The Best In The Business

[Killer River]

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. +1

[pleno1]

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.

weve not gone from anythign, i was sowing that even at 200nl with relatively low rb you can make a bunch in rb.

stu and i always spoke about professional mid stakes players.

what is a relaistic win rate lol? obviously people i chose are going to be good players, who play alot and are good, i dont necessarily class guys who dont have a job but like to play poker as "professional"

with 20 its hard to do because some will just quit poker, have family, go play live etc. lets do 10 people that im confident about and we can bet really big.

I had a losing month in May online.

Should I get to the job centre?

lol plo is completely a different beast obviously.

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

1 down, 9 to go

[Honeybadger]

BTW I wasn't factoring in RB when I made my points. Perhaps with RB it is possible to have very few losing months per year, I don't know for sure.

[pleno1]

yeh ive always stressed rb is very important stu.

i can advocate 1 losing month under extraordinary circumstances, wte, sure, definitely possible.

2? nah, something is wrong imo.

[redarmi]

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.  

According to the linked article  Mike Brooks is both married and has a couple of kids so you are running out of excuses mate ;-)

[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.  

According to the linked article  Mike Brooks is both married and has a couple of kids so you are running out of excuses mate ;-)

I know that, I know he does more hours than me, so assume she does more of the child care than mine.  We both have two daughters and have a maths background.  Almost twins us.

[AlunB]

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

1 down, 9 to go

Ha! You're welcome. 1% finders fee obv

[mulhuzz]

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

It's a great book, but don't read it pads. Honeybadger and AlunB summed it up a few pages ago.

If you think luck doesn't play an absolutely huge (and to some extents, an unquantifiable) role in absolutely everything then I am afraid the science says you're wrong. Dead wrong.

It's very hard to think objectively about this topic (high performers claim they are just as lucky as others but want it more/natural talent/make their own luck and everyone else says they didn't get lucky enough). People will disagree with that as well, and I'd be loathe to start linking peer-reviewed actual science in a fun poker blog, but the evidence is there.

[jakally]

I'm with Pads on the basic points he is making.

People who aren't successful, and who get bitterly jealous about those that are, almost always don't do anywhere near enough to achieve that success (but think that they do).
There are people who are always going to be successful, eventually, no matter how much bad luck they have along the way.

[AlunB]

I'm with Pads on the basic points he is making.

People who aren't successful, and who get bitterly jealous about those that are, almost always don't do anywhere near enough to achieve that success (but think that they do).
There are people who are always going to be successful, eventually, no matter how much bad luck they have along the way.

History is written by the winners...

[jakally]

I'm with Pads on the basic points he is making.

People who aren't successful, and who get bitterly jealous about those that are, almost always don't do anywhere near enough to achieve that success (but think that they do).
There are people who are always going to be successful, eventually, no matter how much bad luck they have along the way.

History is written by the winners...

Absolutely not. History is scribed by the people who aren't good enough, or committed enough, to make it.

[Doobs]

I'm with Pads on the basic points he is making.

People who aren't successful, and who get bitterly jealous about those that are, almost always don't do anywhere near enough to achieve that success (but think that they do).
There are people who are always going to be successful, eventually, no matter how much bad luck they have along the way.

So your born in North Korea or with a brain defect you just need to get out and work a bit harder and you'll be right?

You can be pretty succesful in life, whilst still accepting there is a lot of luck along the way and without getting jealous. 

Likewise you can be the best in the business, but your business just doesn't work out.  Types of employment can just disappear, suppliers and customers can fail leaving you in a bad position that isn't of your making.  You can be incredibly talented at something like chess but get none of the riches of someone who is incredibly talented at poker.  And people can always just get hit by one of life's shitty sticks just as they are about to reap the benefit of their hard work.

[scotty77]

I totally agree with pads about online cash - I think if you have more than 2 losing months in a year than you need to either work hard on your game or move to a different site.

Think with the volume you can play and RB online you would have to be getting in some pretty intense high variance games to be losing even for a month.

I'm very average in the business and have had 1 losing month in 3 years at online cash.

[pleno1]

I totally agree with pads about online cash - I think if you have more than 2 losing months in a year than you need to either work hard on your game or move to a different site.

Think with the volume you can play and RB online you would have to be getting in some pretty intense high variance games to be losing even for a month.

I'm very average in the business and have had 1 losing month in 3 years at online cash.

2 down, 8 to go.

[redarmi]

I think another important point is that a lot of people would be much better off admitting to themselves that they don't want to be the best.  As much as I admire Pads dedication and success and would like to be as good at poker as he is I most certainly don't want to do what it takes to achieve that success and, the older I get, the more comfortable I am with that tradeoff.  Once I was obsessed with becoming an elite level sports bettor like a Tony Bloom or Matthew Benham but now I know that being a good husband and father, reading good literature, watching great films and TV and catching up with friends are just as important to me as my career.  Will I ever have a mansion and a Ferrari?  I doubt it but that's actually fine.   As Doobs has said we are already running massively above EV and I am somewhat happy to wallow in that.