Comment on Miller's Editorial

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

In my private conversations the past few years I have mentioned that Two Plus Two'ers were slowly beginning to dominate poker. By this I mean that they will make up a large number of the best players regardless of the type of poker or stakes being played. This includes tournaments as well as the cash games, and Internet play as well as B&M. Ed's editorial is another bit of evidence that this is now happening.

Of course our books and this site have a lot to do with it, but another aspect of the type of people attracted to our stuff is that they are willing to work hard on their games. So Two Plus Two can't take all the credit, just a portion of it.

Anyway, as time goes on, we'll do our best to see that this trend continues.

Best wishes,
Mason

[tipperdog]

I sense gross exaggeration in Ed's note, and I would invite you and him to comment on these passages:

[ QUOTE ]

"I hear story after story that all go something like:

"I was a struggling $2-$4 player with a $2,000 bankroll a year and a half ago. Then [I moved up...(deletia)... and now my] main game is in the $100-$200 to $300-$600 range and my bankroll is $300,000"


[/ QUOTE ]

I moved from 2-4 to 100-200+ and banked $298,000 in a year and a half?! Ed says that he hears "story after story" like this, implying MANY stories (50-100?). I believe such a rapid rise is highly improbable. It's certainly unlikely to happen many times over.

[ QUOTE ]

[Years ago, David wrote that earning $50,000 a year from poker] "should be no big deal." Now it seems like maybe that number should be more like $200,000.


[/ QUOTE ]

A 30/60 player earning 1.5BBs/hr playing 40 hours/wk, 50 weeks per year would not earn $200K, and I suspect that VERY few 30/60 players can sustain that win rate over such a grueling schedule. I believe that earning $200K/yr would place you among the very top echelon of professional players--far from "no big deal" earnings.

I fear that advancing these earn/win rates sets up unrealistic expectations for the many aspiring pros that read these boards.

Ed/Mason, in the clear light of day, don't you think that you may have exaggerated just a bit?

As a fellow member of the dog-themed name contingent, I felt I should be the first to ask: You've never heard of multi-tabling?

[Ed Miller]

To be sure, these are not "run of the mill" results. These are the results of the most successful 2+2ers. But there are a lot of people who have stories like this, and if you doubt it, I encourage you to read the Mid- and High-Stakes forum for a couple of weeks.

Also, your calculation is for live play. Banking $200k+ a year playing live would indeed put you very near the top. But doing so online is not entirely remarkable.

So yes, I was exaggerating a bit when I said perhaps $200k/a year should be the new "no big deal." But otherwise, I'm telling true stories (that aren't being told outside 2+2) of a number of players.

[12AX7]

Hi Ed,
I've read your book. I still have bad results.

How about this challenge. You and 2+2 personally train me. I'll pay you a percentage of my 200K a year for the rest of my playing life.


[ QUOTE ]
To be sure, these are not "run of the mill" results. These are the results of the most successful 2+2ers. But there are a lot of people who have stories like this, and if you doubt it, I encourage you to read the Mid- and High-Stakes forum for a couple of weeks.

Also, your calculation is for live play. Banking $200k+ a year playing live would indeed put you very near the top. But doing so online is not entirely remarkable.

So yes, I was exaggerating a bit when I said perhaps $200k/a year should be the new "no big deal." But otherwise, I'm telling true stories (that aren't being told outside 2+2) of a number of players.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So yes, I was exaggerating a bit when I said perhaps $200k/a year should be the new "no big deal." But otherwise, I'm telling true stories (that aren't being told outside 2+2) of a number of players.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may have been an exaggeration, but to me it seemed like a writing style to get the point across. Obviously, $200k is a good "earn" that many 2+2ers don't make.

Maybe some dumb college kid reading the editiorial will get googly-eyed.

[kahntrutahn]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Ed,
I've read your book. I still have bad results.

How about this challenge. You and 2+2 personally train me. I'll pay you a percentage of my 200K a year for the rest of my playing life.


[/ QUOTE ]

If there were some way to hold you to this, I'd do it /images/graemlins/smile.gif Alas, any way I could come up with, I find an easy way to get out of for an unscrupulous person (not saying you are!).

You could make only 1.0BBs per Hour AND play only 4 hours a day...
The trick is to 4 table it!

I don't do it, but I have 4 tabled $2/4 and absolutely crushed the heck out of it on all 4 tables at once, so I see how an expert player could
do the same at 30/60, providing the spread of games was large enough (allowing for the expert to "select" the 4 best 30/60 games to play in...).

My goal is to be there in a couple months time...I only lack the bankroll and experience (of playing that high/dealing with the swings and not going nuts/pulling my hair out...)

Joe M.

OH, and if said player wins (or places top 5 in 1 or 2 or several) just 1 decent sized Multi-table in that year, just 1! Then that could account for
a HUGE boost to their winnings...(provided they are not dumping lots of cash buying into and never cashing in these tournaments! lol).

[tipperdog]

This is what I'm talking about. Ilovebadbeats, I wish you the very best. But know that your goals seem very farfetched. I'm quite sure that you could crush the 2/4 tables, but you'll find that the 30/60s are a bit different.

I've played 30/60 before and I know very well that it's a "bit different." lol

I also know that this it is a beatable game and there are ppl. that beat it
for more than 1BB per hour...and they don't have to play 40 hours a week to make
large sums of money...I don't do it - I don't have the proper bankroll and I
probably wouldn't be able to handle the swings there (that you'd be sure to encounter with sustained play at that limit)(without letting my emotions take over, etc.)

Thank you for your encouragement. And for your warning...I know that for every guy that can sustain a good win rate there there are countless
others who have busted out or are simply -EV players there...The trick is to
be in that top tier who can hack it...and to not lose your life savings trying to
find out whether you are good enough or not. lol

[12AX7]

True, there would be the problem of being able to accurately audit my results. A fair consideration im a group of people who play a game who's name mean "to bluff". I.E. lie. LOL!

And heck I'd want to put the following sort of provision in place from my side:

1) .too pay instructor x xx% of my *post tax net* calculated Jan 1 to Jan 1, year to year..

LOL!

I'm the type that always thought a stockbroker should be paid as a percentage of my gains, and have to re-imburse me for losses (on his particular reccomendations, can't hold him liable for my own judgements). That's the only way I can see to make a brokerage house's goals and the client's goals align. Smith-Barney's bottom line needs to be tied to my own. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Anyway, yeah, I guess it'd be a hard deal to enforce properly. But I don't know how else you could make a clear cut challenge to the poker literati of it.

I see these two story lines going. A) 95% fail. B) Folks make $xxx,000 a year at it "easily".

As one poster pointed out, you could interpret that this way....(though he used garbage men)...

"A Surgeon 'easily' can make $200,000 a year [but it takes a lot of work and is very hard to get to be a surgeon]."

But the way you generally encounter it in the literature it isn't couched that way. I'm sure you can find several places in SSHE where the optimistic interpretation is highlighted.

No crack on the book. It is one of the most direct and readable poker texts I've ever seen. Wish I'd had it years ago.

But in a similar vien, I mess with digital recording somewhat. If you are familiar with it, maybe you know what a PODxt is? (A guitar amp simulator.) Thier manuals and literature make it sound like the sound of all the classic rock tunes are built right in. The reality is something quite different, as some 120,000 post on one bulletin board alone testify.

So many things do not live up to thier hype, that I for one have become a cynic. And unapolgetically so. LOL!

[Peter McDermott]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are familiar with it, maybe you know what a PODxt is? (A guitar amp simulator.) Thier manuals and literature make it sound like the sound of all the classic rock tunes are built right in. The reality is something quite different, as some 120,000 post on one bulletin board alone testify.


[/ QUOTE ]

If someone expects an amp simulator to be actually playing the tunes for them, then it's no wonder that they're disappointed. They're clearly expecting it to do something that it isn't designed to do.

In order to get the tunes out of it, you've also got to put in the hard work of actually learning to be a competent player as well. And even this will only give you satisfactory results. It's still not going to make a basic competent player into Jimi Hendrix.

Surely poker and poker literature are pretty similar? In order to become competent, you've first got to learn and understand the various concepts involved. This is *all* that the books can teach you.

To be successful, you then have to have the discipline to be able to apply them at the right time. You also need the intelligence and the experience to be able to balance competing concepts and figure out which one is best to apply in any particular situation. Study can assist you in the process of moving you in that particular direction, but the books alone can't actually do it for you.

I wish that it could. I'm a quick student myself, but I don't always have the discipline to do what the theory tells me is the correct move, and I certainly don't have the experience necessary to assist me in choosing between two competing concepts most of the time.

So I just work on continuously improving my game, one concept at a time. And I'm definitely improving, which is all I can really hope for.

On a related note, I've noticed that everyone always seems to recommend SSHE to beginning players, but when I very first started playing, I think that there were just too many concepts in a book like SSHE. (OK, so I started with Jones' LLHE, but the same principle applies.)

However, when I picked up Sklansky's first book, Hold 'Em Poker, there was just enough information in there for me to be able to hold most of it in my head most of the time. Because I wasn't trying to balance too many concepts simultaneously, I was finally able to pay enough attention to the very basic things that I really needed to master before moving on -- things like starting hands, position, reading opponents hands, etc.

I guess I'm saying that poker is a lot like being a musician. You really need to master the basic things like scales and chords, before you can move on to being any kind of virtuoso.

[TimsterToo]

[ QUOTE ]
On a related note, I've noticed that everyone always seems to recommend SSHE to beginning players, but when I very first started playing, I think that there were just too many concepts in a book like SSHE. (OK, so I started with Jones' LLHE, but the same principle applies.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Ed Miller's new book "Getting Started in Holdem" fills that gap quite nicely.

I do think though that SSHE is a good book to start with if you can deal with just reading one chapter at a time and applying what you've learned and when you're comfortable with it move on.

The starting hand chapter is the best one I've come across in the various books I've read. If I get friends started on poker I tell them to play for a couple of hours, then read the whole preflop part of SSHE, print out a starting hand chart and play some more.

In the microlimits it instantly transforms them from losing players to winning players. (I'm talking 0,02/0,04 etc)

I did notice though that every time I learned a new concept or reread SSHE I would instantly start loosing. It's very hard for a beginning player (or to be more exact, it was very hard for me /images/graemlins/grin.gif) to learn a new concept and then understand that it's not always applicable. But subtlety is learned through experience.

[ptmusic]

I still love my original Pod ('course I ain't selling my Marshall half stack either)! BTW, are you talking about the musicplayer forum?

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
In my private conversations the past few years I have mentioned that Two Plus Two'ers were slowly beginning to dominate poker. By this I mean that they will make up a large number of the best players regardless of the type of poker or stakes being played. This includes tournaments as well as the cash games, and Internet play as well as B&M. Ed's editorial is another bit of evidence that this is now happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't exactly call it evidence, but I agree with everything else you wrote in your OP.

[flair1239]

I think if you looked hard enough, One of the more common results would be someone like myself.

Who has learned to grind and play moderately well. I may never make $200,000. But I do make enough to pay may my daycare expenses, alimony, and a good chunk of my monthly bills.

So although I may not have the kind of blockbuster results, your editor's note refered to, my life has been changed for the better. I think these stories are probably more common and more realistic. Also possibly just as gratifying for you...

Oh, by the way... Thank you (Mason, Daivd, and ED) your work has improved my life.

[limon]

heres an anecdote. take it for what it's worth. a respected poster and top online multitabler (who shall remain nameless) did win 180k last year in the mid limits and is up only 10k this year, which is about .0000001bb/100. he started the year on a $36,000 losing steak and has just recently got his head back above water. many of these 200k a year players have earned this for EXACTLY ONE YEAR. we now know that a 650 bb downswing is commonplace, how many have had to live through it yet? we'll see what the future brings

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
heres an anecdote. take it for what it's worth. a respected poster and top online multitabler (who shall remain nameless) did win 180k last year in the mid limits and is up only 10k this year, which is about .0000001bb/100. he started the year on a $36,000 losing steak and has just recently got his head back above water. many of these 200k a year players have earned this for EXACTLY ONE YEAR. we now know that a 650 bb downswing is commonplace, how many have had to live through it yet? we'll see what the future brings

[/ QUOTE ]

You're definitely right. A lot of the guys who earned 200k in one year will never hit that number again in their lives. Others (though likely a smaller group) will hit it repeatedly.

My point is that if you do hit 200k, whether that's your "true" earn or nowhere near, you should be smart about what you do with your money.

[RED_RAIN]

[ QUOTE ]

[Years ago, David wrote that earning $50,000 a year from poker] "should be no big deal." Now it seems like maybe that number should be more like $200,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Banking $200k+ a year playing live would indeed put you very near the top. But doing so online is not entirely remarkable.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many posters on 2+2 do you think make over $200,000/yr online and live combined even? I wouldn't even think 5%. Even with the 42414 registered users, I wouldn't even think over 500 make $200,000/yr+ which is barely over 1%.

I'm just trying to think about the mid/high-stakes posters and even the bankroll people have for the games. Another question might be how many do you even think play 100/200+ regularlly.

I guess I just feel your statement makes it sound like it's pretty easy and lots of people are doing it. I also don't think there are a ton of full-time poker players on this site but instead a ton who have a job and play poker on the side where $200,000/yr would be significant bank.

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
we now know that a 650 bb downswing is commonplace

[/ QUOTE ]

this is totally wrong. i'm surprised ed miller agrees.

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
This is what I'm talking about. Ilovebadbeats, I wish you the very best. But know that your goals seem very farfetched. I'm quite sure that you could crush the 2/4 tables, but you'll find that the 30/60s are a bit different.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have been playing poker for 7 months and I 8 table 30/60. Making 1BB/100 at this limit (if I manage to do so) would net me approximately $500/hr + rakeback which is another $60/hr. I would need to play 400hrs/year or about 30hrs/month to make 200K in a year.

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we now know that a 650 bb downswing is commonplace

[/ QUOTE ]

this is totally wrong. i'm surprised ed miller agrees.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree that it's quite "commonplace." But we're splitting some hairs at that point. If you're making 1BB/100 hands at limit where people play really aggressive, a 650BB downswing is remarkable, but not exactly lightning striking.

EDIT: Then again, I was hyperbole-ing a bit when I said that $200k a year is "not entirely remarkable." That's a very significant earn that anyone should be quite proud of.

[12AX7]

Hi Peter,
Well, the thing about the PODxt ads and manual are they make it appear as though all those classic sound of say, Zep IV are just going to fall out of it. Or more correctly those tones. Not the playing skill. I'm here to tell you. It doesn't work like that. LOL!

I own the PODxt, POD 2.3, V-amp2 and several of the real amps they model. I've been messing with recording since I was 12 and am now 43. I think I have a reasonable background to say that Line 6's copy writers are a bit optimistic.

Sort of like Ed's latest editorial. Some folks may have done what he says. I don't question that. But my god, does it not read like, "I read SSHE and that one book changed my into a WSOP level champ."

As an example, I've studyied and outlined Ed's Short Stack system, and have played it as best I could for as much as 24 hours straight at time and have concluding some important things really are left out. (e.g. playing from the blinds? How to determine if you *are* best on the flop??? Not just "if you think you are best"... and that's really the key to the whole game now, isn't it?)

Anyway, it just has that feel of an infomercial. "Joe Blow made a million at this and you could to..." Then the really fine print or really fast blurb comes by..."results not typical".

Sort of like the red herring thing on stocks. "Neither approved nor disapproved" LOL!

Somewhat reminds me of Wade Cook books or Jake Bernstein as well.

Just freakin once I'd like to see one of these "make money" publications really work, for *me*.

If the income of the info marketers out there was tied to thier customer base's results I think you'd see a lot of things change or disappear altogether. But that's a general critique from a lifetime of seeing and reading these sort of things and *never* once seeing one actually work.

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't agree that it's quite "commonplace." But we're splitting some hairs at that point. If you're making 1BB/100 hands at limit where people play really aggressive, a 650BB downswing is remarkable, but not exactly lightning striking.


[/ QUOTE ]


Doing some quick math, there is about a 1 in 250 chance that a player making "true" 1BB/100 will drop 650BB over a 100K stretch. I guess "very unlikely" would be a better term to describe such a downswing.

Also, the reason I post so much and read and study vigorously (not sure if that's the word I want) is because I want to get better. And the better the player, the smaller the downswing. A 2BB/100 player going on a 650BB downswing is extremely unlikely -- I'd guess to the order of hundredths of a percentage chance.

[limon]

multi table on line players w/ 300k hands+ playing 15-30 and higher who havnt hit a 550-650 bb downswing are the exeption and not the rule. unless somehow they never play short.

[12AX7]

Just going to corroborate here. I think Ed's writing is very clear compared to a lot of writing out there. And definitely GSIH and SSHE should be required reading for all noobs. Or even not so noobs.

They are good works, no doubt about it.

[limon]

what pro player do you know who plays only 100k in a year? try 300k.

[TaintedRogue]

You can obtain from both PokerStars and Party Poker, a complete history of your deposits and withdrawals since you first signed up.

I doubt anyone will ever post a copy of one proving their 200K per yr claim.

They could even black out their name and have someone else post it to avoid tax consequences. So, there is no excuse.
There's a lot of talk from a lot of people.

I also do not see how it is possible for someone to play poker 8 hours a day, 50 weeks a year, live or on-line, for an extended period of time.

Finally, Sklansky claimed some time back that he doubts that there are more than 100 people in the world making over 100K a year playing 30/60. I believe that was prior to the boom in on-line poker.

[RED_RAIN]

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, Sklansky claimed some time back that he doubts that there are more than 100 people in the world making over 100K a year playing 30/60. I believe that was prior to the boom in on-line poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is old school. As I think someone who plays 10/20-15/30 multi 4-5 tables could break 100k.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
You can obtain from both PokerStars and Party Poker, a complete history of your deposits and withdrawals since you first signed up.

I doubt anyone will ever post a copy of one proving their 200K per yr claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anything posted here in a digital form can easily be faked with photoshop, so how is accepting a picture of someone's cash outs any different than taking someone's word for it?

[ QUOTE ]
I also do not see how it is possible for someone to play poker 8 hours a day, 50 weeks a year, live or on-line, for an extended period of time.

Finally, Sklansky claimed some time back that he doubts that there are more than 100 people in the world making over 100K a year playing 30/60. I believe that was prior to the boom in on-line poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would take a live player 32 hours to play the number of hands I get in 4 hours.

Right now I play 15/30 online, 4 tables. Each month I average 4 hours per day, including the days I don't play at all.

One big bet per hour per table (equivalent to half a big bet per hour in live play), averaging 4 hours per day for a year = $175,200.

Now factor this in:

- A good player can double this win rate at 15/30.
- A good 30/60 player can do even better than that.
- It's possible to play more than four tables at a time
- It's possible to average more than four hours per day.

[ptmusic]

Online tables move at about 60 hands per hour. That's not double the number of hands in b&m, now that casinos have automatic shufflers.

Also, winning 1 bb per 60 hands equals 1.67 bb/100. Maintaining that winrate, OVER THE LONG RUN, while multitabling more than 4 tables at once, for more than 4 hours per day, at 15/30 (or even more unlikely at 30/60) is fiction.

Show me a five-year-running success story with the above stats, and I'll show you a liar.

[4thstreetpete]

[ QUOTE ]

A 30/60 player earning 1.5BBs/hr playing 40 hours/wk, 50 weeks per year would not earn $200K, and I suspect that VERY few 30/60 players can sustain that win rate over such a grueling schedule. I believe that earning $200K/yr would place you among the very top echelon of professional players--far from "no big deal" earnings.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think a lot of the big winners who do make over 200K a year don't really come on 2+2 and talk about it. I'm also fairly convinced that a lot of people are underestimating how many players do make this kind of money.

Like people have said earlier a 30/60 player can easily make this much simply by multitabling. Even if you were a mediocre 1BB/100 hand winner you will reach the 200K mark just by playing enough tables and enough hands throughout the year.

If you read the mid/high forums on a regular basis you will see there are lots of people who play 8 tables of 30/60 at a time and many more who do more than that. Also if you can play 8 tables of 30/60, moving to the 100/200 games and beyond to the 300/600 games are not that much of a big deal. Simply because there aren't that many 300/600 games to be played online to begin with. Add up the numbers and it can get staggering.

And no, making 200K a year does not (in my mind) place you on the top echelon of poker players. My personal opinion is that it's not that difficult.

Oh btw, I do believe that it is much easier for a younger player with fewer expenses to continually move up. If you are married with kids with a lot of commitments and expenses I believe it's fairly difficult to move up to a point where you're making outrageous money. Most of what you make will go to paying bills and luxury items.

For a younger player with not too much expenses he/she could just never touch his/her bankroll and use it to move up in limits all the time.

Where do you play where there is a large spread of games (good number of 30/60 tables) and you can get Rakeback too?

Pls. tell me! The only site I know that has a good number of 30/60 tables going on all the time is Party.
Are you playing on a skin of party?