Around the blogs
Jul. 18th, 2006 01:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksThree of the most dangerous metagame traps that serious poker players can fall into are ennui, hubris and schadenfreude (yes, the English have a word for everything).
For Law School Dropout a nasty fall occurred that, once again, brought into question the conventional wisdom that you hear spouted by the parrots who never actually think about anything. "Look", they say, "I read it in a 2+2 book, it must be right". In this case, it was the "300 big bets" theory as a standard safe bankroll for limit hold 'em.
Now, even those on the dumber side of the poker spectrum must know that some games are more variant than others. But if you add to this the fact that online players play many many more hands than the standard "live" player, then common statistical sense tells you that "the unusual", or, rather "the very unusual", will happen with greater frequency.
I have often wondered when my variance when three-tabling online crosses that of my variance when playing live, in terms of time. In other words, suppose I average a profit of 3 big bets every 30 hands live, and a profit of 0.5 big bets every 30 hands playing online, with a variance of 15 big bets every 30 hands live and a variance of 12 big bets every 30 hands online.
If I am three-tabling online, then I come up with a profit of 3 big bets an hour, the same as when playing live. But how will bankroll requirements differ? How long will I have to play before I can be 95% certain that the total wins will be within (say) 5% of each other?
Anyway, lawschool dropout (http://www.zbasic.com/pokerblog.html) wrote of sinking into a fairly horrible abyss of a $60K hole in a week -- a thousand big bets. here's how he coped with it. There's some useful stuff here.
While I may seem to refer to these big numbers casually, make no mistake about it: this is a very big deal to me. I may play high-stakes, but for a guy who had only rarely lost more than $5,000 in a single day, to check your numbers and see $60,000 less money to your name than you had a week prior, well, that's not chump change. To say it was confidence-shaking would be a grave understatement -- I went through all the typical 'bad beat' emotions: "geez that was a bad beat," "wow I've never run so bad", "is this even possible?" "have I just been really really lucky up to this point?", etc, etc. All pretty juvenile thoughts when it comes right down to it, but like all people who have run bad at one point or another, they seem perfectly rational at the time. I won't torment anyone with bad beat stories here -- I just ran bad, and that's really all you can say about it. Rather, I think it might prove more worthwhile to my readership here (and more productive for my own psyche) if I jot down some thoughts about how I've been handling the pscyhologically-draining mindset that goes along with a tough stretch of cards -- and man, this was a doozy.
First thing I did was to read some 2+2 threads from winning players who ran especially bad. It just acts as a reminder that it's normal! I spent a lot of time reading through this thread, which describes an apparent 1,500 big bet downswing from a supposedly winning limit player. Now remember: the general consensus is that you should have a 300 big bet (BB) bankroll for whatever stakes you play (in lmit at least), so the mere idea that a winning player could have a 1500 BB swoon is practically incomprehensible. But if nothing else, it drives home the point that there's absolutely nothing magical about that 300 BB benchmark. after all, if you acknowledge that 300 big-bets is possible, then think of the entire universe of people who have gone through 300bb downswings. Of that population, surely there are going to be more than a couple who endure a second 300BB downswing immediately on the heels of their first, n'est-ce-pas?
I also literally forced myself to take 4 or 5 days completely away from the game -- this is a pretty cliche piece of advice, but I finally understand just why it makes so much sense. It's not, as I used to think, simply to prevent tilt, or to stop the bleeding / freefall. Rather, it helps me to avoid getting into bad habits. I can't remember ever having 5 straight losing days, let alone 5 straight of the magnitude that I dealt with last month, but one of the most dangerous mindsets that I've ever been in, I've found, is one where I simply expect to lose. I'll sit down and literally prepare myself to drop 60 - 80 BBs, an unhealthy mindset if there ever was one. And you know something weird: when I finally did get back to playing, it was as though the horror of the previous week had all been a dream. And in many ways it was a complete hallucination. After all, I was the same exact person that I had been before my losses...was I really going to let the number in my Neteller or bank account define what kind of person or poker player I am? When you get right down to it, there are very things in life as insignificant as the number in your bank account...and it just seemed so foolish to have let that get me so down, when it had exactly zero tangible effect on my life.
I had a feeling that, no matter how judicious Dropout was in finding fishy players, his advertised win rate per 100 was unsustainable. He did, I think, run (slightly) good for a very long while. of course, that doesn't mean that a brutal downswing will come -- just that the big win rate is unlikely to continue.
Anyway, Dropout referred to this thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=5252127&page=0&fpart=all&vc=1
(The Josh W thread).
Now, I can relate to this thread because, when people talk about being bored with the level at which they are playing, and thinking of moving up, the chances are that they are going through a low variance period. It's very easy to want to move from $5-$10 to $15-$30 when for the last 20 sessions you haven't won or lost more than $200. The problem is, there is no guarantee that this low variance will continue. Here we see a $30-$60 player hitting a 1,000 BB downswing in a week - that's $6k, even at $3-$6. How many players out there have the bankroll to withstand that? Not that many, I reckon.
+++++++
Three-Bet often summarizes what I am feeling, and it was his shift to No Limit that came closest to getting me to shift over as well. So, echoing my previous whinges about tournaments, Eric says something very similar.
Here's two entries from the 15th and 16th
http://threebet33.blogspot.com/
What is this sickness? I hate tournaments. I hate playing them. I hate having to wake up for them. I hate busting out after hours and hours of play with no reward to show for my time spent. I always do badly.
Yet, here I am registering for the $500+35 Full Tilt super-mega-satellite into the WSOP main event where the top 100 finishers all get seats. And here I am considering playing in the two remaining $1500 no-limit events. Heck, even the $1500 limit shoot-out event is looking appealing for some perverse reason.
What's wrong with me? Someone talk me out of this stupidity. I have better uses for my money.
followed by this...
Ah, yes, so that's why I hated tournaments. Play good for hours, beat 80+% of the field, then suffer a bad beat or two and bingo bango busto, all that time and effort is wasted with no return.
I played in both the Stars and Full Tilt WSOP tournaments and got nowhere. And since I was on such a tournament kick, I played in Party's million guaranteed and Stars' Sunday second-chance tourney. No interesting hands in any of those four and nothing really to say other than that I misplayed a few hands overall and got unlucky one time too many in each tourney.
5 hours and about $1300 down the drain. And for some reason, I'm still considering one of the $1500 NL events in the WSOP. Someone crack me over the head with a shovel or something.
++++++++++
So, most of the bloggers there are, it appears, comprehensively doing their bollocks, although there is some recovery in the cash games. Everyone seems to be enjoying the tournaments as much as ThreeBet does.
From Matt Matros:
http://www.mattmatros.com/journal.htm
Here's how my $3,000 Limit Hold 'Em tournament ended. I defended a big blind with T9o, check-called the flop with overcards, and check-folded to the ace on the turn. I three-bet a cutoff raiser from the button with KsTs, got check-raised on the queen-high two hearts flop, and folded on the turn when the third heart came. I opened for half my stack with KJo, got called by the big blind, bet the 887 flop, put the rest in when a 2 hit the turn, got shown 76s, and missed on the river. The end. I really never had cards in this entire thing, and it's a miracle I cashed at all.
Well, he did better than Chris Fargis, whose account of his Vegas card car crash made riveting reading.
Long story short: Went to Vegas for ten days. Lost every hand. Came home five days ago. Won it all back and more playing online. Wheeee poker.
http://twentyoneoutstwice.blogspot.com/
++++++
In the ennui stakes, Double A is showing the telltale signs. I've always reckoned that there are two types of serious poker players, those who are committed to it for a couple of years and then move on, and those addicts like me who just never quite shake it off, no matter how hard we try. To be honest, I am always amazed at people who throw themselves wholeheartedly into something (like, say, zine editing) and then lose their enthusiasm for it just as quickly. But I know that I am in the minority.
At this point though, I have concluded that a week away from the family is about 3-4 days too long even for a chance to play a 6-handed WSOP event which I was really looking forward to and playing with the bloggers. This blogger community is a very wierd pychological study in the making. Bring 130 people together from various backgrounds who all enjoy a common interest and watch people become friends and enemies. Cliques evolve. Popularity contests exist. It is very wierd. I've been fortunate to meet some great people and avoid making any enemies (that I know of) so its all good for me, but I'm actually wierded out by some of the things I've seen and heard on this trip. That'll happen I guess.
I'm also becoming pretty sick of the WSOP thing. I've only been here a week so I can't imagine how Otis, Pauly, and Jason feel. I was here last year so the newness isn't there for me. I've played with quite a few pros here and there so the awe of seeing TV personalities walking around is also old. I actually have little respect for the majority of the TV pros.
Double A then goes on to write (in the past 24 hours):
I got home first thing Saturday morning and spent the morning enjoying the family time. We got a new puppy Friday night so that added to the excitement of being home. The jet lag was pretty harsh. I ended up taking two naps and still going to bed at a normal time and sleeping through the night. My body even wanted another nap on Sunday, but I forced myself to stay awake to try to get back on schedule.
I had no intention of playing poker this weekend except for the big WSOP satellites on Stars and FTP. I got on early to see what else was happening and decided that I’d play a few VIP freerolls to warm up before the big ones. I also brought up a cash game and a $109 tournament on UB. After taking some atrocious beats, I remembered what kind of run I’ve been on lately and it all came back to me in an instant. I don’t want to go back to Vegas for the main event. Flying 6 hours to take a bad beat of some sort just to fly another 6 hours home would probably get me to withdraw my entire bankroll from online and pick up a new hobby – sleeping.
I withdrew from the Stars tournament about 30 minutes before it started, turned off the computer and went to play with my kids. We had a blast and my weekend was a success.
I did manage to pull a little over $400 from the cash game in 20 minutes to make up for the UB tournament and pay for my time in the freerolls so all wasn’t lost on poker.
My usual night used to consist of checking out the tournament schedule and seeing which site’s cash games were hopping (besides Party and Stars) to see where I should spend my time later in the night. Then I’d work to get the household in order (kids to bed, etc.) to get online by the time the good tournaments started. Then I’d play. That would account for a subtle stress starting right after dinner time. I was outside with the dog this weekend and realized how nice it was to have no desire to play poker that night. I didn’t have to stress about where to play, to make sure my mindset was right to play or how variance might treat me. I was going to let the dog do her business and then watch a movie with the wife. Simple.
It is kind of worrisome as I think about it more. Hobbies usually last a couple years with me. I get addicted to them and then all of a sudden they fade away. I worry that poker is getting to that point with me. I wonder if I would feel the same if I were running well.
As Big Dave D wrote, "it stopped being fun a long time ago". Most players simply quit at that point and go and find something else that they enjoy. others (call them the obsessive types who also won't give up trying to learn a musical instrument) carry on.
(http://doubleas.blogspot.com/)
+++++++
From the UK, blogster MilkyBarKid has returned to the UK after a week, non-cashing. Rob Sherwood is still over there, not cashing.
So that's four bracelet events played, not once have I reached double my starting stack, and I'm pretty fed-up with playing these events. I haven't seen much value in terms of bad players. Going to concentrate on playing online the next few days, and try to rebuild my confidence. Live poker is definitely rigged.
http://sherwoodpoker.blogspot.com/
But then he did win a seat for the $10K in, yes, an online tournament.
+++++++++++
Andy Ward mentions the danger of ennui. The trouble is, if you are kind of there on a holiday, what do you do when you are sitting in games that you know will make you a fair wedge, but which are no fun whatseoever? I have no answer to this question; I just raise it as the inevitable by-product of staying in Las Vegas for more than 8 or 9 days.
The title refers to DY's blog which says "lather, rinse, repeat" in relation to what I'm doing with single tables, quite correctly. It is just a question of sitting there and making simple, technically correct plays over and over and over again times a thousand. In the last couple of days though I've found it more difficult ; I think my brain is rebelling against the routine.
http://www.getitquietly.blogspot.com/
+++++++++
Shaniac brings back more of the ennui (hmm, I think that I detect a theme here).
I'm not having a great time at this year's WSOP, and I don't attribute it to my lackluster performance thus far (it is, after all, early in the Series) or on the vague stress associated with my skyrocketing makeup figure (because focusing on that would be counterproductive and my backers are pretty great). I keep it in perspective that since my first positive experience at last year's WSOP, I've learned a shitload, made numerous acquaintances, and, going back a little farther, have situated myself much better than when I was waiting tables, bike messengering, or sitting in Central Booking.
Rather, for the first time since I embarked on "poker tour," the increasingly carnival-like, over-hyped flavor of the game is getting me down. The atmosphere is infected by too much pomp-and-circumstance, too many teams, too much noise. Getting all your money in the pot vs. Humberto Brenes drawing dead is painful, but having to inch your way towards the exit through a stagnant crowd of slackjawed railbirds is truly insufferable.
.........
Before I played poker myself, I'm sure I had my own romantic fascination with whatever went on in Vegas, at Binion's, during the WSOP. The fascination was fueled when I started dabbling in some 1-5 stud games in New Mexico, when I watched Rounders and read The Biggest Game in Town. But it never impelled me to try and get Doyle Brunson's--or David Singer's--autograph. It ultimately inspired me to want to take their chips one day, take my shot at them. Every other aspect of poker fandom seems masturbatory.
I think the public's fascination with poker players is mostly an extension of the nature of reality-tv culture. People are delighted to be near anything, as long as it was on television, and poker tournaments certainly offer that opportunity. Savvy players, needless to say, are more than willing to jump on any ancillary bandwagon that passes by, and who can blame them, even when the fake-hype that they're riding outweighs their actual talent or accomplishments? I do hold many poker players in high esteem, professionally and personally, and consider most to be salt-of-the-earth types, a kindhearted and intelligent group of people. But we're just fucking poker players.
Exactly.
http://shaniaconline.blogspot.com/2006/07/love-minus-zerono-limit_09.html
+++++++++
For Law School Dropout a nasty fall occurred that, once again, brought into question the conventional wisdom that you hear spouted by the parrots who never actually think about anything. "Look", they say, "I read it in a 2+2 book, it must be right". In this case, it was the "300 big bets" theory as a standard safe bankroll for limit hold 'em.
Now, even those on the dumber side of the poker spectrum must know that some games are more variant than others. But if you add to this the fact that online players play many many more hands than the standard "live" player, then common statistical sense tells you that "the unusual", or, rather "the very unusual", will happen with greater frequency.
I have often wondered when my variance when three-tabling online crosses that of my variance when playing live, in terms of time. In other words, suppose I average a profit of 3 big bets every 30 hands live, and a profit of 0.5 big bets every 30 hands playing online, with a variance of 15 big bets every 30 hands live and a variance of 12 big bets every 30 hands online.
If I am three-tabling online, then I come up with a profit of 3 big bets an hour, the same as when playing live. But how will bankroll requirements differ? How long will I have to play before I can be 95% certain that the total wins will be within (say) 5% of each other?
Anyway, lawschool dropout (http://www.zbasic.com/pokerblog.html) wrote of sinking into a fairly horrible abyss of a $60K hole in a week -- a thousand big bets. here's how he coped with it. There's some useful stuff here.
While I may seem to refer to these big numbers casually, make no mistake about it: this is a very big deal to me. I may play high-stakes, but for a guy who had only rarely lost more than $5,000 in a single day, to check your numbers and see $60,000 less money to your name than you had a week prior, well, that's not chump change. To say it was confidence-shaking would be a grave understatement -- I went through all the typical 'bad beat' emotions: "geez that was a bad beat," "wow I've never run so bad", "is this even possible?" "have I just been really really lucky up to this point?", etc, etc. All pretty juvenile thoughts when it comes right down to it, but like all people who have run bad at one point or another, they seem perfectly rational at the time. I won't torment anyone with bad beat stories here -- I just ran bad, and that's really all you can say about it. Rather, I think it might prove more worthwhile to my readership here (and more productive for my own psyche) if I jot down some thoughts about how I've been handling the pscyhologically-draining mindset that goes along with a tough stretch of cards -- and man, this was a doozy.
First thing I did was to read some 2+2 threads from winning players who ran especially bad. It just acts as a reminder that it's normal! I spent a lot of time reading through this thread, which describes an apparent 1,500 big bet downswing from a supposedly winning limit player. Now remember: the general consensus is that you should have a 300 big bet (BB) bankroll for whatever stakes you play (in lmit at least), so the mere idea that a winning player could have a 1500 BB swoon is practically incomprehensible. But if nothing else, it drives home the point that there's absolutely nothing magical about that 300 BB benchmark. after all, if you acknowledge that 300 big-bets is possible, then think of the entire universe of people who have gone through 300bb downswings. Of that population, surely there are going to be more than a couple who endure a second 300BB downswing immediately on the heels of their first, n'est-ce-pas?
I also literally forced myself to take 4 or 5 days completely away from the game -- this is a pretty cliche piece of advice, but I finally understand just why it makes so much sense. It's not, as I used to think, simply to prevent tilt, or to stop the bleeding / freefall. Rather, it helps me to avoid getting into bad habits. I can't remember ever having 5 straight losing days, let alone 5 straight of the magnitude that I dealt with last month, but one of the most dangerous mindsets that I've ever been in, I've found, is one where I simply expect to lose. I'll sit down and literally prepare myself to drop 60 - 80 BBs, an unhealthy mindset if there ever was one. And you know something weird: when I finally did get back to playing, it was as though the horror of the previous week had all been a dream. And in many ways it was a complete hallucination. After all, I was the same exact person that I had been before my losses...was I really going to let the number in my Neteller or bank account define what kind of person or poker player I am? When you get right down to it, there are very things in life as insignificant as the number in your bank account...and it just seemed so foolish to have let that get me so down, when it had exactly zero tangible effect on my life.
I had a feeling that, no matter how judicious Dropout was in finding fishy players, his advertised win rate per 100 was unsustainable. He did, I think, run (slightly) good for a very long while. of course, that doesn't mean that a brutal downswing will come -- just that the big win rate is unlikely to continue.
Anyway, Dropout referred to this thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=5252127&page=0&fpart=all&vc=1
(The Josh W thread).
Now, I can relate to this thread because, when people talk about being bored with the level at which they are playing, and thinking of moving up, the chances are that they are going through a low variance period. It's very easy to want to move from $5-$10 to $15-$30 when for the last 20 sessions you haven't won or lost more than $200. The problem is, there is no guarantee that this low variance will continue. Here we see a $30-$60 player hitting a 1,000 BB downswing in a week - that's $6k, even at $3-$6. How many players out there have the bankroll to withstand that? Not that many, I reckon.
+++++++
Three-Bet often summarizes what I am feeling, and it was his shift to No Limit that came closest to getting me to shift over as well. So, echoing my previous whinges about tournaments, Eric says something very similar.
Here's two entries from the 15th and 16th
http://threebet33.blogspot.com/
What is this sickness? I hate tournaments. I hate playing them. I hate having to wake up for them. I hate busting out after hours and hours of play with no reward to show for my time spent. I always do badly.
Yet, here I am registering for the $500+35 Full Tilt super-mega-satellite into the WSOP main event where the top 100 finishers all get seats. And here I am considering playing in the two remaining $1500 no-limit events. Heck, even the $1500 limit shoot-out event is looking appealing for some perverse reason.
What's wrong with me? Someone talk me out of this stupidity. I have better uses for my money.
followed by this...
Ah, yes, so that's why I hated tournaments. Play good for hours, beat 80+% of the field, then suffer a bad beat or two and bingo bango busto, all that time and effort is wasted with no return.
I played in both the Stars and Full Tilt WSOP tournaments and got nowhere. And since I was on such a tournament kick, I played in Party's million guaranteed and Stars' Sunday second-chance tourney. No interesting hands in any of those four and nothing really to say other than that I misplayed a few hands overall and got unlucky one time too many in each tourney.
5 hours and about $1300 down the drain. And for some reason, I'm still considering one of the $1500 NL events in the WSOP. Someone crack me over the head with a shovel or something.
++++++++++
So, most of the bloggers there are, it appears, comprehensively doing their bollocks, although there is some recovery in the cash games. Everyone seems to be enjoying the tournaments as much as ThreeBet does.
From Matt Matros:
http://www.mattmatros.com/journal.htm
Here's how my $3,000 Limit Hold 'Em tournament ended. I defended a big blind with T9o, check-called the flop with overcards, and check-folded to the ace on the turn. I three-bet a cutoff raiser from the button with KsTs, got check-raised on the queen-high two hearts flop, and folded on the turn when the third heart came. I opened for half my stack with KJo, got called by the big blind, bet the 887 flop, put the rest in when a 2 hit the turn, got shown 76s, and missed on the river. The end. I really never had cards in this entire thing, and it's a miracle I cashed at all.
Well, he did better than Chris Fargis, whose account of his Vegas card car crash made riveting reading.
Long story short: Went to Vegas for ten days. Lost every hand. Came home five days ago. Won it all back and more playing online. Wheeee poker.
http://twentyoneoutstwice.blogspot.com/
++++++
In the ennui stakes, Double A is showing the telltale signs. I've always reckoned that there are two types of serious poker players, those who are committed to it for a couple of years and then move on, and those addicts like me who just never quite shake it off, no matter how hard we try. To be honest, I am always amazed at people who throw themselves wholeheartedly into something (like, say, zine editing) and then lose their enthusiasm for it just as quickly. But I know that I am in the minority.
At this point though, I have concluded that a week away from the family is about 3-4 days too long even for a chance to play a 6-handed WSOP event which I was really looking forward to and playing with the bloggers. This blogger community is a very wierd pychological study in the making. Bring 130 people together from various backgrounds who all enjoy a common interest and watch people become friends and enemies. Cliques evolve. Popularity contests exist. It is very wierd. I've been fortunate to meet some great people and avoid making any enemies (that I know of) so its all good for me, but I'm actually wierded out by some of the things I've seen and heard on this trip. That'll happen I guess.
I'm also becoming pretty sick of the WSOP thing. I've only been here a week so I can't imagine how Otis, Pauly, and Jason feel. I was here last year so the newness isn't there for me. I've played with quite a few pros here and there so the awe of seeing TV personalities walking around is also old. I actually have little respect for the majority of the TV pros.
Double A then goes on to write (in the past 24 hours):
I got home first thing Saturday morning and spent the morning enjoying the family time. We got a new puppy Friday night so that added to the excitement of being home. The jet lag was pretty harsh. I ended up taking two naps and still going to bed at a normal time and sleeping through the night. My body even wanted another nap on Sunday, but I forced myself to stay awake to try to get back on schedule.
I had no intention of playing poker this weekend except for the big WSOP satellites on Stars and FTP. I got on early to see what else was happening and decided that I’d play a few VIP freerolls to warm up before the big ones. I also brought up a cash game and a $109 tournament on UB. After taking some atrocious beats, I remembered what kind of run I’ve been on lately and it all came back to me in an instant. I don’t want to go back to Vegas for the main event. Flying 6 hours to take a bad beat of some sort just to fly another 6 hours home would probably get me to withdraw my entire bankroll from online and pick up a new hobby – sleeping.
I withdrew from the Stars tournament about 30 minutes before it started, turned off the computer and went to play with my kids. We had a blast and my weekend was a success.
I did manage to pull a little over $400 from the cash game in 20 minutes to make up for the UB tournament and pay for my time in the freerolls so all wasn’t lost on poker.
My usual night used to consist of checking out the tournament schedule and seeing which site’s cash games were hopping (besides Party and Stars) to see where I should spend my time later in the night. Then I’d work to get the household in order (kids to bed, etc.) to get online by the time the good tournaments started. Then I’d play. That would account for a subtle stress starting right after dinner time. I was outside with the dog this weekend and realized how nice it was to have no desire to play poker that night. I didn’t have to stress about where to play, to make sure my mindset was right to play or how variance might treat me. I was going to let the dog do her business and then watch a movie with the wife. Simple.
It is kind of worrisome as I think about it more. Hobbies usually last a couple years with me. I get addicted to them and then all of a sudden they fade away. I worry that poker is getting to that point with me. I wonder if I would feel the same if I were running well.
As Big Dave D wrote, "it stopped being fun a long time ago". Most players simply quit at that point and go and find something else that they enjoy. others (call them the obsessive types who also won't give up trying to learn a musical instrument) carry on.
(http://doubleas.blogspot.com/)
+++++++
From the UK, blogster MilkyBarKid has returned to the UK after a week, non-cashing. Rob Sherwood is still over there, not cashing.
So that's four bracelet events played, not once have I reached double my starting stack, and I'm pretty fed-up with playing these events. I haven't seen much value in terms of bad players. Going to concentrate on playing online the next few days, and try to rebuild my confidence. Live poker is definitely rigged.
http://sherwoodpoker.blogspot.com/
But then he did win a seat for the $10K in, yes, an online tournament.
+++++++++++
Andy Ward mentions the danger of ennui. The trouble is, if you are kind of there on a holiday, what do you do when you are sitting in games that you know will make you a fair wedge, but which are no fun whatseoever? I have no answer to this question; I just raise it as the inevitable by-product of staying in Las Vegas for more than 8 or 9 days.
The title refers to DY's blog which says "lather, rinse, repeat" in relation to what I'm doing with single tables, quite correctly. It is just a question of sitting there and making simple, technically correct plays over and over and over again times a thousand. In the last couple of days though I've found it more difficult ; I think my brain is rebelling against the routine.
http://www.getitquietly.blogspot.com/
+++++++++
Shaniac brings back more of the ennui (hmm, I think that I detect a theme here).
I'm not having a great time at this year's WSOP, and I don't attribute it to my lackluster performance thus far (it is, after all, early in the Series) or on the vague stress associated with my skyrocketing makeup figure (because focusing on that would be counterproductive and my backers are pretty great). I keep it in perspective that since my first positive experience at last year's WSOP, I've learned a shitload, made numerous acquaintances, and, going back a little farther, have situated myself much better than when I was waiting tables, bike messengering, or sitting in Central Booking.
Rather, for the first time since I embarked on "poker tour," the increasingly carnival-like, over-hyped flavor of the game is getting me down. The atmosphere is infected by too much pomp-and-circumstance, too many teams, too much noise. Getting all your money in the pot vs. Humberto Brenes drawing dead is painful, but having to inch your way towards the exit through a stagnant crowd of slackjawed railbirds is truly insufferable.
.........
Before I played poker myself, I'm sure I had my own romantic fascination with whatever went on in Vegas, at Binion's, during the WSOP. The fascination was fueled when I started dabbling in some 1-5 stud games in New Mexico, when I watched Rounders and read The Biggest Game in Town. But it never impelled me to try and get Doyle Brunson's--or David Singer's--autograph. It ultimately inspired me to want to take their chips one day, take my shot at them. Every other aspect of poker fandom seems masturbatory.
I think the public's fascination with poker players is mostly an extension of the nature of reality-tv culture. People are delighted to be near anything, as long as it was on television, and poker tournaments certainly offer that opportunity. Savvy players, needless to say, are more than willing to jump on any ancillary bandwagon that passes by, and who can blame them, even when the fake-hype that they're riding outweighs their actual talent or accomplishments? I do hold many poker players in high esteem, professionally and personally, and consider most to be salt-of-the-earth types, a kindhearted and intelligent group of people. But we're just fucking poker players.
Exactly.
http://shaniaconline.blogspot.com/2006/07/love-minus-zerono-limit_09.html
+++++++++
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 03:24 pm (UTC)Thanks for taking the time to put these together.
Best of Luck
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 05:15 pm (UTC)PJ
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 05:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 05:14 pm (UTC)I'm not sure what percentage of his Neteller acocunt was vapourized, and I agree that perhaps dropping back to $15-$30 after a couple of days of five-figure losses might have been wise. However, Dropout had been playing some 50-100 and (I think) some 100-200 before the bad run hit. So I suspect that he was "over-bankrolled" for 30-60 by the terms of the standard 300BB measurement. However, as was shown, the standard measurement was wrong.
In other words, why have 150BB as your "drop-down" level or 600BB as your "move up" level in the first place? Only if you impute some kind of mystical value to 300BB. Dropout, quite sensibly, had seen beyond that in the first place.
There are more advanced bankroll concepts in play now anyway, more suited to multi-tabling Double A has written about it for no limit, but I don't think that a proper analysis has yet been compiled for limit.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 10:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-18 06:16 pm (UTC)I have to agree with you on Law School Dropout's winrate being sustainable. As good as a player as he appears to be and as proficient as he is in table/game selection, his winrate of 3 BB/100 (or so) basically defied the rules of "poker gravity" at those limits.
Michael