craps or roulette, to them it's just gambling.

Maybe in 5 years when the fad dies down and only hardcore players remain will your sentiment be true, but with this environment of unlimited bandwagon "I saw it on t.v., looked easy" players, I believe that ANYONE with an I.Q. over 14 can be a break-even player, if they STUDY, and PRACTICE WHAT THEY LEARN. A little discipline and my pet monkey could become a break even player.

[Goodnews]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why cant players who read books and go to the forums be at least break even players? I guess I felt sorry for them because it seemed unfair since they put in some effort.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been playing for about a year and still consider myself a novice. Now if you put me in a game where no one has played before I would destroy them. Put me in with pros and I'll get destroyed.

When I first started playing I didn't understand the "play the player not the cards" concept. I thought "how can you win if you don't have the best hand?"

The more I play and learn the more I understand this concept. There's a great book called "Aces and Kings". It's about some of the best players who've ever played the game. It gives great insight into why the top players are the top players. It really has very little to do with the cards.

There's a chapter on Howard Lederer. He lost consistantly for two years and at times was sleeping on a park bench having lost everything.

The more I learn the more I realize how difficult this game is. Most of the greatest players have been playing for years and years, starting when they were very young. They also spent the early part of their poker careers losing.

I don't know how long the people you're referring to have been playing but my guess is not very long.

Poker is a very tough game. I guess it's really like anything else. I consider myself a great bass player and a pretty good songwriter BUT I've been doing it since I was 12. My first songs sucked! It's taken years to become a more accomplished songwriter. Pro baseball players have been playing since they were little kids. Spending most of their lives learning how to be good at what they do.

I think poker is like anything else. To be really good you have to devote yourself to it and be willing to spend a LONG time becoming accomplished at it. Even then, like writing songs or playing baseball there is no guarentee that you'll be great at it. The main reason for doing anything you devote yourself to should be because you love it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good response. Havn't seen one in a long time.

Cheers.

[gildwulf]

[ QUOTE ]
Why cant players who read books and go to the forums be at least break even players?

[/ QUOTE ]

The short answer? Discipline, game selection skill, and bankroll management.

[Al Schoonmaker]

People lose for FIVE major reasons, and you have considered only the first one.

First and most important is LACK OF KNOWLEDGE. Obviously, if you don't know how to play, you can't play well. However, knowledge alone will NOT make you a winner. You and the poker literature focus almost exclusively on knowledge, but many people don’t play remotely as well as they know how to play.

Second is LACK OF MOTIVATION. Most losers don’t have a strong enough desire to win. They let other motives such as the desire to gamble or to take tough challenges cause them to make negative EV decisions, even if they know that they will cost them money.

Third is LACK OF DISCIPLINE. You don’t have to be a genius or even extremely knowledgeable to beat poker. You just need the discipline to do all the unnatural, unpleasant things that it takes to win. The two most important are:

1. Be ruthlessly honest about yourself and your opposition. Otherwise, you will select the wrong games and make foolish plays.

2. Do all sorts of boring things like fold, fold, fold. You want to play, but have to wait, and wait, and wait.

You must do many other things, but you have NO chance to win without these two.

Fourth is UNRELIABLE FEEDBACK. As SSH clearly explains, poker feedback is extremely unreliable. Unlike many activities, “the immediate results in poker are often divorced from your actions.” (p. 17) You can play well and lose, or play poorly and win for the short term. To be a long-term winner you must see beyond the immediate results, learn the right lessons, then apply them in a disciplined way.

Fifth is that CARDROOM POKER IS A NEGATIVE-SUM GAME. The players collectively ALWAYS lose. The house takes so much money out of the game that you must be significantly above average just to break even.

Because of all five factors, MOST players will ALWAYS BE LOSERS. Those people who quit because they are losers are MUCH more intelligent than the ones who refuse to accept reality, keep playing badly, and keep losing.

Regards,

Al

[Myst]

[ QUOTE ]
Those people who quit because they are losers are MUCH more intelligent than the ones who refuse to accept reality, keep playing badly, and keep losing.



[/ QUOTE ]

Thank god that the latter are more numerous than the former Al.

[Jorge10]

[ QUOTE ]
Third is LACK OF DISCIPLINE. You don’t have to be a genius or even extremely knowledgeable to beat poker. You just need the discipline to do all the unnatural, unpleasant things that it takes to win. The two most important are:


[/ QUOTE ]

I think thats the killer, most of the posts seem to say that they took shots at higher limits at one point.

[ QUOTE ]
The house takes so much money out of the game that you must be significantly above average just to break even.


[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I dont know some pretty bad players are online playing everyday and they seem to be marginal winners and they are pretty bad.

Very good responses, espcially from Dr. Al.

[Xhad]

Do you honestly keep enough records about anyone other than yourself to have a significant sample size?

[Al Schoonmaker]

In reply to my comment that you have to be significantly better than average to win you wrote: "Really? I dont know some pretty bad players are online playing everyday and they seem to be marginal winners and they are pretty bad."

The question is not whether they are bad. It is whether they are better than the opposition.

Nobody knows the percentage of people who play that end up winning. The most common estimates are from 10 to 15%. Some recent posters referred to a "study" that found that only 7% of online players win. I have no idea where that number came from or how that study was conducted, and it might be just a myth.

You must understand that the house takes an ENORMOUS amount out of the game. In low stakes games it works out to 2-3 BB per hour per player in B&M rooms, much more online. If you aren't much better than average, that charge will kill you.

Regards,

Al

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody knows the percentage of people who play that end up winning. The most common estimates are from 10 to 15%. Some recent posters referred to a "study" that found that only 7% of online players win. I have no idea where that number came from or how that study was conducted, and it might be just a myth.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it was from a Jackpot Jay column. He said two executives from two different online poker sites gave him 7% and 8% as the amount of players who show a yearly profit.

[valenzuela]

joe deposists 50, he loses , he never plays again..those numbers aint that correct,.I think that more accurate math would be,
on a 10 handed table.. 1,5 players are winning players over the long run(not 0,7 or something)
Btw there is no such thing as a break even player...I think thats its kinda mathematicly imposible...or u have -ev or u have +ev..so what if ure EV is one cent over 100000 hands of 30/60, its still +EV. thats why u cant be a break even player on the long run.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Thank you

Al

[Sniper]

Al, thought you saw this already, but here's the link to Jay's article...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lovinger/050719&num=0

[bernie]

Whatta great post Al.

[ QUOTE ]
Fourth is UNRELIABLE FEEDBACK. As SSH clearly explains, poker feedback is extremely unreliable. Unlike many activities, “the immediate results in poker are often divorced from your actions.” (p. 17) You can play well and lose, or play poorly and win for the short term. To be a long-term winner you must see beyond the immediate results, learn the right lessons, then apply them in a disciplined way

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is one of the bigger reasons many of them fail. I've mentioned many times to people that I think that early chapter in SSHE is one of the most important because of how it explains it. Many will skip over it and get to the actual playing advice. Then when they start losing a bit, even if they are playing right, they'll only see the shortterm aspect of it, magnified.

Then they quit using the recommendations thinking that Ed is just another crackpot cashing in on the popularity of the game. Then they'll go back to Phils book because, after all, EVERYONE knows phil and that he won so he must know better. This shortterm result could be even if they play a month str8 and go on a bad run. Many just don't know, or really believe in, the swings that can occur. They think the longrun is about a month or so. Or sooner. Which then, obviously, leads to the lack of discipline. Everyone has discipline when they're winning. Which is why it's during a losing streak you really see just how good the player is, and how much he really understands the game, imo. Many will learn a 'move' they see in a book but not the reasoning behind it. When the 'move' fails a few times, they'll likely abandon it and go back to their old bad habitual way of playing as it's more comfortable for them to play that way.


b

[gergery]

Barry Greenstein's book covers what he thinks it takes to be a successful pro. And I'd guess <30% of the book is devoted to how to play invididual hands.

Giving them books doesn't even get them halfway to being winning players.
-g

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
Why cant players who read books and go to the forums be at least break even players?

[/ QUOTE ]
Most people hate doing actual thinking and will do a great deal to avoid it.

[jokerthief]

They could be good players who are on the bad end of the variance curve and just don't know how long the long run can actually be. For example they could be only single tabling and hit a bad run of cards for 5,000 hands and it's enough to discourage them.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Thank you. I just read the article and enjoyed it immensely. I could not see any way to contact Jay. Do you know how to do it?

Regards,

Al

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you. I just read the article and enjoyed it immensely. I could not see any way to contact Jay. Do you know how to do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't seen an email adress for him anywhere.

If anyone has access to the binghamton alumni database, he graduated in 1964 and they may have his email listed there.

[AZnuts]

As an analogy, a lot of kids play little league baseball, but what percentage actually move on to a higher professional level? The game itself figures that out, and filters the winners from the losers.

It's the nature of all competition, and the attraction for the competitors.

No need to feel sorry for players; they enjoyed the challenge even if they decide to stop.

Specific to poker, some just have enough money to keep on giving even though they are losing players and know it - just like an entertainment expense.

[threeonefour]

isn't break even the hardest type of player to become. i think people should start elminating that phrase from their vocabulary. it is very very very unlikely that any player consistently has an EV of exactly zero.

you are either a winner or a loser. of course many times you do not have enough information about someone's play to conclude which they are.

[Orpheus]

I think the claim that it is difficult or impossoble to be a "breakeven" player is over-objectifying the term. I suppose such stark criteria are a natural reaction to a game with so much uncertainty and long term variance.

Beyond a certain point (maybe ±0.5BB/100), any additional "precision" is meaningless arithmetic. What does it mean to call a player with +$0.01 or +$1 after a million hands --or a billion-- "a +EV player"? Even after a trillion hands, they could be -10BB after their next hand. There is nothing magic about "a million hands" that makes it more accurate than "a million and one" and since any player is outnumbered at the table, it is *probable* that a +$1/million player will go negative within 10-20 hands (and will recover later, through a jackpot). Is he REALLY +$1/1,000,000 or -$10/1,000,010? Both are equally accurate.

Given the inherent variance of the game, the boundaries of "knowably breakeven" are certainly at least ±1 pot/lifetime and probably ±1-3 top sessions/lifetime (the player's largest winning or losing sessions are clearly atypical). It's like the probability cloud of the Schreodinger wave equation in quantum mechanics -- in reality, there *is* no single objective value. (or, if you prefer, "No one can even know exactly where they are in their variance 'cycles'.")

Moreover, any player is constantly changing [learning, forgeting, encountering drifts in venue conditions, affected by internal or external life conditions, etc.] Few people ever play a million hands, and those who do will change so much over that time, that their million hand average is probably a LESS accurate than the stats for their last 10K-100K hands -- and every diehard 2+2'er knows that "large but not statistically large" samples in that range is barely enough for a reasonable guess of whether a player near breakeven is slightly above or slightly below zero EV after rake.

Also, EV isn't uniformly distributed, and certain psychological forces, and even wise choices keep players closer to breakeven than they could otherwise be. Less disciplined players may play looser when winning, and tighter when lossing. Dedicated students often take hits to their EV (in BB/100) as they move up in stakes, begin to play smaller edges, or broaden their game range--all of which are +EV in dollars over the long term, but tend to reduce EV until those skills ae mastered. I mean, who cares if moving to a higher level permanently reduces my BB/100 -- I'd rather +1 BB/100 in 5/10 than +100 BB/100 in .01/.02!

Im'not saying that most players aren't strongly and distinctly +EV or -EV, to a high degree of certainty. I'm just saying that defining "a breakeven player" as someone whose profit is "exactly $0" is meaningless.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont know can anyone answer this, Why cant players who read books and go to the forums be at least break even players?

[/ QUOTE ]
I was playing with my brother-in-law once on a $25NL table. He had KQ, and the flop came 3QK. Someone bet $3. He folded. He said he figured with that size bet, the guy must've had a set.

Bottom line... he's cheap. He read the books, but he could not bear to risk even 3 bucks unless he had the absolute nuts. He's a smart guy - and much better at math than I am. I have no doubt he has the intelligence and ability to be a winning player. But some people are just not cut out for gambling.

[Jorge10]

[ QUOTE ]
I was playing with my brother-in-law once on a $25NL table. He had KQ, and the flop came 3QK. Someone bet $3. He folded. He said he figured with that size bet, the guy must've had a set.

Bottom line... he's cheap. He read the books, but he could not bear to risk even 3 bucks unless he had the absolute nuts. He's a smart guy - and much better at math than I am. I have no doubt he has the intelligence and ability to be a winning player. But some people are just not cut out for gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

My friend is just like that, and he sadly is a losing player I dont know if thats the cause, but it could be.

[ QUOTE ]
He's a smart guy - and much better at math than I am. I have no doubt he has the intelligence and ability to be a winning player. But some people are just not cut out for gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I played with a guy who would often fold AK before the flop, because it had "no potential to turn into a big hand".

I think a player starting out tight and less gambling-oriented has potential to do better than players who are gamblers by nature and must work to tighten up and get a grip and their emotions.

[Jorge10]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a player starting out tight and less gambling-oriented has potential to do better than players who are gamblers by nature and must work to tighten up and get a grip and their emotions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know about that, I think both have a good shot, I personally started as a very tight non gambling type and have changed a lot, but it took me about 5 months of non stop playing thousands of hands, so it was a long time would have been years in real life play. Im sure people that needed to tighten up have done it faster.

I say this because I'm under the [possibly false] impression that the biggest mistake new players make is playing too many hands. I also make the assumption that players playing too few hands are closer to the ideal number of hands to play than players playing many hands.

[Mr. Curious]

[ QUOTE ]
Reading books and visiting forums is only information. If you don't know how to apply the information that you've obtained properly, then it's actually pretty useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've done fairly well playing GSIH short stack style in NL and recently let a friend borrow GSIH. He has played since then and I know understands how to play short stack style, yet he will still be a long term loser because he is not willing to adhere to the rules laid out. Discipline is key.

[xxJEDIxx]

There is a lot of good points made here, excellent post for those on the journey.
I have played all my life, since age 17-18, and seriously(record keeping/reading-studying,etc..) the last 3 years. The main element here is to learn the "whole" of the poker dynamic. The key ingredients to this is to realize the probability of a winning player over time and apply your skill level to that probability and also to understand true swings of variance. As follows:

-1- Everyone cannot be a winner. In fact, after applying all factors(rake,variance,psychology, natural talent, timing, economics, and many more variables) most players will be losers. Less than 20% can mathematically win long term(generous estimate). That being said, Are you willing to work and do what it takes longterm to be better than 80% of players? most are not...

-2- Understanding the "whole" may help players especially novice or new players understand what their getting into. Using the points above to open your mind to the whole of the game, Do you think that one could buy a set of nice Ping golf clubs, take lessons, practice hard and then after a few years be able to compete with pros for a living ? No,
and to accept that poker on the whole is the same as any other professional endeavor will enlighten you.

However, due to "short term luck" or card variance(inevetable) in poker a newer less skilled player could compete in a series of short term iterations(tourny) and win with "a good run". In time, skill will prevail, but with high payouts on some majors such as WPT and WSOP events a newer player could "hit paydirt" if you will. Do you really think some of these 22 yr old winners on the WPT are as skilled as guys who have played for a lifetime? No, but factor in econimics and bankroll and after a big win they now have a cushion to keep playing while improving their lifestyle. These points being made, building a winning percentage over time grinding it out will take much more skill and devotion than a short term tournament with a big top end payout. Example, Chris Moneymaker won 2-1/2 million at the 03 WSOP, It could take many years to lose that back, thus making him a winning player but not as skilled as many who have played for years. So, your venue must also be factored in, this is why many invest in the tournament trail for the Big payout.

*figures above are not exact but paints a good overall representation of the poker dynamic IE player/winning/losing expectation..