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

[smashedagain]

You are correct again Stu. I was actually trying to think of someone who plays live tournaments for a living. I can't actually think of one player who does not play either online or cash. In all reality you probably can't even play enough tournies a week to make a living from them.

[Skgv]

You are correct again Stu. I was actually trying to think of someone who plays live tournaments for a living. I can't actually think of one player who does not play either online or cash. In all reality you probably can't even play enough tournies a week to make a living from them.

Ok enough is enough u have had enough advice an basically mr David Nicholson advice of best way to get confidence back is not online but playing live cash as its a lot easier an that is where u should start an c how u feel in 6 months time ! Or forget about all the drama an get a job like normal honest peopl do! X

[smashedagain]

You are correct again Stu. I was actually trying to think of someone who plays live tournaments for a living. I can't actually think of one player who does not play either online or cash. In all reality you probably can't even play enough tournies a week to make a living from them.

Ok enough is enough u have had enough advice an basically mr David Nicholson advice of best way to get confidence back is not online but playing live cash as its a lot easier an that is where u should start an c how u feel in 6 months time ! Or forget about all the drama an get a job like normal honest peopl do! X

hey Pete, thanks for popping in. Yes they are two options that seem the most likely but I also gave had some offers to go down the online route which do appeal because I would love to do a thread "Can old dogs be taught new tricks".

Whilst you are here can I ask you opinion on the game we played  recently when Matt was also at the table. It's his opinion that I talk too much and am constantly on my iPad and its bad for my game. I don't actually own an iPad so can only assume he means my phone but the main thing was really about my speech play etc.  I was pleased to see you as I had not seen you for a while and was happily chatting away. You seemed to not enjoy the drink guy in between is 3 betting you almost everytime you opened.


Then i remember a hand where the flop possibly came two hearts and you made a bet and I said something like "I was pretty sure I had the ace of hearts". The turn came a 3rd heart. You then paid me off on the river which was an Ace and said that you would not have paid me had it not been for the talking. Did you actually see what my other card was and would you have still paid me off if I had not said a word?

[Skgv]

You are correct again Stu. I was actually trying to think of someone who plays live tournaments for a living. I can't actually think of one player who does not play either online or cash. In all reality you probably can't even play enough tournies a week to make a living from them.

Ok enough is enough u have had enough advice an basically mr David Nicholson advice of best way to get confidence back is not online but playing live cash as its a lot easier an that is where u should start an c how u feel in 6 months time ! Or forget about all the drama an get a job like normal honest peopl do! X

hey Pete, thanks for popping in. Yes they are two options that seem the most likely but I also gave had some offers to go down the online route which do appeal because I would love to do a thread "Can old dogs be taught new tricks".

Whilst you are here can I ask you opinion on the game we played  recently when Matt was also at the table. It's his opinion that I talk too much and am constantly on my iPad and its bad for my game. I don't actually own an iPad so can only assume he means my phone but the main thing was really about my speech play etc.  I was pleased to see you as I had not seen you for a while and was happily chatting away. You seemed to not enjoy the drink guy in between is 3 betting you almost everytime you opened.


Then i remember a hand where the flop possibly came two hearts and you made a bet and I said something like "I was pretty sure I had the ace of hearts". The turn came a 3rd heart. You then paid me off on the river which was an Ace and said that you would not have paid me had it not been for the talking. Did you actually see what my other card was and would you have still paid me off if I had not said a word?

if anything it did stop me betting turn which I should of done as I had top Pair an 2nt flush draw! But probaly would of called river anyhow if you happen to call my bet on turn which you probaly wouldn't of being getting the right price too.       

                    I've actually started playing again last month mostly in London an I  would say I have cut out a lot of the friendly banter which I guess old age is setting in as being away from my family is hard work at most of the time so conserving energy an just focusing on trying to get £ into my pocket as become priority rather than enjoying my time at table.

I think you are of roughly my age group or I would bet u r older but playing Online would defitnely not suit you IMO but that's me just hazarding a guess as I don't know alot of your game but can only go on what I have seen an heard e.t.c . It's hard enough having a family to support but staying at home an playing in that environment is fine if things are great an you winning £ everyweek, but separating the two is so important an when things go wrong can you honestly put your hand on your heart an say you show your family the same love an attention. ? It becomes a vicious circle which affects both mind sets.

[Young_gun]

  Thread, going for liedown now after all that in one day wp all

[Tal]

I've been thinking about all the chat we've been reading on this thread.

Say you only play live tournaments (because that's what you enjoy most). You'll likely take years to play enough comps to make your results statistically significant and even that much is debatable.

So, you can work really hard at your game, spending hours over old hand histories, watching training videos, months of coaching, 500 PHA and 2+2 posts a week and an NLP Practitioners' course...and STILL face a 50% chance of losing money on purely your tournament entries (forget your expenses) over that time.

Or...

You could play as frequently as you can afford to lose, play your best when you play, discuss hands and look to improve.

Over the course of 5 years' live MTTs, variance is still wide enough to mean you might be no better off and the expected ROI isn't likely that much more.

I completely agree that if you want to make proper money and rely on poker as a main source of revenue, you have to treat it with respect and that means hitting the bell curve of variance hard by playing a LOT of comps online, with forensic and rigorous analysis, else you will be left behind and lose your income.

However, if you take poker as a hobby, you can afford the losses and the swings make a massive difference to your life. Win the Super 50 and you can take the family on holiday. Win a 150 and you can go abroad Even a local comp win pays the mortgage for a month.

I said all this before, but you have to decide - try as we all might, none of us can do this for you - YOU have to decide what you want to achieve. Then, all you have to work out is how you're going to achieve it. That's the most basic and effective coaching technique there is.

[Leatherman]

Thread, going for liedown now after all the beer ive drank in one day wp all

Alot of great stuff itt. What does the Mrs think about you playing poker?

[gouty]

You are correct again Stu. I was actually trying to think of someone who plays live tournaments for a living. I can't actually think of one player who does not play either online or cash. In all reality you probably can't even play enough tournies a week to make a living from them.

Ok enough is enough u have had enough advice an basically mr David Nicholson advice of best way to get confidence back is not online but playing live cash as its a lot easier an that is where u should start an c how u feel in 6 months time ! Or forget about all the drama an get a job like normal honest peopl do! X

Correct. Forget online unless you satty into big Sunday comps. Even then it's nigh on impossible to navigate from 4 tables in without software. Live cash is the way to go if you can stay sober and not wind players up!

All your speech play does is widen players ranges Jason which makes the game harder.

Al

When I say stay sober I mean go out and play fri/sat night nlhe in any casino with the non sobers. I know you don't booze yourself.

[robyong]

Haven't read all the posts ITT but a general observation people are far too quick to blame variance for bad results..  Pretty sure, if people played better they would be far less concerned about 'variance' - I know when I play, that I am up against variance (granted, I haven't played enough to feel the full force - not many people have)  ...but far greater than that I'm up against myself and my own ability/temperament/focus.  People would do well to forget about variance and concentrate on looking at themselves, and their own game imo

I 100% agree with this post, I hear so many players blame variance for their own lack of success as well as the envy of other players achievements. My live stats for all players since DTD opened show live MTT and cash game variance is WAY WAY LESS than some of the comments on this thread, we have consistent winners at the same buy-ins.

If I put 100% of the buy-ins up and got 100% of the winnings, I believe it would be very profitable for me to;

- back Keith Johnson over 50 £2-£5 cash game sessions at the same stakes at DTD (8000 hands - not 2.5M!)

- back Roberto Romenello in 100 live £150 + £18 Deepstacks (100 comps - not 10,000, so player needs to win <£16,800 in prize money)

To be honest, if this want not the case, and I was way out, why do staking threads even exist? Players are selling themselves at 1.35 and there is no shortage of buyers.

Poker is a "performance related occupation" -  in a commission sales job (eg. recruitment) a person makes x calls, does x meetings, chases up x leads, converts x deals, there is no GTE that the person gets paid as they are on performance related pay, just like poker, but IN REALITY, most of my sales team earn the same commission each month, with the odd spike. There is luck in almost every aspect of life, when do we ever reach the long term of most of our decisions?

I am sure there will be a formula for variance and reaching the long term for my sales staff i.e. someone must do 20 million calls until the long term is reached and they know there true earnings, but in reality, things end up evening themselves out each month if my staff put the same effort in.

There is a great saying "There are Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"

Cheers Rob

[Honeybadger]

Rob, it has already been explained why your stats will show a number of consistent winners over a five year period - it is due to a concept called survivor bias.

Also, cash games are completely different to tournaments in terms of variance. So looking at your cash game data has no relevance to a discussion of tournament variance which is what we have been discussing.

Your comments about staking threads don't make sense. If someone has a ROI of 100% in a tournament then it is profitable for me to buy a piece of his action at 1.5. It does not matter whether he goes on to win the tournament or whether he busts out first hand. I made a profitable play by purchasing his action in either case. When I buy action in tournament players I do so every time with the knowledge that the most likely outcome is that I lose my money. But I am still making a profitable bet. Results are irrelevant.

If you back a racehorse at 200 to 1 and you somehow know that the true odds are 50 to 1, you have made a very profitable bet. But you will still be a big favourite to lose your money on the race. And in fact it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to run at expectation for this race - when the race finishes most of the time you will have run below EV (you will have lost) and one time in 51 you will have run massively above EV. If you could somehow keep making the exact same amazing bet every day (200 to 1 on a 50 to 1 shot), how many days do you think it would take until you were likely to have 'hit the long term'? i.e. have results that are within, say, 5% of your expected value.

About a year ago I decided to start buying lots more action from tournament players. I bought a little bit of online action, but mainly I bought percentages of players' live tournament action. I am a pretty good judge of who is a good player and I'd expect that almost every single one of my action purchases was profitable for me - I only bought action in good players who were charging reasonable mark up. And you know what? Right at the start I had a run of well over 100 tournaments in which I got only 2 min cashes. Was I unlucky in how my action buying worked out for those 100+ tournaments? Of course I was. Was this bad luck some sort of statistical anomaly that was extremely unlikely to happen? Of course not.

There are two points to the above story (moan lol!).The first point is that my results in the first few months of my new project were completely irrelevant. I knew that I had 'made money' through my action buying - even though I had actually lost money. Anyone who understands the previous sentence and does not think I have contradicted myself 'gets' gambling.

The second point is that if I can only have two min cashes in well over 100 pieces of purchased action then it is just as feasible for a really good tournament player to only have two min cashes in over 100 tournaments. Is this likely to happen? No. Is it extremely unlikely to happen? Again, no.

[nirvana]

Rob, it has already been explained why your stats will show a number of consistent winners over a five year period - it is due to a concept called survivor bias.

Also, cash games are completely different to tournaments in terms of variance. So looking at your cash game data has no relevance to a discussion of tournament variance which is what we have been discussing.

Your comments about staking threads don't make sense. If someone has a ROI of 100% in a tournament then it is profitable for me to buy a piece of his action at 1.5. It does not matter whether he goes on to win the tournament or whether he busts out first hand. I made a profitable play by purchasing his action in either case. When I buy action in tournament players I do so every time with the knowledge that the most likely outcome is that I lose my money. But I am still making a profitable bet. Results are irrelevant.

About a year ago I decided to start buying lots more action from tournament players. I bought a little bit of online action, but mainly I bought percentages of players' live tournament action. I am a pretty good judge of who is a good player and I'd expect that almost every single one of my action purchases was profitable for me - I only bought action in good players who were charging reasonable mark up. And you know what? Right at the start I had a run of well over 100 tournaments in which I got only 2 min cashes. Was I unlucky in how my action buying worked out for those 100+ tournaments? Of course I was. Was this bad luck some sort of statistical anomaly that was extremely unlikely to happen? Of course not.

The point is, my results in the first few months of my new project were completely irrelevant. I knew that I had 'made money' through my action buying - even though I has actually lost money. Anyone who understands the previous sentence and does not think I have contradicted myself 'gets' gambling.

I 'get' gambling and the theory is clear but I'd rather just be results oriented - results & fiddies - I can't really see the point in being anything else

[Honeybadger]

I don't really understand what you mean by this Nirvana.

[nirvana]

I don't really understand what you mean by this Nirvana.

I rarely do either mate.

I guess I think it makes sense to be 100% results oriented in poker (not hand by hand), but say over a year of tourney play.

Being self aware enough to know you often get lucky in poker tournaments and that you never stop learning is probably more important than a discussion about variance. Despite that, I do think acknowledging variance is pretty important in deciding 'live tourney pro' is not a great career choice for most

[smashedagain]

Hey Gouty, I seem to remember getting a light call out of you on one final table that we played. It was probably the first time we had met each other. I distinctly remember you telling the rest of the table you would not have made the call had it not been for my talking. Having said that later on in the evening all the talk back fired on me because as we got 3 handed I told you both that I was prepared to do you both a favour and deal, you both snap refused .

I really must reiterate a couple of points. I have never been drunk playing poker as tbh I don't drink. Last month I did have a couple of ciders with an old friend and I was pretty much worse for it and would never do it again.  I may have given the impression that I am drunk or never concentrating on the game. I really must emphasise I am always observing everything without people actually noticing. If people think you are watching there every step then they start doing things differently. 
I am always on my phone but the truth is the wifi is that poor that half the time its not working anyway or the battery is dead. It's a similar thing to when I used to wear headphones, quite a lot of people knew that I did not even own an iPod or MP3 player. Sitting away nodding my head or occasional sing the last 3 words of a song gives the impression that I'm actually not listening or concentrating and when I make a raise I have to have a premium hand.

I do remember playing a final in the Irish winter festival where I was high as a kite and absolutely destroyed the final table, we ended up doing a deal heads up where all I wanted was the comedy cheque and the trophy. The lad I was playing had got in through a Paddy Power promotion and they were keen for us to do a deal for some reason and I agreed. But that's another storey for a different time.

[MC]

I don't understand why people are arguing with Honeybadger, he is clearly 100% right about everything he has said, and has explained everything really well. It would be more efficient spending time trying to understand why he is right than considering why you think he's wrong.