Playing online for a living week 33

[DeezNuts]

I think a stop loss is a great idea that I always employ when I play. But since I play more live, the way I use it is to only bring a set amount of money, and then I can add $300 ATM withdrawal on top of it, which would give me one last small buy-in for 15/30. Sometimes I have made a comeback off that last bit, but sometimes I am tilting at least a little and blow that bit. At least that way there is NO WAY that I can lose more than what I bring + $300. I think it has saved me from some truly disastrous sessions.

Some people can play well when they are stuck a large amount in one session. I just believe that most people are not like this and that I am definitely not one of these people. It's good that you realize the psychological nuances of bankroll and session losses. Of course, I think you may be a bit skewed with your view of your hourly rate. You would be amazed to find what a pretty bad week and run of cards can do to even 6 months of playing.

I have no idea how you guys play that many hours online. I used to play 80-100hrs a month live play, but I burnt out on that after a year and a half. I try playing online and make decent money, but I can't seem to sit there for more than 1 hour. I don't know how you guys do it 40hrs/week.

Gotta say that I love the icon, GoT. SB and HSR are my freaking heros. My favorites are "The Interview" and "Lookin at a Thing in a Bag".

DN

[davidross]

I bought (or I should say my mom bought) my curling shoes in 1972 for $18. She bought them 1 size too big because she said " for that kind of money they better last more than 1 year". I'm still wearing them and they're still 1 size too big.

[naphand]

It's interesting to see the reactions of people to these posts. How people see the game (and WRITE about it) is a reflection of their personality.

Look at the difference between HFAP and *Big Deal*. These are both books on poker, and both are very popular and loved by poker players everywhere. But the perspective is very different.

David's posts do contain technical information about his play, but what (for me at least) makes them so interesting (RIVETING even) is the HUMAN and EMOTIONAL aspect that David puts into it. Reading Sklansky and Malmuth helps us as individuals THINK about our poker better, for sure, but with authors such as Anthony Holden and David Ross we are right there by their side, part of the big pots and the excitement of it all.

Sure GoT may have an edge in his game by being unemotional (or is he just emotionally detached - able to experience the emotion but keep it apart from his rationale?) but perhaps he is missing something? Yes - I KNOW GoT will have a response to this to justify his thinking/play - of course he will. We should ALL be able to justify what we do, at least to ourselves.

I read Sklansky/Malmuth et. al. to learn about the game. But I come to David's posts to feel the excitement (romance?) of the game. To take part in big hands (above my present level of play) - not necessarily to find out how he does it. And of course, over the last months we have all seen how David's game has changed, this again adds a human touch, and makes anyone reading his posts feel as if they can achieve the same (being told you can, and FEELING you can are NOT the same thing at all).

I think, GoT, this is why you got picked on a little, and I also think that your post was out of place - as a consequence it came across as supercilious. Maybe you don't care, but David's response was on target (at least as far as, I suspect, many of the readers of this column feel) when he said he would quit playing if it ever became just another job.

I will never be a full-time poker player - I don't think I have the mental steel and resolve but I certainly want to keep playing and LOVE playing. I don't care if I don't perform perfectly (that does not stop me from trying, or thinking about improving my game) if I am enjoying myself. Part of the enjoyment is winning the money, sure, but it's not all there is to poker. Poker is played by people, not machines (not yet anyway), and people can be fun and interesting (and boorish, rude, arrogant etc.). If I can enjoy playing in a style that suits me, successfully choose the right tables (probably avoiding GoT [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ) then I have a source of income that is ENJOYABLE and not some grim battle between poker minds, to squeeze an extra fraction of a BB per hour, like some Deep Blue/Kasparov chess marathon (however fascination such things may be - I'd rather be watching).

I guess what I'm saying is that maximising EV does not mean just $$, it can mean a lot of other things, like having fun, having a social life, not burning out etc. etc.

And David - if you are reading this - I think this is the angle you need to keep in your book. Give people your thinking, how you feel about the games, the emotional wrenches etc. That's what made "Big Deal" so popular, and there are too few books like this on poker. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[AmericanAirlines]

[ QUOTE ]
In 33 weeks I only have 2 losing weeks, and none of those in the last 5 ½ months.


[/ QUOTE ]

This has got to be a tail of the distribution experience... or perhaps *you* should be writing a "how to play poker" text.

Sincerely,
AA

[davidross]

I quite like the way you summarized this thread. I am not in any way trying to be critical of GoT, and I'm pretty sure he knows this. I think his posts are excellent.

During this whole excercise I have been trying to convey a specific message. That message is that it is possible to make money, maybe even enough to live on, even if you are not an expert player, by playing low limits and multiple tables. I have been very honest in my portrayal of my strengths and weaknesses, and to the very good players I think it's clear there are still big holes in my game. I hope I have improved, and I'm sure I have, but I will probably never play at the level of the very best players who post in these forums.

Guy on Tilt is very young, and has an unlimited future in the game. His attitude expressed in the posts here makes it clear to me that he has the right mindset to be an excellent pro for as long as he wnts to. I have read Daniel Negreanu make almost the exact same statements that GUy made in this forum. My mindset is different, probably to my detriment, but that's just the way it is. I'm quite certain I'm the norm, and Guy is the exception in the poker world as a whole, but Guy's attitude is probably the norm among the "Pro's" and in that circle I'm the exception.

Thanks for posting this.

[squiffy]

Actually, a small side point. What I really find fascinating is that both you and daryn extol the virtues of playing shorthanded. And you seem to be making tons of money at it.

I would think, though perhaps I am wrong, that players with your level of ability would do as well or better at some kind of no limit or pot limit table.

Any thoughts on this.

I have some theories. But am not sure about it.

At a short-handed table, if you can find a fish, it is much much easier for you to profit from the fish. With a 10-handed table, even if you spot the fish, it will be harder to isolate and dominate him or her.

At a 6 handed table, if you are playing against a fish, it will be much easier for you to spot him. And you will be much more likely to be in a hand against him or her.

On the other hand. At a short handed table, you won't make as much money from straights and flushes if it is harder to get odds to draw.

At a short handed table, if you are all playing a higher percentage of hands against one another, and if you have more skill, you have more opportunities to outplay an individual fish.

But you would think at no limit 10 person table, a talented player could make even more money. Because now you have 10 people. So the chances of finding one or two fish is higher.

And when you are heads up against a fish, you can not only out play him, but force him to make statistically HUGE MISTAKES.

I suppose you could also say that with a short handed limit game, your opponent's ego may come into play. He will get a lot more frustrated and keep trying to beat you and keep dropping money.

But you could say the same for no limit. You go all in with the nuts and dare your weaker opponent to call you. Still a battle of egos.

So how come I hear so much talk about short-handed middle limits and so little talk about no limit?????????????????????

[davidross]

Squiffy,

First of all, I'm still not sure if my increase in earnings is due to the shorthanded play or the increase in stakes. Remember I was playing 3/6 before and have gone to 5/10.

I suspect at no-limit there is a greater difference in ability between the best and worst players and therefore the better players could earn significantly more (with a higher variance perhaps). I have no expertise in no-limit though so I'm not thinking that route yet.

Shorthanded vs full table certainly gives you more decisions per hour. Full table I typically see 25% of the flops at 60 hands per hour. Shorthanded I'm seeing 35% of 80 hands, so there is more opportunity. I also think there are a lot of action junkies who aren't good players playing shorthanded. That gives you some chances to earn more as well.

[squiffy]

Yes, that's one reason why I think it is a close question. Short-handed play may attract a higher percentage of action junkies than no limit play. So it may very well be that a skilled player can make more at short-handed than no limit.

But again, this is a question I find fascinating. Of course, another factor is your personal skill set.

Profitable no limit ring game play may require a lot more patience than short-handed play and a different skill set.

I play a lot of chess. And though its the same game. There are some differences in how you play a 5-minute game and how you play a 2 hour + 1 game.

You should be much more aggressive in the 5-minute game. Your opponent has much less time to think and defend, so an aggressive attack has much more chance of succeeding. A long game takes much more patience and careful planning and conservative play. Take too many aggressive risks in a long game and your opponent has more time to find a weakness in your attack.

You can also play more trappy tricky moves in a short game than in a long game. Your opponent is much more likely to fall for them.

Overall I like 5-minute chess more than 2 hour chess in many ways. You can play a lot more games and you get a quick resolution.

Just wondering about the pros and cons of short-handed vs. no limit. Somehow short-handed scares me a lot more than no limit. With short-handed I am worried about the blinds costing me a too much if I play too tight. Not to mention my opponents noticing how tight I am.

In no limit, it seems I can play really tight and no one seems to notice. Not sure why. Could just be chance or weak, non-observant opponents.

Anyway. Hope you do try some no limit at some point and post your observations.

[J.R.]

You also have to consider your game selection, so while in theory a better player has a bigger edge at no-limit than in a short-handed limit game against the same opponents, those profitable-to-play-against opponents might not play no-limit. If the no-limit game only attracts good no-limit players, it won't be very profitable. And as you mentioned, each game takes different skills, so one might be naturally better suited to play one game or another, or might not want to sepnd the time to master the other game given there current profitable situation.

[squiffy]

Yes, that's very true. For some reason, I am really not as interested in or attracted to short-handed play. Seems far to aggressive for me. I guess I am too timid or passive, and would rather sit around waiting for a monster hand, slowplaying it, and crushing my unwitting no limit opponent with an all-in on the nuts club over the head. Like clubbing an unsuspecting baby seal. Very passive aggressive. Maybe the short-handed players are more in your face AGGRESSIVE AGGRESSIVE.