Type A personality/need advice

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.

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

Al-


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


Thanks a lot,

John

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

I also would like a copy. Thank you!


Inthacup@aol.com

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.

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.

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.

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

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