serious answers please (poker winners)(and losers)

[turny]

wow upto 14.4% now we either have some seriously clever guys on here or some real dreamers

the £1000+ per week gang
so far we have woodsey, rob yong and pab so whose the others?

Although not at the moment as bankroll restrictions mean i am not playing at the levels where i can currently continue to win as much as i have in the past overall in the past 3 years i have made enough profit to warrant me choosing that option. ended up +$86000 for 2004, +$64000 for 2005 but currently down -$5000 for 2006 (not including the 2x$13000 WSOP packages)

Maybe i missed the post earlier defining the meanings of the options in the poll but doesnt the option just say "i'm winning lots" it doesnt mention specific amount. To somebody who doesnt play that regularly and only at small levels then "lots" may well only be $100 here and there. Rather than give specific amounts in a monetary sense wouldnt it be better if this figure is a percentage of your bankroll or usual buy-in of tournament/cash game?

Therefore if you've increased your bankroll by 300-500% then you are winning lots
If you've increased your bankroll by 100-300% then you are winning
If you've increased your bankroll by 1-100% then you are infront
If you've lost upto your initial bankroll then you are slighlty behind
If you've lost upto 3 times your initial bankroll then you are behind
If you've lost more than 3 times your initial bankroll then you can never win

This way at least all the options offered in the poll can relate to everyone no matter how small stakes or how regularly you play.

exactly what im saying matt.

some who voted may have read sofa kings criteria wrong.
taking it literally by this you dont fit the criteria but you voted this way.

i accept your point and using your criteria a number of other people including myself wouldve ticked the same box.

by the way nice figures lets hope this years just a blitch   

[matt674]

Poker is relative to everyones own personal goals.

By asking the question "do you win lots at poker - but it has to be over $1000 a week" you are excluding probably 95% of the forum from being able to answer it as they currently do not play at levels where achieving that figure is possible.

By asking "Do you win lots at poker - have you more than tripled your bankroll" you allow everyone to answer the question.

[turny]

wow upto 14.4% now we either have some seriously clever guys on here or some real dreamers

the £1000+ per week gang
so far we have woodsey, rob yong and pab so whose the others?

You are looking at it all wrong, it is 13 out of 3884 members and actually 13 out of those willing to vote at all.
I do not find it difficult to believe that 13 people can make that sort of money, i could probably name 10 immediately.

ifm we done this 13/3884 point already.its 14.4% of those voted which in my opinion is to high.

i could probably name more than 10 easily to but thats not my point. i bet if you name 10 i doubt you will find more than 3/4 of them have actually voted.

matt just admitted he voted that way but if you look at his figures he doesnt fit sofa-kings criteria for voting in that catagory im just wondering how many others have done the same

[turny]

Poker is relative to everyones own personal goals.

By asking the question "do you win lots at poker - but it has to be over $1000 a week" you are excluding probably 95% of the forum from being able to answer it as they currently do not play at levels where achieving that figure is possible.

By asking "Do you win lots at poker - have you more than tripled your bankroll" you allow everyone to answer the question.

exactly my point again matt.

i found it hard to believe that 14.4% of those voted won over £1000 on average.
im sure if you worded it the way you put it the figure wouldve been substantially higher but it wasnt so i feel my doubting of the 14.4% is justified.

[matt674]

It also doesnt take into account the usual standard of living of the person in question. I've made $145,000 profit roughly in the last 3 years playing poker. This means i've increased my income per week by 150% on top of my earnings in my current profession, to me this is huge! The differences in my lifestyle now to what they were 5 years ago are unbelieveable when i look back at things. To me this is something that you can't put a specific monetary figure on as $1000 a week to me is probably a lot different than $1000 a week to someone like Rob. (apologies Rob, i know the point i'm trying to make but failing miserably - no offence meant).

[kinboshi]

The poll is flawed.  That's the problem.

Look at Matt's winnings.  It can't be argued that he's not been winning a lot.

If the options aren't right, and the criteria behind the options aren't clearly defined, then the results are going to be pretty meaningless - even if people are 100% honest when they select the one they think best fits them.

[SupaMonkey]

I think that people who aren't winning aren't going to want to tick a box admitting as much, whereas people who are winning are more than happy to tick a box saying so. Basically your sample doesn't represent the whole.

[AndrewT]

I know its embarrasing. Just to clarify that a bit further, I'm up on the 2/4 and 3/6nl games I ocassionally play the problem occurs after a substantial tourney win when I leave the money in the accounts and come back pissed from the pub and decided its a good idea to play 25/50nl. I can pinpoint 3 drunken sessions over which I lost $25k!!!

I know your thinking fecking hell what an idiot, just think how I felt!!!!l

This does happen to a lot of players. A current topic of conversation on high stakes messageboards is 'How long will it take Jeff Madsen to lose all his WSOP winnings playing Ivey et al at 1k/2k Omaha on Full Tilt?'

[booder]

I think that people who aren't winning aren't going to want to tick a box admitting as much

i did

[SupaMonkey]

You are very honest with yourself (and us, tx).

[sofa----king]

ok guys maybee i put up some wrong options maybee i might word it diffrent in a few weeks ,,try again sort of,but still im finding what i do see hard to belive imho

[SupaMonkey]

I think that people who aren't winning aren't going to want to tick a box admitting as much

i did

They do say that a sign of a player who has a lot of potential is one who can admit they're down.

[tantrum]

I think that people who aren't winning aren't going to want to tick a box admitting as much, whereas people who are winning are more than happy to tick a box saying so.

I did, but need updating, since last post I lost another 5k, this time half was on rulette, half on Omaha Hi-Low, so now I am $20K down.

They do say that a sign of a player who has a lot of potential is one who can admit they're down.

That's good to know, so maybe I will win eventually,
perhaps I should stop playing the roulette and omaha Hi-Low, as in the latter I lost 2 k on one hand,

[SupaMonkey]

Not trying to be provocative but if you're down so much, why do you play at such high levels?

[tantrum]

Cant' help it....


It is an addiction.....

shame that not so lucky....