daydreaming and realistic goals

[Jett Rink]

I have been playing poker for about 3 years with regularity. When I started it was as a $2-4 player. I won and lost with a few more losses than wins.

Then I read some books and improved my game. I didn't know where I was going with poker but I was just hoping to be a break even or (fingers crossed) profitable player. I used to look over in awe at the $5-10 game and the higher games were just unheard of for me.

Last year I moved up to $5-10 and after a session I felt I belonged and wasn't afraid of those limits. Actually, I felt I belonged before I moved up but it was reassuring to still feel that way after playing it.

A year and half of making money at $5-10 and I was off to $10-20. Again I felt I would make it but you never know until you do it for real. Now after a few months of profitable play there I see $20-40 in my future but still far off.

The point of this is how far up the ladder do you look? I have never realistically looked ahead more than one limit as a goal. I feel I'm going about this the right way builing a bankroll and steadilly moving up.

I try not to dream although I wouldn't mind being a Hellmuth or Harrington with their results or even a one hit wonder but those are unrealistic dreams.

Just wondering how everyone looks into their own future and what they see.

[Mike Gallo]

Look up the Peter Principle in business management.

Many companies used to promote an employee to a position he or she could handle and then leave the employee there. Its a bit more complicated then that, however thats the Cliff notes version.

The way you apply to poker works like this, keep moving up to a limit you can afford to play both financially and psychologically. As long as you can afford both, keep moving up to the biggest game you can beat.

[bisonbison]

Mike, the Peter Principle actually says that people get promoted just past their level of competence and then stick.

[LokiV]

I was going to point this out but bison beat me to it. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

They'd promote someone right past their point of competency but then they can't very well demote them... so they'd be stuck doing a subpar job (and certainly never be promoted) for all eternity.

It's fun to think about. I wonder how widely real life applies it.

[Wahoo91]

This principle applies in real life. People get promoted until they are no longer very good at the job they have been promoted into. They last for a while in that job while everyone gives them a chance to "adjust" to the new job.

Eventually they leave or are let go as they never seem to "get it". Depending on how much their supervisors dislike conflict, these incompetent people may last quite a while, but everyone else knows who these people are and aviod them like the plague.

These are the people that are talked about endlessly at the water cooler (e.g. about what poor performers they are). Its pretty sad actually. I actually think that most of these people do not even realize how poorly most people think their work actually is. Its funny though, no one wants to be the one to "spill the beans" and let that person's boss know how everyone really feels.

I have yet to figure out what the best solution to this issue is. I think GE had it right, where they simply "purged" the bottom 5% of performers each year, ensuring the elimination of the "chaff". That way, the decision was easy and "non-political" and guaranteed that the Peter Principle folks were eliminated in a timely fashion.

Most companies are bloated with these folks, and the funny thing is, most people know who these folks are, yet action does not happen in a timely fashion.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Wahoo,

[ QUOTE ]
I have yet to figure out what the best solution to this issue is. I think GE had it right, where they simply "purged" the bottom 5% of performers each year, ensuring the elimination of the "chaff".

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the author of The Peter Principle wrote a sequel, The Peter Prescription, which proposed some solutions. Among these were:

(a) Create task-oriented "networks" rather than rigid hierarchies, so that when someone steps into a role for which they are ill-suited, it is not viewed as a demotion when they return to a more suitable role.

(b) Diminish the linkage between wage/salary and position in the hierarchy; instead link wage/salary to performance. After all, who is worth more to a company: (i) a superb secretary; or, (ii) an incompetent executive? The superb secretary adds more to the company's value, but in most companies the incompetent executive would be paid much, much more.

Cris

[x2ski]

I believe the GE thing you were talking about was known as "High Performance Management" or something or other.

I worked at a company that was bought out by a larger corporation that decided to implement this strategy. Before long, 90% of the employees, even the top producers, hated where they worked and either decided to not care anymore or left on their own free will.

It simply did not work, especially since our job performance was directly related to the cooperation of the companies that we serviced (I was a retirement plan consultant who assisted smaller companies with the administration of their 401(k) and profit sharing plans).

I personally serviced plans for more than 100 companies and organizations. If they were too lazy or unwilling to provide the information I needed to do my job, my "performance" sufferred through no fault of my own. HPM did nothing but create a stressful and demoralized workplace.

HPM may work in manufacturing jobs, but in the white collar service sector, it needs to get the hell out. Sorry, but this was a rare opportunity to complain about this philosophy, so I apologize if I went off on a tagent.

[Mike Gallo]

[ QUOTE ]
Mike, the Peter Principle actually says that people get promoted just past their level of competence and then stick.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I meant [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Al Schoonmaker]

Mike,
I agree with your Peter Principle message, but you did not go far enough.
In poker people apply it to themselves. They move up until they can't beat the game. Then, for ego reasons, they stay there, losing, but unwilling to step down.
Regards,
Al

[Mike Gallo]

Then, for ego reasons, they stay there, losing, but unwilling to step down.

Dr Al,

Thanks for finishishing the thought for me. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]