how much would you pay to have a pro look at your summary?

[microbet]

I get people mixed up sometimes but...

Lorinda for sure.

I'm not sure about the rest. I get people mixed up. I think 45suited and IC5 have played a ton of $11s and have done really well. Maybe lastchance too? Someone posted a while back about 38 or 39% ROI over thousands, but I'm not sure who.

[Scuba Chuck]

I found OP's question to sound sincere and from someone who wants to take his game seriously. I congratulate you for considering having an expert help you out.

I think I might be able to crystalize what the message is that you are getting from the group think here. If you're just beginning, and you'd like some help with how you're playing, there's a contingent of players here who have a pretty good, but loose, grasp of the general strategy on how to beat the low buyins (without the push/fold Adanthar strategy) who can help you out. And frankly, this will probably work just fine.

An alternate approach would be to ask/pay someone to mentor you.

IMHO, if you're going to pay a pro for HH reviewing ( if you're a sort of beginner ), I think you're better off taking the mentor route.

By no means should you read my comments to mean that you should not have your HH's reviewed by a pro. As I said earlier, I think that means you have a real desire to further your game.

Good luck at the tables.
Scuba

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
I get people mixed up sometimes but...

Lorinda for sure.

I'm not sure about the rest. I get people mixed up. I think 45suited and IC5 have played a ton of $11s and have done really well. Maybe lastchance too? Someone posted a while back about 38 or 39% ROI over thousands, but I'm not sure who.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'm pretty sure Lorinda is playing above those limits (or some other form of poker....given the MIA on the forum)...but, yes, Lorinda is probably the best low limit STT player ever (IMO of course).

Yugoslav

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]

Well I'm pretty sure Lorinda is playing above those limits (or some other form of poker....given the MIA on the forum)...but, yes, Lorinda is probably the best low limit STT player ever (IMO of course).

Yugoslav

[/ QUOTE ]

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
you honestly would check over a $22 for $5?

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider myself good enough for $5 to be a fair price for my HH reviewing. If I was, say, Lorinda I would charge a higher percentage.

[Izverg04]

[ QUOTE ]
while i'm sure you can find someone to look over a game or two for free, this statement below is pretty silly. to a pro, they play their hours they make their money, the concept of taking a cut in pay/hour to get a gauranteed rate (probably a big cut) just doesn't make much sense.

then again, 1800gambler made a post about this once i think. my main thinking on the subject is that if someone has some hourly rate for playing, that is their expected return for the next hour, plain and simple.
[ QUOTE ]
this is guaranteed income and believe that should change the rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
With all respect, your refutation of the statement above is silly. I remember 1800Gambler's poll very well. 50% of respondents said they'd give up 10% or less of EV in exchanged for a guaranteed winrate. IMO, the results of that poll indicated that a lot of advanced poker players play below their optimal stakes or that they are dilettantes when it comes to risk taking in general. I lean towards the latter.

A poker player should be willing to exchange his winnings for a guranteed income of (EV-Variance/2R), where R describes his risk tolerance. For a blackjack counter who optimized the stakes that he plays for, Variance/EV=R, and so a blackjack counter should give 50% of EV in excange for a flat rate. For a poker player who optimized the stakes, Variance/EV=m*R, where m is usually somewhere between 0.4 and 0.8, so he should be willing to part with 20-40% of his winrate depending on how comfortable he is at a given level.

[Oluwafemi]

but i may consider paying to look at a pro's summary, provided it's a large enough sample and that he can provide thorough thought processes in his HHs.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
With all respect, your refutation of the statement above is silly. I remember 1800Gambler's poll very well. 50% of respondents said they'd give up 10% or less of EV in exchanged for a guaranteed winrate. IMO, the results of that poll indicated that a lot of advanced poker players play below their optimal stakes or that they are dilettantes when it comes to risk taking in general. I lean towards the latter.

A poker player should be willing to exchange his winnings for a guranteed income of (EV-Variance/2R), where R describes his risk tolerance. For a blackjack counter who optimized the stakes that he plays for, Variance/EV=R, and so a blackjack counter should give 50% of EV in excange for a flat rate. For a poker player who optimized the stakes, Variance/EV=m*R, where m is usually somewhere between 0.4 and 0.8, so he should be willing to part with 20-40% of his winrate depending on how comfortable he is at a given level.

[/ QUOTE ]

jesus christ, did you honestly just write that? your reasoning is that people should be willing to take a pay cut to reduce variance because there is an economic variable R called risk tolerance? the point in my original post is that in many instances, people who gamble should have very high risk tolerances while staying within their bankroll.

so if a player is playing within their bankroll and is in some way "properly" mindsetted to be a professional gambler, they should never accept money for work that is a subistitute for their gambling activity during hours which they would otherwise be participating in their gambling activity. the point in this paragraph is what i was trying, while sleepy, to get at in my other post.

i apologize for my tone in the first paragraph, but your "reasoning" involved:

a) showing up with random assed equations
b) showing up with a risk tolerance variable R and not considering what it's values should be for a professional gambler playing within his bankroll
c) showing up with a variable m which you didn't define except giving it a range
d) eh, i gots nothing more. but i really do think that my point is quite valid, and the idea of just showing up with some equations and not acutally showing anything with them is pretty nutso.

citanul

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
but i may consider paying to look at a pro's summary, provided it's a large enough sample and that he can provide thorough thought processes in his HHs.

[/ QUOTE ]

you do understand that in general, to do that, the pro would require you to pay a pretty heinous amount of money, right?

citanul

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but i may consider paying to look at a pro's summary, provided it's a large enough sample and that he can provide thorough thought processes in his HHs.

[/ QUOTE ]

you do understand that in general, to do that, the pro would require you to pay a pretty heinous amount of money, right?

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

ill give someone access to an email file with 500+ sng summaries for 2k. 4 bucks per is a BARGAIN!!! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] holla