The Best In The Business

[pleno1]

That's like me going to his thread and telling him he's talking bollocks about engines. I once drove a car, that doesn't make me know better than somebody who knows a lot about them, he should do likewise here.

Going to enjoy my day now but some home truths about why people have losing months

1) they don't play enough volume, if you play as much in a month that you should in a week that doesn't count
2) they are not winning players/silty above break even. Too many people are professional poker players who shouldn't be
3) they handle losing unprofessionally, ie if they are losing after 2 weeks it's tough for them to get out of it, if I'm stuck after 2 weeks I'll make sure I do everything in my power for the 2nd two weeks to work

People can have different opinions sure, but between myself and perhaps the 20 closest people to me who are professional cash game players I would bet a lot of money that between us we have less than 40 losing months in 2015 and would bet a lot on it too.

[rfgqqabc]

Please please please don't make me get the variance simulations again.


I don't think someone who primarily game selects HU is a good example of someone who endures regular variance. I don't think taking on the 20 best cash players you know on would be very wise, but if you can get 20 relatively fair guys, I'm up for printing some money opposing you. You are simply wrong. Variance is much much higher than you think and people handle variance far worse than you can imagine. (you probably saw a lot of that this month and the player in question is pretty professional in my opinion). I mean obviously if we include 65% rakeback then it is going to be much closer but if we can find a fair figure for that too then lets go.

[claypole]

A lot of this discussion which is really rich is confusing "luck" with "commitment" - the two aren't mutually exclusive. I'd highly reccomend reading Outliers, The Story of Success by Malcom Gladwell if your interested in this stuff. It's quite old now 2008 but some pretty good stuff in there - think you'd love it Pads if you haven't already read it

[pleno1]

Please please please don't make me get the variance simulations again.

Probability of running at or above observed win rate (0.00 BB/100) over 100000 hands with a true win rate of 4.50 BB/100 (»?«)   92.2636%

Probability of running below observed win rate (0.00 BB/100) over 100000 hands with a true win rate of 4.50 BB/100 (»?«)   7.7364%


12/2= 16.66%  


Now let's add in rake back...

If you play 8 tables at 1/2 (questionable if professional, but whatever) for 4 hours a day you make over 6k in rake back a month. That's 30bis, so let's say somehow you are -30bis then still you will make this back in rake back. Think about it, you are going to win a lot of buy ins with expectation so you have to run fucking terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrible.

Now for this to happen twice in a year? When the expectation of a losing month is 7% that's any losing kind of month, -1bb etc

[pleno1]

A lot of this discussion which is really rich is confusing "luck" with "commitment" - the two aren't mutually exclusive. I'd highly reccomend reading Outliers, The Story of Success by Malcom Gladwell if your interested in this stuff. It's quite old now 2008 but some pretty good stuff in there - think you'd love it Pads if you haven't already read it

Yeah what I was trying to say is if you're committed you're more likely to be lucky than somebody who is not committed.

But whatever, I'm not Gareth Bale and probably won't be Phil Ivey either. I'm just going to try harder this time.

[RED-DOG]

That's like me going to his thread and telling him he's talking bollocks about engines. I once drove a car, that doesn't make me know better than somebody who knows a lot about them, he should do likewise here.

My poker knowledge is very limited compared to yours, and obv no one in their right mind would take any notice of what I say on the subject, but then I wasn't really questioning your expertise. I was just having a bit of fun.

PS- You can post what you like on my thread, I'm desperate.

[pleno1]

So sick that I at the last minute edited that hashtag in

[pleno1]

Please please please don't make me get the variance simulations again.


I don't think someone who primarily game selects HU is a good example of someone who endures regular variance. I don't think taking on the 20 best cash players you know on would be very wise, but if you can get 20 relatively fair guys, I'm up for printing some money opposing you. You are simply wrong. Variance is much much higher than you think and people handle variance far worse than you can imagine. (you probably saw a lot of that this month and the player in question is pretty professional in my opinion). I mean obviously if we include 65% rakeback then it is going to be much closer but if we can find a fair figure for that too then lets go.

I'm talking about 20 zoom regulars. Would bet unlimited on it. Guessing most are sne if not we can take guys printing in euro sites.

[claypole]

A lot of this discussion which is really rich is confusing "luck" with "commitment" - the two aren't mutually exclusive. I'd highly reccomend reading Outliers, The Story of Success by Malcom Gladwell if your interested in this stuff. It's quite old now 2008 but some pretty good stuff in there - think you'd love it Pads if you haven't already read it

Yeah what I was trying to say is if you're committed you're more likely to be lucky than somebody who is not committed.

But whatever, I'm not Gareth Bale and probably won't be Phil Ivey either. I'm just going to try harder this time.

He agree with a lot of the points you make with some research to back up, with his main hypotheis being the "10,000 hr" one, completely in line with your point that your pokaar guy that plays 6x a week will get better more quickly.  Personally, it's why I always thought you'd do well at the game - your commitment to study, learn and hours out in are unreal.  Could argue same about Moorman in early years, the absolute relentless grind and love of game meant he got his 10,000hrs in so quickly and ahead of all his peers who literally couldn't keep up.

[pleno1]

What price that I can choose 10 mtt guys and have less than 30 losing months between us over 1 year?

[AlunB]

http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/2014/113-winnings-months-and-5m-vpps-for-mike-146298.shtml

[rfgqqabc]

Find 20 fair players who average realistic win rates and we will bet. You are wrong. This reminds me of the HSPLO players who lol'd when people said SSPLO was unbeatable. Then someone actually worked out the maths and it was true. Here you point just about holds its point if and only if they all play 100k hands a month @ 4.5bb which is probably a touch high on both fronts. People are much more emotional than you think. I'd love to find a cash player who had a 100 month sample, and then bet on the probability he had a winning month right after a losing month. Your also forgetting the one guy who drops like 50 buyins and has his head completely go. I'm up to bet, find the players, you'll get plenty of action.


We've gone from 20 guys playing 1/2 to 20 SNE ZOOM regs lol. gtfo.

[GreekStein]

I had a losing month in May online.

Should I get to the job centre?

[Doobs]

http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/2014/113-winnings-months-and-5m-vpps-for-mike-146298.shtml

Ha I know Mike from way back and always think of him in those arguments.  But he is a good example of why you have to be very specific to make your claim.

Back in the day, me and him probably played similar amounts of cash and probably averaged similar monthly profits.  But all that time since then he has continued to grind 1/2 and I stepped up to 2/5.  Not only did I step up I also took shots as high as 25/50.  So I naturally experienced far more variance than him.  In addition now he can do more hours than me.  I have a wife who works long hours which makes a difference and don't think he does.  So if I still grinded cash and was of similar ability to him, I wouldn't have the same experience as him.  Assuming everybody who doesn't grind got 8 hours a day for 6 days a week is lazy is just not taking into account other people's circumstances (though I do think a lot of young players should be working way harder, they may not get the opportunity again).

I also took more shots at live tournaments than Mike, so again my experience is going to be different.  I take in the WSOP main event then I am way more likely to have 2 losing months in a year than him.

People can have a lot of ability and play MTTs full time and ve the very best and still throw in more losing months than your original claim.  I know Moorman has had 6 figure downswings and anybody who has done a Vegas summer would struggle to say they had never had a losing one.

 I don't think I have ever done less than 3 losing months a year since my first real year of playing STTs when ROIs of 10% were doable.  

Even right now I could just grind $15/$30 hyper NLO8 sit and goes full time and not have a losing month if I chose.  Frankly I just wouldn't like to, so my 3 losing months from 5 in 2014 are very much a choice thing and not a question of application and ability.  I  sure I would have won more this year if I had just grinded the STTs too, but you can never really be sure if the way variance is going to go in advance.

So I do accept it is very possible to win 11 from 12 months of the year, I am not sure it is desirable or in anyway a reflection of your application or skill levels.  

If anything in this post implies that I think I am now the equal of Mike at 1/2 cash, I am sure that is no longer true and I am sure that he would crush me now.  

[tonytats]

I had 3/4 years losing on line now I live in a bus shelter