Mental management
May. 29th, 2010 11:29 amI often wonder why, after a fairly hefty loss, such as I had this morning, I get so disturbed. After all, my stockholdings have gone down by far more over the past few weeks. The actual loss in absolute terms ($695) is not that significant in the grand scheme of things.
So why the feeling of disturbance?
The answer, I think, lies in, not what has just happened, but what I fear it might portend for the future. And this, unfortunately, is not an irrational fear. The facts remain:
1) Most poker players are losers above and beyond the rake they pay
2) The vast majority of poker players are either in the above group, or win less than the rake they pay, thus ending up net losers.
3) An even vaster majority include the above groups and a group that just about cover their rake and make a profit only from rakeback
That leaves (4), a very small group that wins money from rakeback and from "at the table" play.
To which we add:
5) The games are getting tougher all the time.
Any poker player not blinded by the self-deception of arrogant youth is perfectly aware that one day he will stop being a significant winner. True, there is a small small chance that this will turn out not to be true. He may carry on winning until the day he dies. But most will stop being winners. There's a long long list of bloggers and "pro" poker players from the early 2000s on who are no longer big winners. Some have held on to much of what they won. Many have spunked it away. But they aren't winning it now.
It's in the face of this inevitability of eventual failure that I look at every minor setback. Not what it signifies in and of itself, but what it might signify for the future.
In addition, I was slightly annoyed at myself. Firstly, I went back up to $1-$2 NL on Stars, even though I had banned myself from this level until I accumulated 20 buy-ins of wins at 50c-$1 NL. I went back up because, quite simply, I had to if I was going to maintain supernova status this month. This is an old mistake of mine, one which I have written about before, where I let the tail wag the dog. Unfortunately the marketing meisters at Pokerstars know exactly how big an incentive to set to make the player concerned (me) move up to a higher level.
Secondly, I made an old old mistake of mine, which was to beecome too much of a calling station in the early morning. Hands that I would fold during the tight-fests of a Wednesday afternoon, I reshove all-in with in the looser games of Saturday monring. But I over-compensate. The games are looser, but not that much looser. And the overshove from an opponent, even one who is slightly short-stacked, is not a desperate bluff from an American who has been up all night. It's the nuts.
So, I lost five all-ins (probably a record for me in two hours) and won two.
But, when I thought about it, I decided that, although I could marginally criticize my own play, if they had gone right, I would have been saying "brilliant".
Below are the four losing all ins from the second half of the session:
( hand histories )
So why the feeling of disturbance?
The answer, I think, lies in, not what has just happened, but what I fear it might portend for the future. And this, unfortunately, is not an irrational fear. The facts remain:
1) Most poker players are losers above and beyond the rake they pay
2) The vast majority of poker players are either in the above group, or win less than the rake they pay, thus ending up net losers.
3) An even vaster majority include the above groups and a group that just about cover their rake and make a profit only from rakeback
That leaves (4), a very small group that wins money from rakeback and from "at the table" play.
To which we add:
5) The games are getting tougher all the time.
Any poker player not blinded by the self-deception of arrogant youth is perfectly aware that one day he will stop being a significant winner. True, there is a small small chance that this will turn out not to be true. He may carry on winning until the day he dies. But most will stop being winners. There's a long long list of bloggers and "pro" poker players from the early 2000s on who are no longer big winners. Some have held on to much of what they won. Many have spunked it away. But they aren't winning it now.
It's in the face of this inevitability of eventual failure that I look at every minor setback. Not what it signifies in and of itself, but what it might signify for the future.
In addition, I was slightly annoyed at myself. Firstly, I went back up to $1-$2 NL on Stars, even though I had banned myself from this level until I accumulated 20 buy-ins of wins at 50c-$1 NL. I went back up because, quite simply, I had to if I was going to maintain supernova status this month. This is an old mistake of mine, one which I have written about before, where I let the tail wag the dog. Unfortunately the marketing meisters at Pokerstars know exactly how big an incentive to set to make the player concerned (me) move up to a higher level.
Secondly, I made an old old mistake of mine, which was to beecome too much of a calling station in the early morning. Hands that I would fold during the tight-fests of a Wednesday afternoon, I reshove all-in with in the looser games of Saturday monring. But I over-compensate. The games are looser, but not that much looser. And the overshove from an opponent, even one who is slightly short-stacked, is not a desperate bluff from an American who has been up all night. It's the nuts.
So, I lost five all-ins (probably a record for me in two hours) and won two.
But, when I thought about it, I decided that, although I could marginally criticize my own play, if they had gone right, I would have been saying "brilliant".
Below are the four losing all ins from the second half of the session:
( hand histories )