Winning big - The worst scenario for new players?

[ThaHero]

Guess I should be happy i lost my initial deposit and ran a second one up to $300 before almost losing all that and dropping back down sheepishly. Hopefully I dont loose much more!

[Nigel]

[ QUOTE ]
From what i've seen, it seems like the worst thing that could happen to an online beginner is that he could turn his initial 50$ into a thousands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Sounds good to me.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
i was super lucky and lost my first three deposits. yay for me.

fim

[/ QUOTE ]

[psyduck]

[ QUOTE ]
i was super lucky and lost my first 7 deposits. yay for me.



[/ QUOTE ]

fixed for me.

then I learnt a ton and am doing well now [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[stigmata]

The only way to run a small deposit up into big figures is to have a lot of "Gamble" in the first place.

E.g. You run hot at 3/6 and then take that to 15/30 where you have a 30BB roll, run hot there, etc. For the sort of person who approaches poker in this way, I agree that the worst thing that can happen is that they actually win big. It just encourages and reinforces there risk taking behaviour.

On the other hand, if you approach the game in a sensible manner - as many eventual winners do - it is pretty much impossible to go on such an enormous streak (tournaments excepted).

[Dave H.]

I have to agree with you. I'm an ultra conservative individual by nature. I started with $12 of THEIR money, and never contributed a dime of "my own". I started at the .02/.04 tables and it took me 4 months just to get to $40 playing .02/.04, then .05/.10

However, even though I do consider myself conservative by nature, I believe that winning big from the get go would have delayed my education immensely. I mean, why study if I'm winning and if I'm clueless (as a beginner) that it takes studying? Eventually, I'm sure I would have buckled down and educated myself, but it would have taken far longer had I had a great run from the start.

[Jorge10]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean, why study if I'm winning and if I'm clueless (as a beginner) that it takes studying? Eventually, I'm sure I would have buckled down and educated myself, but it would have taken far longer had I had a great run from the start.

[/ QUOTE ]

I sort of started really well, but I still studied for some reason I have always enjoyed reading poker books, I guess im weird like that.

Anyway I disagree starting out well is not a bad thing for some. I never actually deposited any money on ub, but I used points to enter money tourneys and won 3k off tourneys and I spent it all on stupid crap because I had no bankroll management skills, I am currently a cash game player that has been winning consistently for months and yes I have experienced two major downswings including a two week one which was brutal, but I am still winning. Still if I hadnt gone broke after that initial cash I won, I would have never played cash games because I would have kept thinking, why play cash games when its so easy to win at tourneys.

Of course some people do get screwed because some people win a lot and just assume its always going to be that good. They assume I won 14k in two months, its always going to be like this and they start thinking I rather do this than my job and so on and so forth. Thats the reason people chase their initial run because they are obviously unhappy or unsatisfied with their current situation and want more money among other things. But the people that get screwed by their initial upswing are people who were probably unhappy to begin with and you cant really blame their initial rush of cards for screwing them, they were already screwed up.

[britspin]

I suppose it depends on your definition of big and fast. I made an initial £25 depost, which gave me, I remember, $44.33. I've since cashed out £1,800, and have £989 in the account now. i regard this achievement with awe. I know I'm no ivey, but I can't quite believe people gave me all that money! It's peanuts compared to most here, but I'm ashamed to say I'm proud of it.

However, It's taken a couple of years. I started off playing 0.05/0.10 limit and 25c STTs and moved up limits v. slowly and v. gradually. I'm now at the giddy height of $1/$2 and $10 - $25 STT and occ MTT.

I'm know at some point I'll reach my limit- the game i'm not beating, the players that are better than me- the challenge will then be to recognise it quickly enough that it doesn't hurt too much.

slow and steady wins the race, I guess.

[malorum]

You will get distracted by the noise (variance)to start with or you aint human.

In the short run your income is tied to a random walk and this messes with your head.

The only way to overcome this without 'geniune' familiarity with applied statistics, is to multitable asap.
You should be able to do this on limit games profitably even as a losing player (with bonus crutches).
Your first 100k hands should give you a feel for the variance.

Till you got those recorded don't kid yourself and don't despair.

[William Wilson]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm know at some point I'll reach my limit- the game i'm not beating, the players that are better than me- the challenge will then be to recognise it quickly enough that it doesn't hurt too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, if you continue to take care of your bankroll as you have, there's no reason this HAS to happen. To think so is negative.