Cris v. William, Round 3 *bing*

[CrisBrown]

Hi Prickly Pete,

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, let's conservatively figure $55 SNGs only and playing 9 and cashing in 5 per week. According to the 30/15/30/25 split, that gives $630 profit per week. Or roughly $2500 profit per month.

Hmmmm.... I believe Cris said that was her total career winnings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or we could factor in that about 1/3 of those are $109s, with the occasional $215 thrown in, and that so far I haven't had anything close to good showings in the $109s (one 1st, one chop), or $215s (no money finishes). Add in another 1/3 that are $33s, when there are no $55s or $109s filling, and while I've been more successful in those than in $55s or $109s, they don't pay as well.

Then we could factor in my perverse habit of quitting for the night if I take 1st, but continuing to press if I don't make the money, often to the tune of a $500 or $1000 loss in a single day. Yes, I tilt. Badly. I don't like to quit when I'm losing, and the more I lose, the worse I play in the next one, and the next thing you know I've blown 40% of my bankroll.

I'm trying to get better about NOT doing this because it's cost me a ton of money. But hey, nobody's perfect, and as it turns out I did the exact same thing yesterday, and only managed to limit my losses to ~$200 by winning a $33 very late last night, after a long break.

Or you could just assume I'm a liar.

Cris

[La Brujita]

Cris,

I generally like you, I generally like your posts and I generally am a good guy. But here is my response:

1. You are crazy if you think 45-50% is close to 60-65%. It is not even in the same ballpark.

2. Let's take your revised numbers, if you play 10 sit and go's a week at the $50 level (ignoring that you say you also play the $100 level) and you put the 30/15/30/25 breakdown into a 45% winning percentage you get a $47.4 positive expectation per tournament or $474 a week playing ten tournaments.

How do you possibly reconcile that with your profits of $1500 for the year. And you can't say that you had some good weeks and some bad weeks because a winning percentage is over the long term. The numbers would have been substantially higher if I used a weighted average of 50 and 100 games or I used a winning percentage of 47.5%.

The reason I am upset is because all of this gets to credibility and I think that is William's point. It also gets to a certain poker arrogance which is crucial to be a winner but can dangerous if used wrongly.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[CrisBrown]

Hi All,

More than enough is way more than enough. Those of you who think I'm a liar ... feel free. Those of you who think my playing style is insane and guaranteed to lose money ... feel free. Those of you who think I'm a blight on this forum because I give "bad" advice ... feel free.

I'm not going to apologize for having come under attack.

I am not a "survivor" or a "grinder." That's not my style in life, and it's certainly not my style in poker. I take risks. I quit my law practice to pursue a career as a novelist. The "safe" course would have been to continue practicing as an attorney; the income was certainly more predictable. But I decided to take the risk of ruin and write full-time, and deal with the vagueries of contracts, advances, and royalties. I don't write "safe" books. I include controversial elements, and I'm not at all afraid to swim against the prevailing market tide. Despite all of that, or perhaps because of it, I've been successful.

I could cite countless examples of times when I've chosen to take the riskier course ... and where the stakes were a whole lot higher than the buy-in for a SNG. I'm not risk-averse. Never have been and never will be.

My playing style fits my personality: aggressive, willing to take risks, willing to risk ruin in order to excel. If that's not "you," okay, you won't like me as a person, and you won't like the way I play poker. That's fine. In the end, you have to play your own game, optimized to your own personality and the games you play. And that's what I try to do. I've never claimed to be an expert, and I've said countless times that what works for me might not work for others.

As it turns out, my Poker Goals Pt. 2 post had nothing to do with the many accusations that have been made against me, and everything to do with seeking feedback on whether this was a realistic goal. I have not been as successful at $109 SNGs as I have been at $55 SNGs. The play is a big step up in quality. It may well be that the $109s are way over my head, despite my having had a couple of wins there.

Instead of useful feedback on an honest question, I was attacked, my honesty and attitude maligned, and to what good end? So a handful of people can feel better about themselves, having torn someone else down?

Please, don't give me the line about protecting the integrity of this forum by trying to weed out bad advice; anyone reading this forum knows -- or ought to know -- that advice is usually worth what you pay for it, and this forum is free. You have to evaluate what you read, measure it against your own style, your own personality, your own experience, and the games you play.

It's been said that some people here are gambling with money they can't afford to lose, so bad advice puts them at serious risk. To this I say: you shouldn't play with money you can't afford to lose. If you're an amateur playing poker with your grocery money, you have bigger problems than bad advice on a poker forum, and you seek help before you ruin your life and the lives of those who care about you. And if you're a professional player and your winnings ARE your grocery money, you certainly know or ought to know enough to avoid advice that doesn't help you.

In neither case is your bankroll my responsibility.

We are all trying to learn this game. I've said countless times that my game is a work in progress, and that it will be a work in progress forever. A lot of what I think I've learned now will seem ridiculous five years from now, and a lot of what I think I've learned then will seem ridiculous five years later. That's part of the nature of this game; you can never afford to think you've learned all you need to know, and you can never stop challenging what you think you know.

Somehow, though, some have judged it incumbent upon me -- alone of all the posters on this forum -- to qualify every post with "but hey, what do I know, make up your own mind," as if that weren't implicit in the nature of this forum. My writing style, very direct and precise, is taken for arrogance or a belief in my own infallibilty. But as I said in another post, I'd prefer to lay out my reasoning as clearly and precisely as I can, in part to test it in the writing process, and in part so readers can look at the assumptions and logic, so they can better evaluate my conclusions . I'm not going to write fuzzy, waffling posts just to satisfy some readers' stylistic preferences.

If you disagree with my ideas, feel free to say so, and say so directly. I don't mind debate, even spirited debate, and it is axiomatic that we learn from the times we're wrong, not from the times we're right. But that's not what happened over the past 36 hours. What happened was nothing more and nothing less than a personal attack, and yes, when I'm attacked, I'm going to fire back.

More than enough is way more than enough.

Back to gambling,

Cris

[CrisBrown]

Hi La Brujita,

And I've said -- repeatedly -- that I didn't start playing the $55 and $109 SNGs. I started on October 22nd with $11s, worked my way up through $22s and $33s, and didn't even try a $55 until my bankroll hit $1250. I'm sure you will want an exact date so you can recalculate how much of a liar I am, but frankly, I don't remember.

Read my ideas for what they're worth to you. Agree, or disagree, according to your own evaluation of the IDEA's worth. But this whole "credibility" issue is just another way of continuing a personal attack. I no more have to prove my credentials to post here than does anyone else. Let the ideas speak for themselves and end the ad-hominem attacks.

Cris

[Cosimo]

Dead horse, but OCD calls to me.

I had a bunch of stuff here, twice, but I decided against it all. Instead, an intervention:

Cris, you've said that you think you tilt too much. I think you were tilting when you posted to this thread. There's a lot of support here for you. A level-headed reply is appreciated more than victim stories; the latter only fans the flames.

If you want us to take you seriously, then cut out the "or you could just assume I'm a liar" lines. Of course we make assumptions; if you notice that they're off, explain them, as you have, but do it without defensiveness.

[CrisBrown]

Hi All,

I replied to Cosimo privately. If anyone else has anything to say to me on this subject, even my detractors, I think it would be better for the forum if further comments were taken to private messaging.

More than enough is way more than enough.

Cris

[La Brujita]

Cris,

Since you responded to me publicly I am going to do the same. Here is what I have to say:

1. I don't get some sick pleasure out of bringing anyone down on this forum. When someone posts on the internet forum that they are in a tournament and want to be "sweated" I often sweat them. When someone posts they have done well in a tournament I always congratulate them. Let me let you in on a little secret, when I am not playing, I am rooting for you, William and all the other posters to win every event.

2. That being said, to call my discussion with you and ad hominem attack is both ridiculous and ludicrous. Here is the definition: "Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason". I used basic math to show you your numbers are not correct, that is as far from an ad hominem attack as you can get.

3. In your response to Prickly Pete you mentioned that you tilt and blow your bankroll. This is almost too obvious to mention but a win rate encompasses those days when you tilt, when you are sick, when you feel like the best player in the world and when you get lucky. That is why it is an average.

4. As a matter of logic using phrases like "or you can assume I am a liar" really does nothing to bolster any arguments you make, it is just an appeal to emotion.

5. When you post I have this style and William has this style and they both work it presupposes a certain level of success.

6. I would disagree with you when you say you don't feel any responsibility for advice you give in this paragraph:

"It's been said that some people here are gambling with money they can't afford to lose, so bad advice puts them at serious risk. To this I say: you shouldn't play with money you can't afford to lose. If you're an amateur playing poker with your grocery money, you have bigger problems than bad advice on a poker forum, and you seek help before you ruin your life and the lives of those who care about you. And if you're a professional player and your winnings ARE your grocery money, you certainly know or ought to know enough to avoid advice that doesn't help you. In neither case is your bankroll my responsibility."


When I give advice with respect to money here I try to make sure I give the best I can and usually put it in the following format: I would do x for y reason. That way if people think I am wrong they can at least see my thought process. I care if my advice might potentially cost others money.

7. If you don't think you have pumped your self up to be a better player to get credit in this forum you and I see the world a bit differently. Here is just one quote I am referring to that you have made:

"I've played with Phil Ivey, Layne Flack, Phil Gordon, and some other top-name pros, and by and large I've held my own when I had cards I'd usually hold my own with. They're very good -- better than me by a significant margin -- but they're still beatable."

Have you really had that much experience playing with top pros in the seven months you have been playing, most of which have been at $10 tables?

[Kinli]

[ QUOTE ]

Have you really had that much experience playing with top pros in the seven months you have been playing, most of which have been at $10 tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

LaBrujita,

Yes, Cris has. These same pros were playing on UB for Aruba satellite entries. They also occasionally played in other high-stakes tournaments. Heck, I was floored one time to find myself playing Phil Ivey in an Ultimate Point SNG, for crying out loud. Poker players are like anyone else. They don't mind using freebies to buy their way into high-stakes tournaments.

Cris has occasionally beat them. She took Phil Ivey out heads-up.

Why does this seem so impossible? Has everyone forgotten Chris Moneymaker?

Kinli, who was there to see it happen.

[CrisBrown]

La Brujita,

Point by point:

1. Thanks for rooting for me when you're not playing.

2. It is an ad hominem attack. If you wish to disagree with my advice on a given hand, or a given situation, fine. Whether I've won $1 or $1M is irrelevant to whether that advice is sound, however. The ideas stand or fall on their own merit, not on your assessment of the author's credibility or worthiness to voice them.

3. Things are rarely as good or as bad as they seem. With that in mine, I tend to filter out both the exceptionally good days (when the deck is running me over and I could win with any two cards), and the exceptionally bad days (when I play stupidly for extrinsic reasons) when I assess my own progress. I can't do anything to make the deck run me over, and avoiding the tilt days has more to do with self- and bankroll-management than with decisions on the play of a given hand.

4. No, it's a statement of fact. You have two choices: you can choose to assess my posts in terms of the ideas I post and whether they fit your experience and your playing style, or you can choose to assume that everything I write is suspect because I'm a liar. I really don't care which you choose.

5. Okay, so what is a sufficient level of success to be permitted to adopt a different style of play? And does everyone else have to attain that level of success or only me? And if everyone has to, should we all have to open our poker accounts for auditing before we're allowed to post any non-conventional idea here? Should we have two kinds of membership: conventional-ideas-only (open to all), and unconventional-ideas-permitted (open only to those who can prove at least $20K in annual poker income)?

6. You can agree or disagree as you like. I am not going to accept responsibility for someone else's bankroll. I'm responsible for my own.

7. Phil Ivey, Layne Flack, Phil Gordon, and several other top pros play at UB, and I ran into them in Aruba satellite tournaments. Although I didn't win a trip to Aruba, I did outlast them a couple of times, and when they had been at my tables. The post from which this uote was taken was encouraging Doc not to go into a $500 tournament feeling intimidated by the superior players, but to simply play his game, his way, and let the results fall where they may.

Now, are you going to go through each and every one of the 900+ posts I've written looking for sentences that you can force me to defend, or can we end this Inquisition and get back to the purpose of this forum?

Cris