My Plan--Long Term Goals and an Interesting Idea

[sthief09]

First, I just want to thank everyone for responding to my post about quitting for a while, and to those who PM'ed me. This place is so much more than just a forum to discuss strategy, and that's great. I knew I "should've" posted that in the Psychology forum, but I knew I'd get the best responses here, because, in all honesty, this forum has the highest concentration of intelligent and knowledgeable posters. I learned so much from reading through that thread (believe it or not, I didn't read the responses to that post until recently. I didn't want to until I was ready to make this post), mainly 2 things:

1. so many people go through what I go through. it's a complicated and involving game, and it's easy to let it consume our lives. I assumed the college kids like myself would be able to relate the most, but I got IM's, PM's, and responses to the post that made it seem like adults, with wives and kids, also experience the same problem. fortunately, I haven't heard any horror stories about angry wives or neglected children, and hopefully I never will.
2. balance is the key. poker isn't the problem, but it's the time that I let poker take. If it either takes too much time, or time that should be spent doing something more important, than something needs to be done. so many people manage to keep the game as a part of their lives without it actually being their lives, and that's what I need to do.

So here's the plan:

Playing time: I finish work Friday, I go to school Saturday (28th) and don't start for another week. I can log in a bunch of hours during the day for that week. After that, I'm going to keep away from poker (for the most part) for a month or two, until I'm aware of my schedule and know what time periods I can dedicate to playing. I'll still play an hour here and there, but no serious playing. My #1 goal is to make deans' list both semesters this year, and any poker goals fall as a distant second (or third or fourth or fifth...).

Money/Bankroll: Right now I'm basically broke as far as expendible money that I can set toward a poker bankroll. My original goal was to set $100 toward .5/1 and hope for the best. I did that over spring break last year and I did well, so I know that it's viable (I'd be willing to reload).

But I've come up with an idea with my friend, Justin (that I mentioned in my quitting post, and the Turning Stone hand post). We're going to basically start from scratch. He's going to put $2000 in an account (or split it in 2 accounts) and we're going to play with a shared bankroll. He'll be entitled to the first $x worth of profit, and the original $2000. So let's say we decide he's entitled to $500 (any suggestions on a fair amount?). $2500 will immediately be his. We'll play 3/6 until we get up to $5000. Then we'll play 15/30 until we're at $14,000. When we hit that, he'll cash hour his original $2000.

As far as whose money is whose, we'll do that in terms of hours logged. We play the same (to the point that we're able to call out each others' exact hands while playing live), so even though it's just our bankroll, it's only fair that if he logs more hours, he's entitled to more money.

I think this is a good opportunity for both of us. For him, he's always "taking shots" at 15/30 with a ridiculously small bankroll, and he never sets goals. He wins and wins and wins, and cashes out most of it. Then, he complains about the swings at 5/10. He's made well over 10k since New Years', yet he has like $400 in his poker account now. I know the right way to go about building a bankroll, so I'll set the goals and make sure he doesn't do something stupid, like play 15/30, or cash our half hour bankroll.

For me, I get to play 3/6 from the start. He's basically staking me at the beginning, then once I work off my stake, we'll have a shared bankroll.

So eventually, we'll have a 12k bankroll and we'll both play 15/30. Is this a bad idea for any reason? We both play equally well, so it's as if we're logging twice the hours, instead of having twice the people.

What do you guys think?

[sfer]

I think he should just stake you. That arrangement is clean and precise and doesn't have the risks of bad feelings if one runs well and the other runs bad and the entire roll goes poof.

Welcome back. This forum is much better for having you post again. Should I quote The Godfather Part III here?

Addendum: Josh, you're a winning player. You know this, I know this, and so does everyone on this forum. People are willing to stake you here. Don't waste your time starting small and building a roll from scratch. Everyone should do it once, but the primary reason for doing so is to determine what we already know about you, i.e. that you are a consistent winner. Get rolled adequately and play at your normal level and build back up that way.

[Michael Davis]

It's only a bad idea if the other person is untrustworthy. Recognize, however, that the effects of one person running bad while the other is running good could be bad.

Also, I have no idea what your financial situation is, but I see no reason for you to play low stakes unless you are underfunded, which I think you are, if I correctly remember a BoomBoom post from way back.

When I started graduate school, I took almost the entire school year off to concentrate on my studies, playing only on Thanksgiving break and such. I was so successful in concentrating on my studies, that I am currently finishing up a paper due in about 34 hours that was originally due in March. If I don't finish it, I owe UCLA $10K, and I will lament that I took so much time off. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

-Michael

[sthief09]

I don't think there will be any hard feelings if one person runs bad. I've gotten him to believe in "the long run", and we've played enough together and talked about the game together enough that we trust each other to play well. He trusted me enough to play 10/20 with his money. I know I personally wouldn't care if he ran badly, because if I got his cards, I would've lost basically the same amount.

have you still been going to NYPC much (I know you are/were in Cali, but before that)?

[bisonbison]

When I started graduate school, I took almost the entire school year off to concentrate on my studies, playing only on Thanksgiving break and such. I was so successful in concentrating on my studies, that I am currently finishing up a paper due in about 34 hours that was originally due in March. If I don't finish it, I owe UCLA $10K, and I will lament that I took so much time off.

Thank god you're posting here then.

[sfer]

It's easy to believe in the long run when a friend convinces you but burning through two dimes can unconvince a lot of people. People under stress have the ability to behave in ways that aren't pretty--I've personally seen good friends turn into business partners and then into basically a divorced couple several times. But you know him better than I do.

Yup, NYPC still. Same with Boom Boom and some others. 5/10 has replaced 3/6 and 6/12. I smell a big-time Foxwoods outing for the NYC crowd.

[sthief09]

yes, this is all easier said than done, as I don't know what it'll be like if I have a huge day and he has a terrible won, leaving us even, or down. I don't think it'll be a problem, though. I just consider us as one person in this arrangement. As far as trust, I've known him since kindergarten, so that isn't an issue at all. The only cause for concern is that he won't log his hours, because he's the laziest human being alive.

good luck with the paper.

[MarkD]

I agree with everyone else. A stake is just "cleaner" all around. There will be no way for any possible disagreements in the future. The arrangement you outlined could have disasterous unforeseen results in the future.

With a stake everything is out in the open and there shouldn't be any problems.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
I smell a big-time Foxwoods outing for the NYC crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you guys plan this a week or two in advance I'd love to come down and meet you all. I'll try and cut loose from work if it's humanly possible.

NT

EDIT: I think you should just get a stake as well. Get some pledges together or something. I bet 20 people here would toss you a hundred bucks.

[sthief09]

OK, being that everyone has suggested this, I have to start considering other options.

I have 3 questions:
1. what if we kept track of what we won/lost, and played with a shared bankroll but owned the amount of money that we've physically won.
2. what's an example of a stake? I'll try to find the post about Dcifrths's stake deal, but for now, is it in terms of time taken to pay the staker off? what's an example of a fair staking deal, for, say, $1000 at 2/4?
3. is there any problem with 2 winning players playing under the same bankroll, if neither person minds the other dipping into his half. if we have $5000 at 5/10 and we each have 2500, and one person gets into the red, that person keeps playing, but under the other person's 2500. basically, can two people play 15/30 under one $12,000 bankroll?