PDA

View Full Version : Type A personality/need advice


08-15-2002, 01:27 PM
I think having this type of personality severely hampers me at the poker table. I can't seem to build a bankroll because I'm too impatient to grind the low limits.


Here's an example, I started playing with a 300 bankroll. I knew I should be playing .50-1.00, but those limits don't interest me. It is not fun or enjoyable to grind $1 per hour, and I can't see the light at the end of the 2000 hour tunnel to sit there and do it.


So what do I do, I take a shot at 3-6, at this level the money starts to mean something, and this is the level I'd like to play/learn at for at least 1000 hours. I ran/played good for 50 hours had my bankroll up to 700, then things started to turn and I started to run bad. This along with my type A personality led me to the 5-10 table because I could win it back faster. However that was just a joke and now I've gone broke 2 out of 2 times I've tried to build a bankroll.


I know playing above your bankroll (way above in my case) is a sure way to go bust, but I have no interest in limits below 3-6.


Should I just try to work and save enough money to have a decent 3-6 bankroll, or should I just keep taking these kind of shots, because as DS says, eventually one of the shots will pay off.


I need some serious advice.


Thanks for listening.

08-15-2002, 01:45 PM
By itself a Type A personality is NOT a liability at poker. In fact, the extreme competitive drive can be a distinct asset. Most poker champions ar Type A. However, the impatience -- which is also part of this personality type -- is a liability.

You are correct to avoid $.50-$1.00. Virtually all of those games are unbeatable because the rake is much too high. In addition, nobody can play well for stakes that are boring.

Although you did not have a large enough bankroll for $3-$6, you were beating the game. You did not beat $5-$10. The reasons for not beating it MAY include your small bankroll, but could include a much more important factor: You may not have sufficient skill to beat the tougher game. If you cannot beat a game, it does not matter how big your bankroll is.

My advice is quite simple. Stick with $3-$6 until you have beaten it for at least $6 per hour for 1,000 hours. Then try $5-$10, but only in the softest games. That is, keep $3-$6 as your primary game, but take occasional trips to the larger game.

If you don't beat the larger game, stay in the smaller one for as long as it takes. It is far, far better to beat a little game than to lose in a big one.

This subject was covered in a series I wrote for Poker Digest called "Should you move up?" If you post your email, I'll send you copies.

Al

08-15-2002, 02:29 PM
when i started, i 'took' shots. even at the smaller stakes. i didnt have a full roll to play, but once i had a session roll, id play.


understand, youll usually bust out a couple times til you start building it up.


like DS says, eventually it will come around. though a full BR is nice to have in the wings, its not mandatory. it can help psychologically though.


however, once i built a roll, i kept it seperate from my other accounts. the basic idea is to build the roll to adequate level, then build more from there. anything i won when starting went back into the roll until i reached the set level.


i wont play the matchstick tables for the precise reason you stated. im not into grinding for $1-2 an hour. i want more return for my time spent. and my time is worth alot more than that.


some ideas...


b

08-15-2002, 06:16 PM
Al-


Could I get a copy of the series? My email is jn110@hotmail.com.


Thanks a lot,

John

08-15-2002, 11:34 PM
Alan's series on "moving up" is full of insightful observations and provides some excellent advice on how to proceed. It is required reading for all of us that want to improve and move up to higher limits. Babe

08-16-2002, 02:53 AM
I also would like a copy. Thank you!


Inthacup@aol.com

08-16-2002, 09:34 AM
Your type A beliefs and behaviors are exactly what you need at this point because if you don't have at least $4,000 to play 10-20, you don't really have a bankroll. So keep running your Type A beliefs and behaviors in this area of your life until you get a bankroll.


Work and save up to a $1000 bankroll and play 5-10. Since this is not a safe capitalization for this limit, don't be shocked if you get broke a few times. This is tuition money. Keep learning. Persevere. Eventually you will get a streak that will put you over the hump. And by playing at stakes where your opponents have at least some skill (which will result in you thinking and playing at a more sophisticated level than if you did grinding against those 1-2 players), you'll be more ready.


Do not waste your time down at those very low limits. First of all, the rake there is next to impossible to beat. And because the stakes are so low, your opponents are playing at such a low level also. Thus, you're bound to learn and groove the wrong playing habits.


While you're saving, read, read, and read some more. Keep visiting these forums and learn as much as you can from the debates and interchanges.


Your Type A beliefs, habits, behaviors, and urges have a positive intention for you. And they're trying to send you a message. It seems to me that their message is: Don't waste your time playing limits that are inconsequential. Play at limits where you will be challenged. JMO

08-16-2002, 01:46 PM
Thanks for responding, I thought I was doing good at the 3-6, however after I lost about 300 of my 700, this is where my impatience got to me. I know my mistake was trying to jump to a bigger game. But, like you said, I'm so competitive, I wanted to win it back and I wanted it NOW. I think this type of thinking is what got me in trouble, twice.


I don't think I would have make the same mistake if my bankroll was 3000 and I lost 300. But, when I lost almost half, I start to get impatient.


However, I was wondering what others suggested on how to get my bankroll big enough for 3-6. Im thinking about just not playing for a while and keep studying, at the same time working to save enough to play safely ($1800).


As for the series on Moving Up, I believe I have, it, or at least I should. I have all the issues of Poker Digest for the last two years they were in business. I will look through them tonight, and if I can't find it I'll ask you to email me. Do you know by chance what Month or issue it started in?


Thanks everyone.

08-16-2002, 01:54 PM
Thanks for the advice Bernie. I think I'm split over what to do.


I can either stop playing for a while and save up about 2k. Or just keep taking these kind of shots hoping to hit a good streak.


My only problem is, I hate playing on scared money. Maybe I could keep two seperate accounts and put all my extra money in my bankroll savings, but still set 50 here and 50 there aside to have a session bankroll. Then, if I win I can just put it all into my banroll savings.


Thanks for the advice.

08-16-2002, 02:01 PM
Thanks for the advice Jedi, I think I can save about 2k by the 1st of the year, then I'll have and adaquate 3-6 bankroll. I just want to play this limit with a decent bankroll and continue to learn and get better.


Bishop Shakur

08-16-2002, 02:38 PM
The three part series began in December 27, 2001.

So that the context is clear, I will insert my remarks directly into excerpts from your text IN CAPS. Please don't regard it as "shouting." It's a standard editorial procedure.

You wrote: But, like you said, I'm so competitive, I wanted to win it back and I wanted it NOW. I think this type of thinking is what got me in trouble, twice. I AGREE. YOU MUST ALWAYS FOCUS ON YOUR EV now. (WHEN I'M IN CAPS, LOWER CASE MEANS EMPHASIS). YOU MUST IGNORE OR MINIMIZE WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY OR LAST WEEK.

I don't think I would have make the same mistake if my bankroll was 3000 and I lost 300. But, when I lost almost half, I start to get impatient. BUT THAT'S EXACTLY THE WRONG TIME TO MOVE UP. THE DATA SAID THAT YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING WRONG (OR THE POKER GODS DON'T LOVE YOU). YOU MOVED UP WHEN YOU SHOULD HAVE MOVE down. THE DUMBEST WORDS IN POKER ARE: "I'VE GOT TO GET EVEN."

However, I was wondering what others suggested on how to get my bankroll big enough for 3-6. Im thinking about just not playing for a while and keep studying, at the same time working to save enough to play safely ($1800). MINIMUM BANKROLL REQUIREMENTS APPLY PRIMARILY (SOME PEOPLE WOULD SAY ONLY) TO PEOPLE WHO CANNOT REPLENISH THEIR BANKROLLS FROM OTHER SOURCES. SINCE YOU HAVE A SOURCE FOR FUNDS, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL YOU HAVE $1,800 DOLLARS. THIS POINT APPLIES ONLY IF YOU CAN KEEP COOL AND FOCUS ON YOUR CURRENT EV. IF YOU CAN'T DO SO, THEN YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER THAT WILL BE LARGE ENOUGH TO PREVENT YOUR BECOMING EMOTIONAL. IT IS not A MATHEMATICAL ISSUE. IT'S A PSYCHOLOGICAL ONE.

08-16-2002, 03:48 PM
Moving up is something you do when your skills and results dictate that it's the right time. I know several people that built a bankroll at 2-4 and lost it every time they moved up because their skill level wasn't there yet. Study, practice and be patient. It will come to you if you put the effort in. There really is no magic formula.

08-16-2002, 04:10 PM
if you have enough for session roll, it shouldnt be scared money. when you buy in, its not monetary anymore. i have a stop limit. many disagree with this. i just can only stand to lose so much before i call it a night. which then ill go home, analyze my play a little, and come back fresh and new. i know the most im going to lose in any session. and ive walked away from some gravy games, but when i lose that much or more, my game/play suffers, so its a good time to quit anyway.


there are other ways of doing it, but this is how i started, and still play.


one thing about taking shots instead of waiting for the full BR is that your play doesnt fade as it may if you took a long break. taking a long break, then you have to regain your feel and everything else, and that could also cost you some chips.


b

08-16-2002, 08:48 PM
Bernie: Good post. I agree whole heartedly with the stop loss concept, Even if our A-game might be able to beat this table, if we lose a certain amount, we are not going to play our A-game, or even our B- or C- game.


Nearly all of us have an amount that Mike Caro called "The Threshold of Pain." After we pass that threshold, we foolishly believe that we won't feel any worse if we loss some more.


So we buy more chips, play stupidly, lose them, and may buy even more. In fact, we have all seen lots of players decide: "I can't get even at this limit, so I'm going to move up, go to the craps table, or whatever." That's how people take horrendous losses,wiping out their bankrolls or even -- in a few extreme cases -- losing their homes or businesses.


I don't know what my threshold of pain is, and I don't want to find out. I haven't been on tilt in 40 years because I leave long befote I pass that threshold. If I lose a certain amount, my play deteriorates. So I go home either when my losses become painful or I recognize that I'm not playing well REGARDLESS of whether I'm ahead or behind.

08-17-2002, 01:32 PM
1.00 - 2.00 Hold'em?

Beatable or not??

I believe the blinds are .25 and .50 with 3% rake. What if the blinds were .50 and 1.00 with a 3% rake??

Just wondering.

Sitting Bull

08-17-2002, 09:47 PM
Larry,


I've never played anything smaller than $2-$4. The statement about $1-$2 being unbeatable came from a friend who is now a successful $30-$60 player. He tried $1-$2 early in his career and decided the rake made the game unbeatable.


Al

08-17-2002, 11:49 PM
Alan,


In the last two years, I've gone from fairly maniacal(probably 7,9 in your book) to rock ( about 2,2), to somewhere in that tight/ aggressive quadrant. As is the case with Bishop Shakur, I get bored playing at the very low levels, and the minimum that really interests me on the infrequent occasions I'm able to play in a casino is $5-10.


How do you define Type A for these purposes?

While having an enormous will to win, I'm mostly fairly easygoing in ways outside of poker, though an exception to that is I don't tolerate mediocrity well, in others or myself. I've more or less given up playing master chess after doing so for twenty years, because I felt unable to play as well as I had at my peak in my twenties, and experienced frustration over it.


If the series you wrote for Poker Digest doesn't discuss topics covered in your book, would you please send them to me at: perfidious60

@aol.com?


thanks, perfidious

08-18-2002, 09:46 AM
The term "Type A" was first popularized in connection with heart attacks. I have not read that study in many years, and my memory is sketchy. Its' authors stated that extremely competitive people were more likely to have heart attacks than more easy going people if the other risk factors (such as weight, smoking, and cholesterol) were equal. Their study was later questioned on methodological grounds, but the term "Type A" has been in common usage for decades. It is not very clearly defined, and you will read different definitions of it.

The fact that you see yourself as "fairly easy going" outside of poker suggests that you are not a pure Type A. They compete about virtually everything, even for attention at cocktail parties, even for who is right about trivial issues. However, your intolerance of mediocrity is a Type A characteristic. In addition, you have experimented with different poker playing styles, while pure Type As" tend to be rigid. If they can't run over you, they try to go through you, not around you. In other words, the picture is mixed, but you have some of the more important Type A characteristics. Interestingly, pure Type As don't care what the stakes are. They MUST win for inner reasons.

I have sent the moving up series to your aol address. It is not covered in my book. Let me know if you don't receive it. My computer has been "sulky" lately.


Al

08-18-2002, 06:11 PM
I cant seem to find the issue where the series starts. It seems theres is a missing chunk of issues in my collection. I guess I forgot where I stored them. Anyhow, my address is pokerplayer21@hotmail.com. If you're still willing to send the copies I'd greatly appreciated it.


Thanks.

08-19-2002, 03:27 AM

08-19-2002, 05:16 PM
Al,


I would like a copy please, the E-mail is janwes5@aol.com


Thank you,

Jim