People Who Quit

[Jorge10]

[ QUOTE ]
Third is LACK OF DISCIPLINE. You don’t have to be a genius or even extremely knowledgeable to beat poker. You just need the discipline to do all the unnatural, unpleasant things that it takes to win. The two most important are:


[/ QUOTE ]

I think thats the killer, most of the posts seem to say that they took shots at higher limits at one point.

[ QUOTE ]
The house takes so much money out of the game that you must be significantly above average just to break even.


[/ QUOTE ]

Really? I dont know some pretty bad players are online playing everyday and they seem to be marginal winners and they are pretty bad.

Very good responses, espcially from Dr. Al.

[Xhad]

Do you honestly keep enough records about anyone other than yourself to have a significant sample size?

[Al Schoonmaker]

In reply to my comment that you have to be significantly better than average to win you wrote: "Really? I dont know some pretty bad players are online playing everyday and they seem to be marginal winners and they are pretty bad."

The question is not whether they are bad. It is whether they are better than the opposition.

Nobody knows the percentage of people who play that end up winning. The most common estimates are from 10 to 15%. Some recent posters referred to a "study" that found that only 7% of online players win. I have no idea where that number came from or how that study was conducted, and it might be just a myth.

You must understand that the house takes an ENORMOUS amount out of the game. In low stakes games it works out to 2-3 BB per hour per player in B&M rooms, much more online. If you aren't much better than average, that charge will kill you.

Regards,

Al

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody knows the percentage of people who play that end up winning. The most common estimates are from 10 to 15%. Some recent posters referred to a "study" that found that only 7% of online players win. I have no idea where that number came from or how that study was conducted, and it might be just a myth.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it was from a Jackpot Jay column. He said two executives from two different online poker sites gave him 7% and 8% as the amount of players who show a yearly profit.

[valenzuela]

joe deposists 50, he loses , he never plays again..those numbers aint that correct,.I think that more accurate math would be,
on a 10 handed table.. 1,5 players are winning players over the long run(not 0,7 or something)
Btw there is no such thing as a break even player...I think thats its kinda mathematicly imposible...or u have -ev or u have +ev..so what if ure EV is one cent over 100000 hands of 30/60, its still +EV. thats why u cant be a break even player on the long run.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Thank you

Al

[Sniper]

Al, thought you saw this already, but here's the link to Jay's article...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...0719&num=0

[bernie]

Whatta great post Al.

[ QUOTE ]
Fourth is UNRELIABLE FEEDBACK. As SSH clearly explains, poker feedback is extremely unreliable. Unlike many activities, “the immediate results in poker are often divorced from your actions.” (p. 17) You can play well and lose, or play poorly and win for the short term. To be a long-term winner you must see beyond the immediate results, learn the right lessons, then apply them in a disciplined way

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is one of the bigger reasons many of them fail. I've mentioned many times to people that I think that early chapter in SSHE is one of the most important because of how it explains it. Many will skip over it and get to the actual playing advice. Then when they start losing a bit, even if they are playing right, they'll only see the shortterm aspect of it, magnified.

Then they quit using the recommendations thinking that Ed is just another crackpot cashing in on the popularity of the game. Then they'll go back to Phils book because, after all, EVERYONE knows phil and that he won so he must know better. This shortterm result could be even if they play a month str8 and go on a bad run. Many just don't know, or really believe in, the swings that can occur. They think the longrun is about a month or so. Or sooner. Which then, obviously, leads to the lack of discipline. Everyone has discipline when they're winning. Which is why it's during a losing streak you really see just how good the player is, and how much he really understands the game, imo. Many will learn a 'move' they see in a book but not the reasoning behind it. When the 'move' fails a few times, they'll likely abandon it and go back to their old bad habitual way of playing as it's more comfortable for them to play that way.


b

[gergery]

Barry Greenstein's book covers what he thinks it takes to be a successful pro. And I'd guess <30% of the book is devoted to how to play invididual hands.

Giving them books doesn't even get them halfway to being winning players.
-g