Panorama Sun 26th Nov

[boldie]

i guess as we found out on the APAT threads it's pretty hard to define a pro these days.

Interesting post on THM forum saying if you've won $12K this year you're in the top 0.1% of poker players. Seems too low a percentage to me.

How many people play poker online?  Is that stat for the UK or worldwide?  To say that only 1 in a 1,000 earn more than $12K a year seems to make sense to me.  There are lots of people who play low or medium stakes, and play infrequently in tourneys or cash games.  Very few of them are going to earn anywhere near that amount.

The people on here probably play more hours than the majority of online players.  That's going to seriously limit the amount they can win.

Be interesting to see where that stat came from.  72.4% of stats on the web are made up anyway...

I think you'll find it 's actually 84.8%

Ah!!!  But are you talking UK or worldwide?

 

good point...I think it was a poll by "buckfast drinker" magazine. so I'm guessing Glasgow only.

[bolt pp]

i guess as we found out on the APAT threads it's pretty hard to define a pro these days.

Interesting post on THM forum saying if you've won $12K this year you're in the top 0.1% of poker players. Seems too low a percentage to me.

Even ive made more than that this year!!(just about)

I dont think you can take ANYTHING too seriously on that particular THM thread!!!

[byronkincaid]

someone should take mark up on his offer, record it and put it up on youtube

[totalise]

what is his offer

[TightEnd]

a free copy of a best selling perfectly edited poker book crammed full of good advice is the usual offer.

If he remembers where the key to his lock up is, to find the boxes they are stored in

[totalise]

ok, I just sucked it up and went to that forum to take a loook

I actually bought a copy of his book ages ago, its one of the most ill educated simplistic bibles of nonsense I have ever had the misfortune to read. If his coaching is anything along those lines then you mite as well set your CD player to random, stick on a meditation CD, and listen to the ululations of the whales for guidance.

On that topic I cant really understand why anyone would pay for tutorage, espcially given the price you have to pay.. but fair play to him, if theres a mug willing to pay, am sure he is happy to provide.

[byronkincaid]

there's a mug willing to pay you Mr T if you ever feel like taking some money off me. (seeing as how you can't do it playing me heads up  )

[TightEnd]

and listen to the ululations of the whales for guidance.

Well it might help you with the leeks in your game.

Oh, whales

[ericstoner]

You've gotta give Mark credit,as another poster on THm says.

He's taken all the ridicule possible over many years,yet still comes back with more ideas, Whare he'll get more torching.

He must have rhino skin by now..

[totalise]

there's a mug willing to pay you Mr T if you ever feel like taking some money off me. (seeing as how you can't do it playing me heads up  )

yah, one donk strike with A6 and you think you are the worlds fair!

I wouldn't even begin to think about charging for lessons etc until I was a regular winner at 25/50 minimum, I think anything less is an insult to the people you are trying to teach (and charge an arm and a leg for) and its why I find posts like Mark S so annoying. Anyone and everyone is trying to cash in and exploit things when they dont have the requisite knowledge to justify it.

[totalise]

and listen to the ululations of the whales for guidance.

Well it might help you with the leeks in your game.

Oh, whales

0/10 tighty... first "holla" and then this...



Anyways, back to the topic at hand, I cant wait to see the program.. it should be interesting to see how bad a light they try and portray the intelligent gambler this time!

[byronkincaid]

Why would you need to be able to beat 25/50 to teach 2/4 or 5/10? I could teach someone to beat .50/1 I think.

Talking about you not Mark S.

[totalise]

no idea really. I dont think your average persons theoretical understanding of the game in general is good enough until you can beat the 25/50 game to justify becoming someone who is going to teach others how to play poker , and you need to apply theory as much as experience to students otherwise you might just end up trying to teach them what works in the 20 game when it might not work in the 0.50/$1 games... and if you do try and lucidate theory, you might have it wrong. Thats just my opinion anyways, you can beat the 5/10 and 10/20 games even if you make some theoretical mistakes quite frequently, but when you play 25/50 and above, you aren't gonna get away with it often enough to really beat the game.

[byronkincaid]

yah, one donk strike with A6 and you think you are the worlds fair!

your absence in the blonde heads up event speaks volumes 

[Jon MW]

...
Anyways, back to the topic at hand, I cant wait to see the program.. it should be interesting to see how bad a light they try and portray the intelligent gambler this time!

I don't think the problem is so much how these programmes generally portray the intelligent gambler, it's more that they don't acknowledge them at all.

There was a programme some time ago - also on BBC - and it's case studies were a couple of people. One of them was a bloke who had moved to North Wales because there were no casinos there, but he bet and lost most of his wages at the bookies and then when that closed he went to the pub and lost the rest betting on himself in a, "pool tournament he set up", (i.e. him playing against some bloke there that he'd just met), with which he lost the rest of his wages - and he did this every month, and had done something like it for years. The other one was someone who took her months wages every month every year and poured them into a fruit machine, and lost it all.

In other words they were like most GA members - complete morons. After a few months (let alone years) most people would work out that they were a bit rubbish at picking horses/playing pool/playing fruit machines, and stop. This program looks like it could be a little more balanced, it might be that the trailers for it are like the news headline trail for it on the BBC this morning - a bit negative, but the actual show is more like the feature when it actually arrived on Breakfast news - a balanced view. I'm not holding my breath though, negativity makes better viewing than objectivity.