Confidence at an all time low so playing badly and clueless.

[atdc21]

You really do have a great way of getting points across honeybadger, love the monkey story btw.
Some are now writing strategy articles for Cardcutter magazine.    this made me lol

[Mitch]

Some are now writing strategy articles for Cardcutter magazine. Other may even have secured sponsorship based on their undoubted card cutting prowess.

LOL

[skolsuper]

All wrong, some people are just born to be successful.

Great post mate.

How did you feel on the whole about borrowing money? Was it from people you'd recently met or older friends? Do you think you'd be as successful had you not borrowed at all?

Borrowing money in just part of Poker culture, if I hadn't borrowed money I would have been successful anyway because it's in my nature.  I mostly borrowed off people I knew

Much love brother

[atdc21]

there is always an exception to the rule............
prob found it 

[mondatoo]

That is a truly superb link.  On that basis I am withdrawing  my offer of 15% of you today Ray ;-)  (only joking obv)

Haha.

[AndrewT]

The key is to rule out survivor bias.

A way to show what is being talked about here would be if Rob were to pick his group of winning tourney players and then see how many of them have a profitable 2013. I'd bet it would be not as many as some might think.

On a similar note, take any one of the top tourney players that are currently bandied about as being 'any good' (Brammer, Moorman etc).

What price would people give about one of these players having a winning 2013 in live tourneys?

[Tal]

http://www.nsdpoker.com/2011/01/mtt-pros/

This is the best explanation I've read with regards to variance.

Might actually be one of the best things I've ever seen on the internet.

Explained in an A/S Level maths way that my brain can grasp. Live players will take a long time to get to 1,000 tournaments and there can't be many people on the circuit who realistically have >40% ROI at their bankroll level.

I suppose the question is: how do I know what my expected ROI and therefore mean result is?

[JK]

I am so proud to be page 1 of this epic thread.

Jason, SOOOO many heroes have given you amazing advice here and every single person in this thread wants to see you doing well again.

Matt was 100% right in what he said though (amongst almost everyone here lol), concentrate on your poker. When you poker comes back, then bring in the banter and everything else. Definately bring back the hoodies and beats mate. Just lock down, when you feel more confident again start to bring in a little more table talk

[edgascoigne]

http://www.nsdpoker.com/2011/01/mtt-pros/

This is the best explanation I've read with regards to variance.

Might actually be one of the best things I've ever seen on the internet.

Explained in an A/S Level maths way that my brain can grasp. Live players will take a long time to get to 1,000 tournaments and there can't be many people on the circuit who realistically have >40% ROI at their bankroll level.

I suppose the question is: how do I know what my expected ROI and therefore mean result is?

And therein lies the rub with live MTTs. Sufficient volume can essentially never be attained (whilst game conditions and therefore theo ROI remain constant) to calculate one's ROI.

[aaron1867]

Jason, will you be playing GPS next week?

[kinboshi]

Jason, will you be playing GPS next week?

If he can find his way there...

[DaveShoelace]

Love this thread.

I have a theory that everyone who considers themselves a serious poker player/fan/hobbyist/pro etc probably ran like god in the first 6-12 months of them taking up the game. Nobody likes to lose, and most new players who ran badly when they first started playing probably stopped before they were able to experience some positive variance, which would have been enough for them to take an interest in their game and improving. Of course no matter how much anyone of us would like to think, there is no way at that time that we would have been able to realistically distinguish the variance from skill, and this in turn will have created some long term biases about how we perceive ourselves at the tables.

So anyone who claims they run worse than anyone, you've probably already had your fair share of run-good but never even noticed it.

One of the best gifts my old mucker Jared Tendler gave me was making me realise that I wasn't anywhere near as good a player as I thought I was, rather than shattering my confidence it was actually a really liberating experience.

[smashedagain]

I am really pleased that the thread is generating so much advice from some of the best players around.

I remember all the players, tourneys and hands that have been mentioned, particually Dave in the Ukipt, Stu R in the high roller, Matt in the 500 etc and thank you all for the advice and input. The main point from a personal point of view is that I talk too much. It's not very often I sit quite at the table and people think this has a detrimental affect on my game. I have to say that in my opinion I play far better with engaging people at the table and getting them chatting. Everything I try to do is with a reason or plan and getting people to call or fold when I want is all part of the plan. However i will certainly give some thought into playing a few tourneys with the mouth buttoned.

I have always tried to be open with my thoughts and Tbf this has generated some interesting threads with great debate. I can't hold my hand on my heart and say "I am not results orientated" because quite clearly I am. When things are going well you think you can do no wrong and are full of advice. Now that things are going bad I am turning to Tittybean et al for advice.

I also studied to quite a high standard and have a degree but still struggle to get my head round certain concepts. I can understand that in a world where everyone is playing perfect and with the same information the game is extremely hard to beat then variance becomes a massive factor. But the games I am playing are not like that. If we use Dtd as an example Are we to accept that Rastafish, Wadey and Alex are on the right side of variance and Key, Keith and Mitch are on the other side. If we all start believing that two years of doing well then two years of winning fuck all ( the UKIPT in May was an exception) is all luck then we may as well all give up and play blackjack.

I accept that the sample size matters but I just can't believe that we not play enough live hands to know if we are good or bad. If you want to put all your chips in pre flop with QQ against someone who can only have AA/KK or want to run a bluff by a calling station you only have yourself to blame. You can't put it down to being a cooler or it being sick because they should fold. The poker I play is not like. The game I play is an enjoyable one where I want to beat consistently. Maybe I am just in a dream world

[Tal]

http://www.nsdpoker.com/2011/01/mtt-pros/

This is the best explanation I've read with regards to variance.

Might actually be one of the best things I've ever seen on the internet.

Explained in an A/S Level maths way that my brain can grasp. Live players will take a long time to get to 1,000 tournaments and there can't be many people on the circuit who realistically have >40% ROI at their bankroll level.

I suppose the question is: how do I know what my expected ROI and therefore mean result is?

And therein lies the rub with live MTTs. Sufficient volume can essentially never be attained (whilst game conditions and therefore theo ROI remain constant) to calculate one's ROI.

My point exactly.

[smashedagain]

Jason, will you be playing GPS next week?

possibly. Up to now I have resisted the urge to play the series but as Sheffield is so close I should do.