Im done ( long, do not respond, just venting )

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
A 1200BB downswing is almost a statistical impossibility for a winning player

[/ QUOTE ]
This is true in limit. But if the OP was playing no limit at, say, Absolute Poker, and buying in for the maximum, and if the OP meant for "BB" to mean "big blind," then 1200BB is only 6 buy-ins. If his style of play is such that he has a high standard deviation, then I think a 1200BB downswing would be in the realm of reasonable possibilities.

I don't play NL, but as I understand it, standard deviation fluctuates from player to player much more wildly in NL than in limit. So it is possible that he did not have big holes in his game that created -EV, but rather had a peculiar style of play that generated a huge standard deviation.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A 1200BB downswing is almost a statistical impossibility for a winning player

[/ QUOTE ]
This is true in limit. But if the OP was playing no limit at, say, Absolute Poker, and buying in for the maximum, and if the OP meant for "BB" to mean "big blind," then 1200BB is only 6 buy-ins. If his style of play is such that he has a high standard deviation, then I think a 1200BB downswing would be in the realm of reasonable possibilities.

I don't play NL, but as I understand it, standard deviation fluctuates from player to player much more wildly in NL than in limit. So it is possible that he did not have big holes in his game that created -EV, but rather had a peculiar style of play that generated a huge standard deviation.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is, of course, correct. If he was playing NL with only 6 buy-ins, I suspect he was under-rolled for the level he was playing. This is a hole in his game (caveat: I do not play NL ring games and do not know what a correct roll is).

[jason1990]

To be pedantic, I would call it a hole in his money management strategy, since it's not a mistake that creates negative expectation. But I agree, being underbankrolled is about the worst mistake a poker player can make.

As for the proper NL bankroll, I remember seeing once in these forums (I think from pzhon) that 10 buy-ins is reasonable for most players. But if it's true that NL standard deviations are all over the map, then this is even less reliable than the 300BB rule of thumb in limit.

[Idaho Ave]

Whether or not the origanl posters claims were true or false is completey insignificane. He was not concerned with the truth or statistics.

The words of our hero, were the words of a man who had just watched his God die.

Losing your only hobby puts one in a huge identity crisis. Golf did something similiar to me. I had to throw away my Titliest hats, and take on a whole new persona because golf was the cornerstone of my identify. After about 14 months golf and I have kissed and made up and my game is back on track. Point is, sure his play was probably over simplified with his I am sooo tight and soo aggressive claims, while I would rather here a claim like I was appropriately tight and appropriatly aggressive. But like I said - who cares, the point is that he lost his hobby, and his faith. I play games with a religious ferver and I have a great sympothy for our hero. I know the feeling far too well.

I will raise my glass for this man, good luck god bless.
Peacefulness

[[censored]]

I've been NL for over a year now.

A good role for a part time player with other means of support would be 10 buy ins. The actual swings are much less than usually around 4.

A good role for a full time player with no other means of support is 20 buy ins.

[CaptSensible]

[ QUOTE ]
Whether or not the origanl posters claims were true or false is completey insignificane. He was not concerned with the truth or statistics.

The words of our hero, were the words of a man who had just watched his God die.

Losing your only hobby puts one in a huge identity crisis. Golf did something similiar to me. I had to throw away my Titliest hats, and take on a whole new persona because golf was the cornerstone of my identify. After about 14 months golf and I have kissed and made up and my game is back on track. Point is, sure his play was probably over simplified with his I am sooo tight and soo aggressive claims, while I would rather here a claim like I was appropriately tight and appropriatly aggressive. But like I said - who cares, the point is that he lost his hobby, and his faith. I play games with a religious ferver and I have a great sympothy for our hero. I know the feeling far too well.

I will raise my glass for this man, good luck god bless.
Peacefulness

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto, I have much empathy for Jimmy. I have faith that he will find another hobby. The only constant thing in life is change. Personaly I think there are many more significant/productive/happiness-inducing things a person can do with their life than play poker. I feel jimmy's pain though. The loss of something you love to do is painful. If he really gives up the game he'll eventually come to terms with it and find something to replace it. I wish him the best of luck.

[dibbs]

You dont know me and I dont know you and you aint gonna read this but Im drunk so Ill kick it.

You sound biased in your thoughts by the words you choose, which leads me to beleive you are also biased in your analysis of your results. 1,200 BBs lost playing good solid poker seems almost impossible, feel free to prove me wrong however.

The gap that you now have to fill is a good thing, not an awful one. There's a lot of things in the world that are more interesting and fufilling than poker. Best of luck to you.

[Dominic]

waaaaaaah.

there's no whining in poker.

[toots]

I don't recall his post saying it explicitly, but it otherwise seems to indicate that he lost it playing NL.

I just love how everyone's so anxious to jump into the deep end of the pool before even learning to tread water.

Is the guy a bad player? Does he have money management holes? Don't know.

But, I do know that even a mediocre to poor player would take a while to lose 1200BB playing limit. Heck, you'd either have to play a lot, or play like a total maniac, but even as a maniac, you're going to play so aggressively that you'll win pots on that alone.

Losing 1200BB at NL seems like something that could easily be accomplished in a rather short period of time, even when you're not playing too horribly. Heck, you could even convince me that it's possible to do it even if you're a good player on a bad streak.

But, NL is the fad right now, so everyone wants to jump in it before they've even really learned how to play the game. An awful lot of people concoct an awful lot of reasons why they should be playing NL instead of limit ("So they'll respect my betting/raising/etc" or "because I can win more money faster"), yet are surprised at how quickly money can evaporate when things are going poorly.

Then again, if this guy really did lose 1200BB playing limit... man, that really sucks.

Just some thoughts: Even the top players who live off cash games play limit. In fact (and correct me if I'm wrong), but the biggest money cash games in history have been limit games. Even the top players go broke every once in a while - even the ones we presume to have good money management skills. No one is so good that they can always beat the game or won't have losing streaks.

Perhaps instead of engaging in a debate over whether this guy was a good or bad player, or whether he does or doesn't have money management problems, we could just try to learn from this. I mean, often, the point of declaring a losing player to be a poor player or poor money manager is just to reassure ourselves that the boogey man isn't really out there. "Oh, that sort of thing can't really happen; he's just a poor player. (I feel safe from the boogey man again.)"

[USGrant]

He's better off not playing.