Do you ever wonder if you have what it takes to be a winning player?

steamboatin · #1 08-23-2005, 10:10 AM

I have been reading Poker Essays I-III and it is enough to make me believe becoming a long term winner is much harder than it appears.

poker-penguin · #2 08-23-2005, 10:33 AM

Whenever I do wonder, I console myself with the fact even if I do suck and have been running good for two years, I've cashed out many times my original deposit.

Grisgra · #3 08-23-2005, 10:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I have been reading Poker Essays I-III and it is enough to make me believe becoming a long term winner is much harder than it appears.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, it can't be harder that reading Mason's fifteenth essay comparing Hold 'em to Stud while resisting the urge to blow your brains out.

I mean, lord, man, just let it go!

But I suppose the other essays (i.e., the 15% of the collection not dealing with blind structure or Stud vs Hold 'em) are pretty good.

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

thirddan · #4 08-23-2005, 07:38 PM

take solace in the fact that you don't necessarily have to be good in order to win at poker...you only have to be good enough to beat the game you play in...

i imagine that most posters (including myself) on this site aren't good poker players, but they are "good" enough to beat low limit online and BM games...

aflaba · #5 08-23-2005, 08:24 PM

Yes. Then I remember that if I moved down I level I would become a winning player with 100% certanty. So, no. Often though I wonder if I have what it takes to be a winning player in the games I strive to play in.

DiceyPlay · #6 08-24-2005, 03:30 AM

Yes, the experts say it's impossible to beat the low limits in the long run due to the rake/drop/toke/jackpot structure. If no money was taken off the table, I'd be up significantly. As it is I'm down about 1 small bet per hour. I'll guess I win an average of 3 pots an hour (I think that's conservative). Rake+Toke+JackpotRake = 1.5 small bets per pot. So by my estimation, I'd be up 3.5 small bets per hour over the time I've been keeping records.

But I don't think I'm good enough to move up where the cost of playing is less significant in comparison to money won/lost.

It's difficult to reconcile whether I could be a winning player.

This is a good thread - one I wish would get more atttention than it does.

SittingBull · #7 08-24-2005, 03:42 AM

say that it's impossible to beat low-limt raked/toked games.
If some do,they are WRONG.
I've been beating raked games and toking for over 10 years. I NEVER had a losing year. Of course,all thes low limit games had NO ante's.
So maybe with a 20% small bet ante,the rake,jackpot rake,and toke,it just MIGHT be a crap shoot.Those experts might be thinking about a good-size ante game.
SittingBull

judgesmails · #8 08-24-2005, 04:41 AM

I start having self-doubts after any losing streak. I also really question myself when I lose during a session when another bad player is winning.

My feelings are not rational as I have a solid, not spectacular, winning record. But I think these feelings stem from a general distrust of the long-term viability of this game being a dependable income source for me. And also from the knowledge that there are many players out there who are better than I am. I am always waiting for the sky to fall.

DiceyPlay · #9 08-24-2005, 10:46 AM

Hi SittingBull,

What is the structure of the game you play?

I play holdem exclusively. The game I play in takes a drop each and every hand that sees a flop. No flop, they take $1. If my game was raked, I'd likely be a small winner.

I know my game/play is flawed, but hey, so is everyones to some extent. I'm working to plug leaks and make extra bets on my winners.

-DP