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 ]

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] 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!).

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

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!

[ 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.

[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