The Best In The Business

[Honeybadger]

I do think though Pads that you are a little unrealistic about the true impact of variance btw. Saying only 5% of poker players will be unlucky over a 2 year period seems way out to me. A couple of month ago you said that no one should ever have a losing month playing online cash poker, and if they do then they are doing something wrong. This was HUGELY wrong.

There is a TON more luck involved in poker than you think. In fact there is likely a ton more luck involved in poker that I think!

It does not matter though. Focussing on process not results, on the things you can control, is all that really matters.

[dreenie]

Great initial post by Patrick. Seems to have sidetracked a little into discussion of luck etc. I have a TON of thoughts on this subject and could write a ten page post. But I am gonna restrict myself to making a few very quick points.

There is obviously luck involved in every area of life. Some of this luck is obvious, mostly it is hidden though. Our lifetime is not enough time for luck to even out.

Many successful people do not recognise the role that luck has played in their success. They say stuff like, "You make your own luck", "I wanted it more than anyone else", "Cream always rises" etc.

The fact that we are even able to spend our time thinking about poker/posting ITT makes us in the top 99th percentile of lucky bastards worldwide. Consider all the poor gits born amidst famine/civil wars etc etc. Luck is not likely to even out in their lifetimes... we are blessed compared to them.

Poker has elements of sport to it. It also has elements of a game to it. But really poker is a form of gambling. It is, in essence, just the same as any other form of gambling, it's about good bets and bad bets - try to make as many good bets as possible, and try to avoid making too many bad bets. It is not really a game or a sport, it is gambling, just like backgammon, sports betting, or stock trading. If you play poker for a living then you are a professional gambler.

For this reason there is a LOT more luck involved in poker than in most other competitive pursuits. Yes, there is luck involved in making it as a pro footballer (even just avoiding a career ending injury is 'lucky'). But there is massively more luck involved in being a successful poker player. Because it is gambling.

The 'best poker poker player in the world' (if that even means anything, and I am not sure it does) has almost certainly run amazingly well lifetime to be able to get into a position to turn himself into the best poker player in the world.

Understanding and accepting this about poker is both hugely important and massively irrelevant all at the same time. It is essential to exercise a kind of 'double-think' regarding variance in poker. On the one hand you recognise it and accept it and are realistic about it. This has the effect of a) keeping you strong/sane when things are going badly and b) keeping you humble when things are going well. On the other hand you should also partly act as if variance does not exist - as if working hard and trying your best is all that matters. Because in effect this is true... since we cannot control luck we need to partly forget about it and focus on the things we CAN control.

Too good Mr honeybadger

[lee h]

 Honeybadger, my friend, you talk a lot of sense!

Lee

[pleno1]

I do think though Pads that you are a little unrealistic about the true impact of variance btw. Saying only 5% of poker players will be unlucky over a 2 year period seems way out to me. A couple of month ago you said that no one should ever have a losing month playing online cash poker, and if they do then they are doing something wrong. This was HUGELY wrong.

There is a TON more luck involved in poker than you think. In fact there is likely a ton more luck involved in poker that I think!

It does not matter though. Focussing on process not results, on the things you can control, is all that really matters.

I still stand by this. Let's say instead, if anybody has 2 losing months in  no year hey are doing something very wrong. Unless their ev in both months is ootw bad,

[dreenie]

I do think though Pads that you are a little unrealistic about the true impact of variance btw. Saying only 5% of poker players will be unlucky over a 2 year period seems way out to me. A couple of month ago you said that no one should ever have a losing month playing online cash poker, and if they do then they are doing something wrong. This was HUGELY wrong.

There is a TON more luck involved in poker than you think. In fact there is likely a ton more luck involved in poker that I think!

It does not matter though. Focussing on process not results, on the things you can control, is all that really matters.

I still stand by this. Let's say instead, if anybody has 2 losing months in  no year hey are doing something very wrong. Unless their ev in both months is ootw bad,

surely it depends on how much you have?

like if u have unlimited supplies of $$ then ofc very very easy imo to overturn variance and just grind through it. However let's say you had like 1000$ for the month can u honestly tell me that you would not lose just playing mtts?

think u should do a challenge to put your words to the test.

[RED-DOG]

Great initial post by Patrick. Seems to have sidetracked a little into discussion of luck etc. I have a TON of thoughts on this subject and could write a ten page post. But I am gonna restrict myself to making a few very quick points.

There is obviously luck involved in every area of life. Some of this luck is obvious, mostly it is hidden though. Our lifetime is not enough time for luck to even out.

Many successful people do not recognise the role that luck has played in their success. They say stuff like, "You make your own luck", "I wanted it more than anyone else", "Cream always rises" etc.

The fact that we are even able to spend our time thinking about poker/posting ITT makes us in the top 99th percentile of lucky bastards worldwide. Consider all the poor gits born amidst famine/civil wars etc etc. Luck is not likely to even out in their lifetimes... we are blessed compared to them.

Poker has elements of sport to it. It also has elements of a game to it. But really poker is a form of gambling. It is, in essence, just the same as any other form of gambling, it's about good bets and bad bets - try to make as many good bets as possible, and try to avoid making too many bad bets. It is not really a game or a sport, it is gambling, just like backgammon, sports betting, or stock trading. If you play poker for a living then you are a professional gambler.

For this reason there is a LOT more luck involved in poker than in most other competitive pursuits. Yes, there is luck involved in making it as a pro footballer (even just avoiding a career ending injury is 'lucky'). But there is massively more luck involved in being a successful poker player. Because it is gambling.

The 'best poker poker player in the world' (if that even means anything, and I am not sure it does) has almost certainly run amazingly well lifetime to be able to get into a position to turn himself into the best poker player in the world.

Understanding and accepting this about poker is both hugely important and massively irrelevant all at the same time. It is essential to exercise a kind of 'double-think' regarding variance in poker. On the one hand you recognise it and accept it and are realistic about it. This has the effect of a) keeping you strong/sane when things are going badly and b) keeping you humble when things are going well. On the other hand you should also partly act as if variance does not exist - as if working hard and trying your best is all that matters. Because in effect this is true... since we cannot control luck we need to partly forget about it and focus on the things we CAN control.

Excellent post Honey.

[Honeybadger]

Well I suppose you are correct Patrick in the sense that EVERY poker player is doing something wrong/making mistakes. Even the best player that has ever lived will play hands 'wrong'.

But that is semantics really, and I don't think it is what you mean. It is very possible to play better poker than any other player in your player pool and lose for WAY more than two months in a year.

[arbboy]

What sample size of hands/mtts played and what roi edge would you think you would need to ensure you only lost for 1 month a year?  I have to agree with most others here that you are being over optimistic.  Obviously winning 11 months out of 12 means nothing if you win £50 for 11 months and do in £5k on your losing month so the 11 out of 12 sample is slightly misleading from that stand point as well.

[pleno1]

I do think though Pads that you are a little unrealistic about the true impact of variance btw. Saying only 5% of poker players will be unlucky over a 2 year period seems way out to me. A couple of month ago you said that no one should ever have a losing month playing online cash poker, and if they do then they are doing something wrong. This was HUGELY wrong.

There is a TON more luck involved in poker than you think. In fact there is likely a ton more luck involved in poker that I think!

It does not matter though. Focussing on process not results, on the things you can control, is all that really matters.

I still stand by this. Let's say instead, if anybody has 2 losing months in  no year hey are doing something very wrong. Unless their ev in both months is ootw bad,

surely it depends on how much you have?

like if u have unlimited supplies of $$ then ofc very very easy imo to overturn variance and just grind through it. However let's say you had like 1000$ for the month can u honestly tell me that you would not lose just playing mtts?

think u should do a challenge to put your words to the test.

We were talking about professional players. Not people who have to wait for the next pay check to degen away, I'd say for these guys to have more than 6 winning months is very very unlikely. I hope hut understood that and didn't think I meant any player as obviously that would be ridiculous and all this time we've sued about it might make sense now

[pleno1]

Well I suppose you are correct Patrick in the sense that EVERY poker player is doing something wrong/making mistakes. Even the best player that has ever lived will play hands 'wrong'.

But that is semantics really, and I don't think it is what you mean. It is very possible to play better poker than any other player in your player pool and lose for WAY more than two months in a year.

I disagree, but each to their own obviously

[pleno1]

What sample size of hands/mtts played and what roi edge would you think you would need to ensure you only lost for 1 month a year?  I have to agree with most others here that you are being over optimistic.  Obviously winning 11 months out of 12 means nothing if you win £50 for 11 months and do in £5k on your losing month so the 11 out of 12 sample is slightly misleading from that stand point as well.

I'm talking about being a mid stakes cash grinder in stars or whatever European site like I've been for the last few years. I'm talking about good regs.

There's a thing called rake back that comes in very handy...

For example my housemate plays no higher than 1k and had his worst ever run this month at ev, something like 23k, but he was supposed to win 20k or so, lost 3 and then with rake back was a winner.

Just because you run under ev doesn't mean you should lose in a month, it means you should be closer to  break even.

[RED-DOG]

Click to see full-size image.

Click to see full-size image.

[pleno1]

I don't get it.

[AlunB]

Click to see full-size image.

Click to see full-size image.

Flower Chicken

[AlunB]

I don't get it.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/poppycock