Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

This was posted by Schnieds in the Internet Forum. It's an excellent post with regard to considerations for taking shots at bigger games...

"Yes Bob, I agree that $150,000 is a good bankroll amount for $100/200. However, I think that someone could play in $100/200 and take shots in it with $75,000 or even a little less in their roll.

The last few weeks, I have been playing some $300/600 online and I don't have a $500,000 roll for it (which is what I'd like to have to begin playing it as my "regular" game), but I'm comfortable taking calculated shots in hopes of hitting some big scores to build that roll quicker, since the difference between $50/100 and $100/200 earns and $300/600 earns is phenomenal enough to make the risk worthwhile (while knowing I can afford to risk enough BBs in 300/600 to give these 'shots' a legit shot and in fact make it more than just flipping coins with a 51-49 type edge for thousands at a time).

So yeah. In higher games I think it mainly comes down to having enough to at least let yourself feel comfortable, having losses not take you out of what you'd consider your 'normal' game, and then being able to handle the inherit swings which come along with it.

I'll admit, I lost $14,000 this afternoon playing in 300/600 in like an hour and it still stung a little bit (but I'm guessing the difference between me and the OP is that this loss and a few more like it isn't going to take me out of a $100/200 game, where as the OP likely lost a large hunk of his playing roll in the 75/150 session). I know it's only like 25BBs but that doesn't matter. It's just something to get over with, and the more it happens the less it stings and the more comfortable you get with it.

I really hope this post doesn't rub anyone the wrong way and isn't taken to be read as a BK style gloat post, since I'm really just trying to provide some honest facts. "

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

I agree, its a comfort thing.
I usually dont even take shots tell well after 300bb at a new limit, but thats just me. You gotta find what works.

Good cross post.

-blake

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

[ QUOTE ]
the difference between $50/100 and $100/200 earns and $300/600 earns is phenomenal enough to make the risk worthwhile

[/ QUOTE ]
This part is very significant. It sounds like he is pretty sure that he can make more money right now playing in the bigger game and is only not there full time because of bankroll. Most people who take shots are not in this situation. Not only do they lack the bankroll for the bigger game, it's not even clear that they would be a winner there and if they were it might only be a small one. This is very different than knowing that you could make phenomenally more money in the bigger game right off the bat.

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

I thought it was pretty interesting, i might as well X-post my response:

"I thought i would chime in here. A while ago, i wrote up this post on bankroll management. Since then my feelings have changed a little, but not much. Basically, i think for most players, it's worth the little bit of extra time at their current limit to build a better bankroll for taking their shots.

My first day playing 10-20 i was down 100BB's. I also was able to assess the quality of the games and knew i would be a winner there. This last month i did very well in the 30-60 game, but i went on -80bb slide to start things off. Having the extra bankroll for MOST players will give them a better chance to suceed because they won't tilt as much and the money won't seem like as much to them. The other day I had a -13k or so day, by far my worst day ever. If i had a 50k roll, that would have been pretty brutal emotioanlly.

The exceptions to this in my opinion, are people like schneids, bk, etc... who seem very good at assessing their potential in a game quickly, and who are not afraid to move back down for a bit if things are not going well. They are not going to ever jepordize their potential earn by losing more money than they can afford to in these games. If this is true for you, then you can be more liberal in taking shots IMO."

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

The whole point of this post is to take risks and not follow convential BB wisdom. I do believe for most of the people on this forum, the advice is not applicable, but for those who are looking beyond 20/40 and thinking of what to do next...the post is worth a read. Yes, it is dangerous, but calculated risks can be very profitable in the long run.

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

I see nothing wrong taking shots at limits before you have a "safe" bankroll for that limit. You just need to be willing to go back down if you run bad or feel you aren't ready for that limit.

Reality Check for TSP
 

Interesting post from Scheids. I've "ground out" a roll over the last 1.5 years big enough to sit reasonably comfortably in the PP 1-2 as my main game for a year or two.

However, I realize that my edge in the 1-2, if I play my absolute best at all possible times, is quite small. The $5 rake-back-less rake also contributes to the difficulties. As much as I hate to admit it, I know that I am somewhere between a small favorite, break-even, or small dog in the 1-2.

I have had to realize that I am better off continuing to grind it out at the lower limits. I made my $ that way, and there is no good reason to change at this point. I know I can at least hold my own in higher-limit games, and I will have to live with that knowledge. I just dont want to put my hard-earned bankroll at risk of suffering huge swings.

For sure, if the 1-2 or 50-100 looks overly weak on a given day, I'll jump in. I just don't want to grind it out day after day with those regulars, and risk my roll withering away.

TSP

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

[ QUOTE ]
I thought it was pretty interesting, i might as well X-post my response:

"I thought i would chime in here. A while ago, i wrote up this post on bankroll management. Since then my feelings have changed a little, but not much. Basically, i think for most players, it's worth the little bit of extra time at their current limit to build a better bankroll for taking their shots.

My first day playing 10-20 i was down 100BB's. I also was able to assess the quality of the games and knew i would be a winner there. This last month i did very well in the 30-60 game, but i went on -80bb slide to start things off. Having the extra bankroll for MOST players will give them a better chance to suceed because they won't tilt as much and the money won't seem like as much to them. The other day I had a -13k or so day, by far my worst day ever. If i had a 50k roll, that would have been pretty brutal emotioanlly.

The exceptions to this in my opinion, are people like schneids, bk, etc... who seem very good at assessing their potential in a game quickly, and who are not afraid to move back down for a bit if things are not going well. They are not going to ever jepordize their potential earn by losing more money than they can afford to in these games. If this is true for you, then you can be more liberal in taking shots IMO."

[/ QUOTE ]

I had a conversation on AIM with James282 about this. He mentioned that he used to take 50 bb shots all the time, and leave 300 back at his normal level, and that's how he eventually moved up.

The reason I mention that is that it is going to be different for everyone. I can't afford to just leave 300 bb's at my normal level and take shots because I need to pay bills, so 300 bets isn't nearly enough. Even if I left myself with much more than that and took a shot, I can't really afford to fail. I have to win just to keep my bankroll constant.

I wish I had started poker much earlier when I was still in my early years of college with no expenses. I have to think that if I were in that situation I would be much more willing to take shots and try to move up. I think trying to build your bankroll through shot taking is a great idea if you don't really need the money.

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

Yeah, i agree that it's better to take shots when you have less expenses etc... Of course this doesn't mean just because your role is inflated, you should take shots. (which i know is not what you were suggesting)

The key thing is to indentify the point of diminishing returns for you, and when it becomes not worth it. For Schneids, he thinks he can make significantly more money in the 300-600 game. For many 100-200 players, they would not only make less money at the 300-600 level, they would actually be losers.

It would seem that most of the best players in these forums took shots like this, but it's also important to remember that their sucess can largely be attributed to the fact that they are better players than we are. I don't know if Schneids or James when they were playing 30-60 were significantly better than the best players now, or if they just continued to improve as they moved up. In any event, everyone agree's that people who have the discipline to move down if a shot does not work out should take some from time to time.

Gabe

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

my personal opinion on bankroll management is that you should only gamble with money you can afford to lose. i dont like putting certain numbers into play here like 300BB or 500BB or 1000BB because they arent applicable to all situations.

if you want your risk of ruin to be close to 0, then its probably good to keep 700BBs for your current level and take a shot with anything of excess at higher levels. if you lose the excess your risk of ruin is still close to 0. just make sure that when you lose that money that you dont lose your head.

Re: Reality Check for TSP
 

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting post from Scheids. I've "ground out" a roll over the last 1.5 years big enough to sit reasonably comfortably in the PP 1-2 as my main game for a year or two.

However, I realize that my edge in the 1-2, if I play my absolute best at all possible times, is quite small. The $5 rake-back-less rake also contributes to the difficulties. As much as I hate to admit it, I know that I am somewhere between a small favorite, break-even, or small dog in the 1-2.

I have had to realize that I am better off continuing to grind it out at the lower limits. I made my $ that way, and there is no good reason to change at this point. I know I can at least hold my own in higher-limit games, and I will have to live with that knowledge. I just dont want to put my hard-earned bankroll at risk of suffering huge swings.

For sure, if the 1-2 or 50-100 looks overly weak on a given day, I'll jump in. I just don't want to grind it out day after day with those regulars, and risk my roll withering away.

TSP

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing to be ashamed of there man, at least you can evaluate what the best decision is for you without getting into ego contest. Those games look very tough, and i still havent decided if a typical lineup in the 50 can be more profitable than the 30 game. Now that there are 25 30 games again, that is probably where the money is at for most ppl.

Re: Reality Check for TSP
 

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting post from Scheids. I've "ground out" a roll over the last 1.5 years big enough to sit reasonably comfortably in the PP 1-2 as my main game for a year or two.

However, I realize that my edge in the 1-2, if I play my absolute best at all possible times, is quite small. The $5 rake-back-less rake also contributes to the difficulties. As much as I hate to admit it, I know that I am somewhere between a small favorite, break-even, or small dog in the 1-2.

I have had to realize that I am better off continuing to grind it out at the lower limits. I made my $ that way, and there is no good reason to change at this point. I know I can at least hold my own in higher-limit games, and I will have to live with that knowledge. I just dont want to put my hard-earned bankroll at risk of suffering huge swings.

For sure, if the 1-2 or 50-100 looks overly weak on a given day, I'll jump in. I just don't want to grind it out day after day with those regulars, and risk my roll withering away.

TSP

[/ QUOTE ]

great post, and a lot more people would do better taking this advice than schneids' advice, even though both are good. it's all about who you are

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

BTW - just wanted to mention that clicking on ggbman's linked post/essay on bankroll management is a good idea too.

he has a lot of good ideas in there (half-tempted to copy and paste it in this thread just to make sure that more of you guys see it).


The original post by schneids developed from a poster in the zoo who posted a bad-beat 'whine' that he had just dropped $12k on the 75/150 tables...and my continued insistence that an 80BB drop wasn't really a big deal...and if losing 80BB's was so painful to him that he felt the need to post about it then he probably shouldn't have been playing the 75/150 game in the first place.


Who'd have thought that a really BAD whine-post/thread would develop into an interesting conversation on bankroll management including a really good post from schneids, a reminder of ggbman's essay, and now this thread in the HUSH forum?



I don't really think my bankroll management skills are THAT outstanding. I take some chances...other times I'm a bit conversative.
but I do acknowledge that I'm far better than most 'normal' individuals at this.
So I'll rate my bankroll-management as 'pretty good'.
I believe I am one of many players who prove that you don't have to be that great a player to make adequate money as long as you have adequate bankroll discipline.

In fact, I think it's more important than your actual card-playing ability.
For example, there are MANY players out there who can outplay me 7 days a week who are flat-broke.

I really don't think this is a matter of 'bad luck'. Everybody has bad luck.
It's simply bad money-management.

If you were +$100k at one point...then it's your own damn fault that you didn't step down in limits when you got down to your last $50k or $20k.

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

This post reminded me of something I was thinking about a while ago. It's like a paradox to me because I don't think it should work, but I can't find any holes in the idea. Consider the following scenario:

Let's say my main game is .5/1, but I have the bankroll for 50/100 and that I'm a winner in all these games. So I'm playing .5/1 and I drop $20, which pisses me off. I then decide to play some 2/4 because I can make that $20 back in 1 pot at 2/4. I then drop another $40 at 2/4, so I move up to 5/10 because I can make $60 back in 1 5/10 pot...

The bottom line is that whenever I take a loss at a certain limit, I move up because I'm eventually going to win a decent-sized pot at a higher limit that will make up for all my losses accumulated at the smaller stakes games. If this worked, I could essentially never have a losing day (unless I run unbelievably bad). There has to be something wrong with this plan though-- can someone explain the holes in my logic?

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

[ QUOTE ]
This post reminded me of something I was thinking about a while ago. It's like a paradox to me because I don't think it should work, but I can't find any holes in the idea. Consider the following scenario:

Let's say my main game is .5/1, but I have the bankroll for 50/100 and that I'm a winner in all these games. So I'm playing .5/1 and I drop $20, which pisses me off. I then decide to play some 2/4 because I can make that $20 back in 1 pot at 2/4. I then drop another $40 at 2/4, so I move up to 5/10 because I can make $60 back in 1 5/10 pot...

The bottom line is that whenever I take a loss at a certain limit, I move up because I'm eventually going to win a decent-sized pot at a higher limit that will make up for all my losses accumulated at the smaller stakes games. If this worked, I could essentially never have a losing day (unless I run unbelievably bad). There has to be something wrong with this plan though-- can someone explain the holes in my logic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, i can. If your main game is $.5-1, then you are going to a seriously negative expectation at 50-100. Your play will not be anywhere near par for this level, and thus you are going to lose more in pots where you are behind and gain less when you are ahead. For you to come out on top at levels where you are worse than your competition, you need to get lucky, it doesnt matter how big the pot size is. Think of it as just increasing your bet size in blackjack, the game will always be -EV for you.

Gabe

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

[ QUOTE ]
can someone explain the holes in my logic?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is your hole:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm eventually going to win a decent-sized pot at a higher limit that will make up for all my losses accumulated at the smaller stakes games.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not guaranteed a win at any point. If you are equally skilled at all levels, (not likely, as someone else pointed out) you may just have a bad run and lose your entire roll before you get that next win.

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, i can. If your main game is $.5-1, then you are going to a seriously negative expectation at 50-100. Your play will not be anywhere near par for this level, and thus you are going to lose more in pots where you are behind and gain less when you are ahead. For you to come out on top at levels where you are worse than your competition, you need to get lucky, it doesnt matter how big the pot size is. Think of it as just increasing your bet size in blackjack, the game will always be -EV for you.

Gabe

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'll use the blackjack example. So you bet $20, then lose, then bet $40 (to make back the $20 you lost), lose again, then bet $80 and lose, then $160 and lose, then $320 and lose, and so on. I understand that each bet is -EV, but eventually, you're going to win one of those bets, which will bring you back to even... right? You're basically taking a ~48/52 (complete guess) double or nothing shot each time, and when you win, which you will eventually, you'll back even.

I must be really stupid or something because this concept is extremely perplexing to me.

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, i can. If your main game is $.5-1, then you are going to a seriously negative expectation at 50-100. Your play will not be anywhere near par for this level, and thus you are going to lose more in pots where you are behind and gain less when you are ahead. For you to come out on top at levels where you are worse than your competition, you need to get lucky, it doesnt matter how big the pot size is. Think of it as just increasing your bet size in blackjack, the game will always be -EV for you.

Gabe

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'll use the blackjack example. So you bet $20, then lose, then bet $40 (to make back the $20 you lost), lose again, then bet $80 and lose, then $160 and lose, then $320 and lose, and so on. I understand that each bet is -EV, but eventually, you're going to win one of those bets, which will bring you back to even... right? You're basically taking a ~48/52 (complete guess) double or nothing shot each time, and when you win, which you will eventually, you'll back even.

I must be really stupid or something because this concept is extremely perplexing to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do not have an infinite bankroll. You will eventually hit a string of losses that will wipe out your entire bankroll.

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

[ QUOTE ]
but eventually, you're going to win one of those bets, which will bring you back to even... right? You're basically taking a ~48/52 (complete guess) double or nothing shot each time, and when you win, which you will eventually

[/ QUOTE ]

this is the basic error in thinking associated with progressive betting...the EV remains the same either way, most of the time you will win 2 dollars or whatever, but the one time that variance kicks you in the ass (which will happen (52/100)^n of the time for a 48/52 coinflip) you will lose your entire bankroll. everyone says "you will win eventually" because they can't conceptualize losing a coinflip 10 or 15 times in a row, but it can and does happen.

do a google search to learn more, but trust me your EV is unchanged by bet size unless you are varying your betting with additional information (like counting cards in blackjack). Boo ya, non-self weighting strategies...

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

What he said.

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

Its called a martingale, and its pretty common for beginning blackjack players to think of/hear about it and think its great. More experienced gamblers know all the reasons it won't work.

A few years ago I decided to try it out while casino whoring. Playing thousands of hands of BJ is a pretty good way to see what the streaks can be like.

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

your expectation is the weighted average of your expectations at all games together. by doing this, your expectation will be smaller than 50/100 because you've played so much of the smaller games.

then your variance is the weighted average of the squares of your SD's. so if you do this, the variances will be weighted higher toward the bigger games since bigger numbers have proportionately bigger squares.

so basically you'll have an earn of like 5/10 with a SD of like 10/20. so you're getting the worst of both worlds

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

Ok, so the hole in logic has to do with bankroll limitations. What if you had an infinite bankroll? Then, even though each bet is -EV, you'll eventually come out ahead with progressive betting, right? Or do gambling concepts become silly and pointless once you take the bankroll out of the discussion?

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

hmm, dunno.

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

There is no such thing as an infinite bankroll. And even if there was, there are betting limits.

You are basically trying to circumvent basic laws of gambling theory.

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

that's generally the hole in the logic.

Also your general idea that 'eventually' you are going to win a hand.

well...yes...if you have an INFINITE bankroll then you will EVENTUALLY win a hand.
But you are assuming that you aren't going to have a 10-hand losing streak...and this simply isn't true.
It happens all the time.

But if you had an infinite bankroll AND were allowed to bet an infinite amount on any hand (so you can double-up from $half-million on a bet to $one-million if that should become necessary) then the plan would work.


The double-up system (or the Martingale as it is called) is WELL-KNOWN throughout the gambling world.
Pit-bosses LOVE to see players using some sort of double-up system because they know it makes them a HUGE profit.

basically you are just changing the way you are going to lose (and speeding it up because you are increasing your average bet-size).

Lets say there is a max-bet of $500 at the casino where you are playing.
You will make back your money back with the double-up system perhaps 99-out-of-100 stretches that you employ it and will be up $500 after that perhaps.
Then there will be the 1-out-of-100 stretch where you go all the way to the max and still don't catch it and now you've given back all your profits AND more.

Do you kind of see how it works?

Winning $1 for 99 out of 100 stretches and then losing $200 in 1 out of 100 stretches = -$101

you can't avoid that 1-out-of-100 losing stretch.

Your gain from the wins is too little (EVEN when you make that win 99 times in a row) to compensate for the 1 big loss.



The correct way to think of it is:
If you bet $5, $10, $20 and $40 on 4 straight hands.
then you have bet a total of $75 on those 4 hands.

your average bet-size is $18.75.
you have an expectation of -2% on each hand.

You are losing 2% of $18.75 (whatever that is) on each bet.

Whether you won or lost the previous hand doesn't matter.

Imagine that God came in and went back in time and changed the order in which you played all those losing hands and winning hands that you organized into little double-ups and streaks.
he made the order completely random.
as it turns out...the little double-ups that you tried to organize didn't matter.
You will still have the same amount of money at the end.


You have X as your avg bet-size...and you are losing 2% of X for each hand you play.


Try this double-up system at the blackjack table and tell the floor that you are doubling-up all the way up to $1000/hand if necessary to recoup your losses.

they will come running to you with steak-dinner and hotel-room comps and cheer you on in your double-up efforts.
they'll just see you as someone who's betting $75/avg (or whatever it is)

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, i agree that it's better to take shots when you have less expenses etc... Of course this doesn't mean just because your role is inflated, you should take shots. (which i know is not what you were suggesting)

The key thing is to indentify the point of diminishing returns for you, and when it becomes not worth it. For Schneids, he thinks he can make significantly more money in the 300-600 game. For many 100-200 players, they would not only make less money at the 300-600 level, they would actually be losers.

It would seem that most of the best players in these forums took shots like this, but it's also important to remember that their sucess can largely be attributed to the fact that they are better players than we are. I don't know if Schneids or James when they were playing 30-60 were significantly better than the best players now, or if they just continued to improve as they moved up. In any event, everyone agree's that people who have the discipline to move down if a shot does not work out should take some from time to time.

Gabe

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of the reason that those guys are so much better than us is their experience at higher limits. This weights the diminishing returns you speak of to give greater returns by playing higher limits, and not just in dollar amounts, but playing experience also.

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

Bob,

this is true if instead of normally betting 1$, the player doubles his bet when he loses. however, he mkes the casino the same amount as a player who bets an average bet of (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + ...)/n, right?

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

Thanks for the explanations, it makes much more sense now.

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

yes.


If I make bets of 10, 20, 40, 80, 160 (total of 310, average of $62 per hand)
my expectation is EXACTLY the same as someone who makes 5 consecutive bets of $62 (as is the house's expectation against me of course).


tizim - my pleasure. mostly just repeating a bunch of stuff I learned in various blackjack books.

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

[ QUOTE ]
The key thing is to indentify the point of diminishing returns for you, and when it becomes not worth it. For Schneids, he thinks he can make significantly more money in the 300-600 game. For many 100-200 players, they would not only make less money at the 300-600 level, they would actually be losers.

... but it's also important to remember that their sucess can largely be attributed to the fact that they are better players than we are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its pretty easy - already when u play your first months at $.50/1 - to understand which are the bad players at the tables. Its much more complicated to understand if someone outplays you.

It could be that Schneids and others at high levels are really, really good at understanding how much they make against a certain lineup. But it could also be that Schneids and others are good enough to not lose a lot against anyone, not even at $300/600. As long as this is true its much easier to calculate how much u will win. And its much easier to "take a shot", because it really isnt a shoot like when someone moves from 20/40 to 100/200 understanding that there are some players that will outplay him at the higher limit, not knowing if they will outplay him enough or if the bad players will give more then that back.

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

let's not forget it also could be that the long run is so damn long and the variance is so crazy in those games, that it basically boils down to: you get lucky and make a ton of money, or you get unlucky and lose a ton of money REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU ACTUALLY PLAYED WELL OR NOT

i know that's a scary thought to some people but it's absolutely true and possible

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

[ QUOTE ]
let's not forget it also could be that the long run is so damn long and the variance is so crazy in those games, that it basically boils down to: you get lucky and make a ton of money, or you get unlucky and lose a ton of money REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU ACTUALLY PLAYED WELL OR NOT

i know that's a scary thought to some people but it's absolutely true and possible

[/ QUOTE ]

very true. very dissheartening.

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

Taking shots with less than 200BB bankrolls will be the new 30/20 trust me.

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

[ QUOTE ]
Taking shots with less than 200BB bankrolls will be the new 30/20 trust me.

[/ QUOTE ]

hoho

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

[ QUOTE ]
Taking shots with less than 200BB bankrolls will be the new 30/20 trust me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beauty...

Everyone has gambler in them.
Everyone wants to move up early.
Everyone wants to play more hands.
Everyone wants to see more showdowns.

And everyone's looking for the right excuses to justify the gamble.

Just remember this:

Taking calculated risks requires an unbelievably conditioned, tilt-proof poker player; someone who's willing to move back down if things don't go according to plan. Not many can do it.

Playing 30/20 requires super-human post flop skills. Not many can do it.

Seeing more showdowns requires top notch card reading skills. Not many can do it.


Before you try to follow in anyone's footsteps, make sure you know your own game and know it well. And make sure you're honest with yourself, or you WILL be majorly disappointed with the results.

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Taking shots with less than 200BB bankrolls will be the new 30/20 trust me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beauty...

Everyone has gambler in them.
Everyone wants to move up early.
Everyone wants to play more hands.
Everyone wants to see more showdowns.

And everyone's looking for the right excuses to justify the gamble.

Just remember this:

Taking calculated risks requires an unbelievably conditioned, tilt-proof poker player; someone who's willing to move back down if things don't go according to plan. Not many can do it.

Playing 30/20 requires super-human post flop skills. Not many can do it.

Seeing more showdowns requires top notch card reading skills. Not many can do it.


Before you try to follow in anyone's footsteps, make sure you know your own game and know it well. And make sure you're honest with yourself, or you WILL be majorly disappointed with the results.

[/ QUOTE ]

2nd page with a quality post like this i don't think so.

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

i made a post about taking shots and moving up but i shouldn't have included the stealing bikes part of it.

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

[ QUOTE ]
i made a post about taking shots and moving up but i shouldn't have included the stealing bikes part of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

i know its incredibly early, but this could be POTD.

Re: Schneids Post on Taking Shots
 

[ QUOTE ]
let's not forget it also could be that the long run is so damn long and the variance is so crazy in those games, that it basically boils down to: you get lucky and make a ton of money, or you get unlucky and lose a ton of money REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU ACTUALLY PLAYED WELL OR NOT

[/ QUOTE ]

Are u saying that because long run is so long at high limits we will "never" reach it and never know if the one now winning a lot at high limit really got an edge on the others not winning a lot at that limit?

It makes sense to me.

I think its even more true when u look at the tournament pros we see on television. Among the 100 best NL-tournamentplayer there will always be a handfull that wins more then they should. There will also be a few of the notsogood players who win A LOT MORE then they should. A lifetime is way to short to decide who is the best and who isnt when the only thing we count are big tournaments.