ring games or sit n go

[Newt_Buggs]

[ QUOTE ]

where can i find a coach/? i live in hawaii

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know anything about coaching, but you don't need to find meet up with someone physically. I think its traditional for you to simply send hand histories to the coach, who will then look them over and give you in depth feedback and help you along/advise you with your future games. In return the coach gets a share of your profits while teaching you. Anyone who has coached before or knows about it want to enlighten us on the standard procedure and pay?

[freemoney]

i disagree, a person with high levels of intelligence could easily be a winning player within months.

[ZebraAss]

[ QUOTE ]
no offense but if u cant beat the 5 buy in sit n gos naturally u will never be a winning player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you say that?

EDIT: I mind if you stayed in the NL/PL sections of 2+2, your posts are much too insightful for us STT'ers.

[treeofwisdom7]

maybe later i'll just post my whole strategy and everyone can tell me what they agree and disagree with. i think my poker smarts is greater than the average person altho i havent outgrown slanskys books, and harringtons one, still have to read all of them a couple times to get them down

[Newt_Buggs]

I just don't know what to say. You play for a couple of hours everyday and sound very serious about the studying the game but still can't beat the $5s? Voltron is right that its much harder to become a winning player than this forum makes it seem, but you seem to have the discipline and determination beyond most people. I really do respect that, I think that if I had put in this much effort into poker and still wasn't winning at the $5s I would have pulled my hair out by now. I'de definitly encourage you to post some things on your basic strategy because you probably have some fundamental flaws in your game that you are probably overlooking. (you've read over everything in shadow's first post right?)

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not easy to become a winning poker player. It takes a long time. It is one thing to understand what to do, it is entirely another to do it day in and day out and churn out a consistent profit. It is nowhere as easy as people on this forum make it sound.

[/ QUOTE ]

It took me less than a month.

Seriously.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe later i'll just post my whole strategy and everyone can tell me what they agree and disagree with. i think my poker smarts is greater than the average person altho i havent outgrown slanskys books, and harringtons one, still have to read all of them a couple times to get them down

[/ QUOTE ]

Very few of us have completely outgrown those books, probably almost everyone had to read them a few times to get anywhere near their full value out of them, and probably all of us should keep reviewing them every so often for as long as we play poker. Those books aren't super quick reads, and they aren't shallow.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is not easy to become a winning poker player. It takes a long time. It is one thing to understand what to do, it is entirely another to do it day in and day out and churn out a consistent profit. It is nowhere as easy as people on this forum make it sound.

[/ QUOTE ]

It took me less than a month.

Seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

After a month, you didn't know if you were a winner; you just knew you won. Most people who get interested in poker started out winners, or they wouldn't have kept going.

[Mr_J]

"It is nowhere as easy as people on this forum make it sound."

I disagree (and agree with bigwig). Within 50 sngs I was a profitable multitabler (4tables) at the $33s. Profitable says who? I thought I was ok and around 15%, and Irie agreed (even with the 15% figure) when he did his analysis of my play (although looking back I think a few % lower was more accurate). I did spend more time reading about sngs than playing them during that time, and also had the motivation to learn quickly since I'd be relying on them for income.

*Not trying to boast here or pretend to be special, just proving a point.

[Blarg]

An anecdote of this nature cannot possibly prove a point. It remains an anecdote. And because of that, in a sense is actually changing the subject.

The question is not, Would someone who started winning right away be willing to admit it?

The question is more along the lines of, Will the average person easily become a winner, preferably with a reasonable ROI?

Actually, the average person loses money in poker. That some people do not, and even learn quickly how to win, just confirms that there are some people with more ability than others.

It doesn't mean the subject is necessarily particularly easy for everyone to learn, just because it is for some. There are 10 year old kids who can do graduate level math work, but does that make calculus easy? No, Not to hear them tell it, though. And I'm not saying that poker is calculus, for beter or worse.

There's no real textbook or plan for learning SNG's. You have to stumble upon ideas, which everyone does in a different order, and sometimes modify them to a personal play style, and keep changing them as you figure more and more things out, and puzzle out for yourself when they do and don't apply and when you have to change them for different opponents, all while hopefully not taking too many wrong turns and completely screwing yourself up or decimating your bankroll and destroying your confidence and willingness to keep playing the game.

It's a very individual process for everyone, and getting started off just a little differently, or with a different level of talent, is going to lead to a different journey, one sometimes more or less successful than the next.

I really don't think one guy saying poker is easy has all that much more value than another guy saying poker is hard. Personally, I think for most people it takes a while to come to any workable conclusions at all, and then, their conclusions apply mostly just to them.