|
|
#11
10-14-2005, 05:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How many good players will end up failing?
[ QUOTE ]
If a player is a winning player, and has taken several shots, one of their shots will be successful. [/ QUOTE ] This is completely wrong if you're talking about "several" shots (or any other finite number). 
|
|
#12
10-14-2005, 05:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How many good players will end up failing?
[ QUOTE ]
It was surprising to see how many players experienced good fortune at a point in their poker careers when (1) their BR was dangerously low and (2) their good results were not commenserate with their skill level at the time. Given how frequently this happens, it's scary to think that the oppositie could occur. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, and it happens all the time. The reason you hear so much more about the players who took shots and got lucky is selection bias. The ones who ran good were able to stick around, and these are the people whose posts you see here now. The ones who ran bad busted out.
|
|
#13
10-14-2005, 05:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How many good players will end up failing?
[ QUOTE ]
hey guys, i've been a lurker here for a while, first post. I play on the party network under the names Bluffman997, Bluffman887 and Bluffman85, Bluffman86. I play mostly 15-30, $200 SNGs and occasionally 30-60. I think you bring up a good point about good players failing. A few times my BR was just stuck at 5K and I couldn't seem to go anywhere and was seriously considering quitting. It took me a couple of shots before I was finally able to beat 15-30 consistently and have a sufficient BR to never go broke at this level. My main concern is this, poker is a zero sum game. Nothing is created, for every winner, there must be a loser. How long can online poker be sustainable? Ie, when people stop signing up and depositing money, are we all just going to get slowly raked to death? Also, in terms of high limit poker (300-600 and up), is it safe to assume everyone playing there is at an equal skill level? If we assume that, who are the winners and who are the losers? Is it jsut a matter of who's running hotter? At the 4K-8K "Big Game" in Bellagio where the big names play, who's winning and who's losing? [/ QUOTE ] As a first post, I rate this a "D". 1) we really don't care your screen name or the tables you play 2) 1st post is a question about the death of online poker. 3) Brings up points with no relation to the thread. 4) Asks ? about "the big game" 5) No relevant question, adds nothing to the discussion. Why did this get a "D" and not an "F"? You did not bore us with your life story. You did not start a new thread to introduce yourself in some grandiose fashion. You posted in the correct forum. You've got a long ways to go. Welcome to the forum. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] CSC
|
|
#14
10-14-2005, 05:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How many good players will end up failing?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] hey guys, i've been a lurker here for a while, first post. I play on the party network under the names Bluffman997, Bluffman887 and Bluffman85, Bluffman86. I play mostly 15-30, $200 SNGs and occasionally 30-60. I think you bring up a good point about good players failing. A few times my BR was just stuck at 5K and I couldn't seem to go anywhere and was seriously considering quitting. It took me a couple of shots before I was finally able to beat 15-30 consistently and have a sufficient BR to never go broke at this level. My main concern is this, poker is a zero sum game. Nothing is created, for every winner, there must be a loser. How long can online poker be sustainable? Ie, when people stop signing up and depositing money, are we all just going to get slowly raked to death? Also, in terms of high limit poker (300-600 and up), is it safe to assume everyone playing there is at an equal skill level? If we assume that, who are the winners and who are the losers? Is it jsut a matter of who's running hotter? At the 4K-8K "Big Game" in Bellagio where the big names play, who's winning and who's losing? [/ QUOTE ] As a first post, I rate this a "D". 1) we really don't care your screen name or the tables you play 2) 1st post is a question about the death of online poker. 3) Brings up points with no relation to the thread. 4) Asks ? about "the big game" 5) No relevant question, adds nothing to the discussion. Why did this get a "D" and not an "F"? You did not bore us with your life story. You did not start a new thread to introduce yourself in some grandiose fashion. You posted in the correct forum. You've got a long ways to go. Welcome to the forum. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] CSC [/ QUOTE ] although your analysis is spot on, i would like to point out that first posts are rarely any better than this one.
|
|
#17
10-14-2005, 10:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How many good players will end up failing?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If a player is a winning player, and has taken several shots, one of their shots will be successful. Thats the good thing about shots... it only needs to work once, if you exercise proper BR management after you find success at the highest level you've played [/ QUOTE ] Hey elmo, it was with this philosophy that I built my BR. I totally agree with it. -James [/ QUOTE ] I get very concerned when excellent players say this, because people who don't understand bankroll mamagement will not apply this correctly. So i am going to add this disclaimer. ***What James and Elmo are saying is only applicable if you have a sense of where you stand in your current game or maybe the one below. You should have a good idea of what kind of bankroll you would need at the stakes you KNOW you can beat to a VERY LOW risk or ruin. If your bankroll swells beyond that point, then you can use the excess money to take shots as frequently as you like as long as you don't endanger your potential earn in your regualr game by doing so. Taking shots every single time you have 300 BB for a stake level will generally not be a good idea because too much of your sucess will be contigent upon luck. For every James, there are MANY people who fail, so don't feel bad being slightly more conservative than he was, because not everyone has his charecter traits that made him sucessful*** Gabe
|
|
#18
10-14-2005, 12:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How many good players will end up failing?
[ QUOTE ]
My main concern is this, poker is a zero sum game. Nothing is created, for every winner, there must be a loser. How long can online poker be sustainable? Ie, when people stop signing up and depositing money, are we all just going to get slowly raked to death? [/ QUOTE ] You'd think, wouldn't you? Fortunately dumb people keep being born.
|
|
#19
10-14-2005, 12:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How many good players will end up failing?
[ QUOTE ]
My main concern is this, poker is a zero sum game. Nothing is created, for every winner, there must be a loser. How long can online poker be sustainable? Ie, when people stop signing up and depositing money, are we all just going to get slowly raked to death? [/ QUOTE ] Card, I understand that this isn't exactly an informative post, but it's his first, so I think we should give him a break. At least point out kindly that these type of posts are unnecessary. There's been tons of 1st posts that are 20x worse than this. To Bluff, a couple points I'd like to make: 1) Poker is not a zero-sum game. In fact, it's worse. The rake takes out a substantial portion of the total pool of money. I guess as you move up in limits, the rake is proportionally small compared to the bets, so it approaches one. (I'm not saying ideas behind zero-sum games can't be used to describe poker, but in reality, it's negative-sum). 2) This is just being nit-picky, but it's not true that "for every winner, there must be a loser". It's true that for there to be at least one winner, there has to be at least one loser, but it's possible to imagine a situation where 9 people at a table are up and the 10th person has dropped 200 BBs. In reality though, for every winner in poker, there's more like 10-20 losers. 3) Online poker continues because of the same reason that live poker continues. There's new cash flow coming in. People earn income and lose it at the tables. For online though, I guess it's much easier for a fish to lose large amounts in short periods of time. So who knows where online poker will be later on.
|
|
#20
10-14-2005, 12:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How many good players will end up failing?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If a player is a winning player, and has taken several shots, one of their shots will be successful. Thats the good thing about shots... it only needs to work once, if you exercise proper BR management after you find success at the highest level you've played [/ QUOTE ] Hey elmo, it was with this philosophy that I built my BR. I totally agree with it. -James [/ QUOTE ] I get very concerned when excellent players say this, because people who don't understand bankroll mamagement will not apply this correctly. So i am going to add this disclaimer. ***What James and Elmo are saying is only applicable if you have a sense of where you stand in your current game or maybe the one below. You should have a good idea of what kind of bankroll you would need at the stakes you KNOW you can beat to a VERY LOW risk or ruin. If your bankroll swells beyond that point, then you can use the excess money to take shots as frequently as you like as long as you don't endanger your potential earn in your regualr game by doing so. Taking shots every single time you have 300 BB for a stake level will generally not be a good idea because too much of your sucess will be contigent upon luck. For every James, there are MANY people who fail, so don't feel bad being slightly more conservative than he was, because not everyone has his charecter traits that made him sucessful*** Gabe [/ QUOTE ] Good post. You never know when an SS lurker is going to see one of those posts and be like, "oh shoot, I need to take more shots" and then bring 1/2 his bankroll into a 30/60 game.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
