![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksIt's all very well your desktop telling you what it's like outside, but sometimes the accuracy leaves a little to be desired. I looked outside this evening, and I think that I can say that, with absolute certainty, the sun was not shining.
++++++++++
And now, some more talk about sustainability. No, nothing to do with carbon emissions and keeping the human race alive for longer than it deserves. I mean, of course, poker.
I've long been of the opinion that a number of the "young bucks'" poker books ignore the concept of sustanability. I was very disappointed when Feeney (who wrote the excellent Inside The Poker Mind was reported to have given up the game. But I see that Matt Maroon, another author and respected player, has come to hate the game -- or, rather, hate making a living at it.
The problem is, a number of these books written by technically good poker players are written by players who haven't been playing long enough to realize that burn-out is a major problem. If they were to title the books "How to win at poker and then move on to something else when you get bored with it", then that would be fine.
A read of Matt's comments on poker (http://www.thepokerchronicles.com/) is worthwhile (bypass all the tech stuff and the Fantasy Sports Leagues; hell, we were playing stuff like that by fax a decade ago) because it seems to me to sum up what will happen to a large number of the current poker crop in their 20s. They will move on. Because, well, that's what people in their 20s do. They try lots of things, and move on from each, eventually "settling down".
Some of us, on the other hand, never grow up, and never grow out of poker.
Matt sums up some of the deep psychological paradoxes associated with poker, particulary for the American psyche (sorry if that sounds a bit Jungian), where reward is still associated with effort, rather than with a healthy slice of luck. But he makes some great points about the unique nature of playing poker for a living; the best of which, I think was, that in most jobs, even ones where you own the company, it's better to go in to work and to function sub-optimally at 90% of your best. In poker, it's probably better to stay at home (with the computer turned off), because functioning at 90% will cost you money.
In terms of sustainability, this is a strong argument in favour of playing below your optimal level -- preferably at one where you can still be a winner even if you are functioning sub-optimally. But have you read that piece of advice in any of the poker books by the young bucks? I don't thnk so. Testosterone is still a powerful force.
Matt also commented in a post earlyish last year (when the disillusion was setting in) that poker had the merit of being a genuine meritocracy, "one where racism and sexism can only cost you money".
Compare and contrast this with Terrence Chan's recent post on just this matter on December 31:
As Terrence points out, distasteful it may be, but the Phil Hellmuth route probably has more going for it in terms of sustainability than paying your own way and taking the concomitant stress.
What Terrence doesn't mention, of course, that this financial backing is not a free lunch. You have to turn up, you have to maintain a public image. If that comes naturally to you, then fine. And if you like "the tour", then fine. But if those things do not appeal to you, then you suddently find yourself in a business that is less merit-based and more "does your face fit" based.
If I were a live tournament player without company backing, this wouldn't bother me. If you think that players play better when their entry fees are paid for, look at it this way. Which opponent would you prefer -- the player who only enters when feeling good, when focused, who is playing for his own money, or the player who is contractually obliged to enter this tournament and who would rather be poolside with a bevy of beauties?
It would be nice if one of these names wrote about "How to make a living out of poker without being particularly good, and how to hang on to your money". That would have an element of sustainability (and truth) about it.
Matt Maroon echoed a point made sometime ago by Paul Phillips, one of many poker dilettantes of the past few years who wandered off elsewhere when they got bored (ahh, the enthusiasm of youth!). Phillips (and no criticism intended of him for moving on -- hell, he can afford to do what he likes) observed that nearly all people who can make a living playing poker for a living could probably make far more money elsewhere (in the long run) by applying their talents to business. I'm not sure that's quite true; some people have an ability at poker but are absolutely hopeless at the inter-personal talents required to make real cash in the business world; but I take his point. The dedication and intelligence required to make it in professional poker as a player are such that ayone who can succeed as a player would have a head start in other business-related areas.
So, who should I read and listen to in the poker world? One reason that I pay so much respect to the stuff written by BluffThis! is that I know that he has been there, done that. He's been a poker pro for a long while, both live and online, and he does the background work as well as the "obvious" work. Another man whose opinion is worth listening to is Greenstein. By comparison (for example) people such as BlueScouse simply don't count. I don't look down or up to this kind of player. That they play at the highest stakes they can find is of no interest to me.
What's worrying, however, is that a large percentage of the other poker books also seem to be written by guys in their 20s or 30s. I can't help but feel that anyone who only came to poker post-Rounders (or, more worryingly, post 2003) just can't have the wide breadth of experience needed to be able to give advice that will necessarily be solid. It might be accurate for the game 2003-2007, but that's just a very short time in Poker History. What won for you in that period won't necessarily win for you in the future.
++++++++
I know that I promised to write fewer hand histories, but I just have to put this one in, only because it made me chuckle to recall Hector's comment that such situations were rare (of course, what he meant was that they were very opponent-dependent, which meant that you were unlikely to see such a similar situation against the same opponent that often, but it was still a bit spooky to come up with two hands so similar within a week).
No macro run on this, so apologies for the primitive notation.
Texas Hold'em NL $0.50/$1.00
Table Esquel
Seat 1: jayjaypg7922 ($202.63 in chips)
Seat 2: iTouchU ($42.50 in chips)
Seat 4: villain ($114.64 in chips)
Seat 5: hero ($97.50 in chips)
Seat 6: nicobln30 ($57.04 in chips)
Seat 7: ShipItshiiipIT ($32.00 in chips) DEALER
Seat 10: frenchbulldog ($59.00 in chips)
frenchbulldog: Post SB $0.50
jayjaypg7922: Post BB $1.00
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Villain (27%/8% on small sample) [Kd Td]
Dealt to Hero [Jd Ad]
iTouchU: Fold
Villain: Call $1.00
Hero: Raise $5.00
Early Saturday evening, so this kind of raise can often end the argument there and then or, if it fails so to do, can win it on the flop. There's an argument for just raising to $3 (because the hand is suited and there are multi-way possibilities as well as heads-up), but I like the bigger raise here because it tends to get rid of any AQoffsuit that might be sitting behind you. If the players behind you treat $3 and $5 the same, I might go for the smaller raise. I don't want opponents getting emotionally committed to a hand where I want them to fold.
nicobln30: Fold
ShipItshiiipIT: Fold
frenchbulldog: Fold
jayjaypg7922: Fold
Villain: Call $4.00
*** FLOP *** [5d 2h 2d]
Villain: Check
Hero: Bet $9.00
Villain: Call $9.00
You might recall Hector's observation on the merits and demerits of Check-calling here.
*** TURN *** [3c]
Villain: Check
I think that this rules out a pair of threes at this level.
Hero: Check
*** RIVER *** [7d] completes my nut flush
Villain: Bet $15.00
LOL, as I said to myself. I have been here before, but holding the other hand. I can't see Villain holding a full house here, and I can't see him betting $15 into a $31 pot with a full house (say, if he holds 77). It could be a blocking bet with trips (say, A2s?), it could be a value bet with a lower flush. Either way, I think I can extract a call for a smallish raise. But, how much? I went with a gut instinct here and put in a bit more than I would normally. If opponent has 77, then I'm getting stacked off, but I can't see him holding any other hand that beats me.
Hero: Raise (to) $50.00
Villain: Call $35.00
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $126.50 Rake $3.00
Hero: wins $126.50
++++++++
And, for those of you who thought I had drifted irredemably to the right, I took the American presidential test:
Blues are Democrats in the odd US colouring system of political preference.
Actually, the results rather surprised me (not that the top three are no-hopers, that's only to be expected) in that I thought my views would find at least some reflection amongst the more socially liberal Republicans.
++++++++++
And now, some more talk about sustainability. No, nothing to do with carbon emissions and keeping the human race alive for longer than it deserves. I mean, of course, poker.
I've long been of the opinion that a number of the "young bucks'" poker books ignore the concept of sustanability. I was very disappointed when Feeney (who wrote the excellent Inside The Poker Mind was reported to have given up the game. But I see that Matt Maroon, another author and respected player, has come to hate the game -- or, rather, hate making a living at it.
The problem is, a number of these books written by technically good poker players are written by players who haven't been playing long enough to realize that burn-out is a major problem. If they were to title the books "How to win at poker and then move on to something else when you get bored with it", then that would be fine.
A read of Matt's comments on poker (http://www.thepokerchronicles.com/) is worthwhile (bypass all the tech stuff and the Fantasy Sports Leagues; hell, we were playing stuff like that by fax a decade ago) because it seems to me to sum up what will happen to a large number of the current poker crop in their 20s. They will move on. Because, well, that's what people in their 20s do. They try lots of things, and move on from each, eventually "settling down".
Some of us, on the other hand, never grow up, and never grow out of poker.
Matt sums up some of the deep psychological paradoxes associated with poker, particulary for the American psyche (sorry if that sounds a bit Jungian), where reward is still associated with effort, rather than with a healthy slice of luck. But he makes some great points about the unique nature of playing poker for a living; the best of which, I think was, that in most jobs, even ones where you own the company, it's better to go in to work and to function sub-optimally at 90% of your best. In poker, it's probably better to stay at home (with the computer turned off), because functioning at 90% will cost you money.
In terms of sustainability, this is a strong argument in favour of playing below your optimal level -- preferably at one where you can still be a winner even if you are functioning sub-optimally. But have you read that piece of advice in any of the poker books by the young bucks? I don't thnk so. Testosterone is still a powerful force.
Matt also commented in a post earlyish last year (when the disillusion was setting in) that poker had the merit of being a genuine meritocracy, "one where racism and sexism can only cost you money".
Compare and contrast this with Terrence Chan's recent post on just this matter on December 31:
As distasteful as it is to my soul, I have flirted with the idea of becoming a "name" tournament player. It's distasteful because I've always thought of poker as one of the truly merit-based businesses. But that's becoming less and less the case. For the first time in the history of poker, the biggest winners aren't the people winning in the biggest cash games; they're the people having their buy-ins and expenses paid for, getting salaried by poker sites, and occasionally cashing in some tournament because it was inevitable they would eventually do so. And no one really talks about this, either.
As Terrence points out, distasteful it may be, but the Phil Hellmuth route probably has more going for it in terms of sustainability than paying your own way and taking the concomitant stress.
What Terrence doesn't mention, of course, that this financial backing is not a free lunch. You have to turn up, you have to maintain a public image. If that comes naturally to you, then fine. And if you like "the tour", then fine. But if those things do not appeal to you, then you suddently find yourself in a business that is less merit-based and more "does your face fit" based.
If I were a live tournament player without company backing, this wouldn't bother me. If you think that players play better when their entry fees are paid for, look at it this way. Which opponent would you prefer -- the player who only enters when feeling good, when focused, who is playing for his own money, or the player who is contractually obliged to enter this tournament and who would rather be poolside with a bevy of beauties?
It would be nice if one of these names wrote about "How to make a living out of poker without being particularly good, and how to hang on to your money". That would have an element of sustainability (and truth) about it.
Matt Maroon echoed a point made sometime ago by Paul Phillips, one of many poker dilettantes of the past few years who wandered off elsewhere when they got bored (ahh, the enthusiasm of youth!). Phillips (and no criticism intended of him for moving on -- hell, he can afford to do what he likes) observed that nearly all people who can make a living playing poker for a living could probably make far more money elsewhere (in the long run) by applying their talents to business. I'm not sure that's quite true; some people have an ability at poker but are absolutely hopeless at the inter-personal talents required to make real cash in the business world; but I take his point. The dedication and intelligence required to make it in professional poker as a player are such that ayone who can succeed as a player would have a head start in other business-related areas.
So, who should I read and listen to in the poker world? One reason that I pay so much respect to the stuff written by BluffThis! is that I know that he has been there, done that. He's been a poker pro for a long while, both live and online, and he does the background work as well as the "obvious" work. Another man whose opinion is worth listening to is Greenstein. By comparison (for example) people such as BlueScouse simply don't count. I don't look down or up to this kind of player. That they play at the highest stakes they can find is of no interest to me.
What's worrying, however, is that a large percentage of the other poker books also seem to be written by guys in their 20s or 30s. I can't help but feel that anyone who only came to poker post-Rounders (or, more worryingly, post 2003) just can't have the wide breadth of experience needed to be able to give advice that will necessarily be solid. It might be accurate for the game 2003-2007, but that's just a very short time in Poker History. What won for you in that period won't necessarily win for you in the future.
++++++++
I know that I promised to write fewer hand histories, but I just have to put this one in, only because it made me chuckle to recall Hector's comment that such situations were rare (of course, what he meant was that they were very opponent-dependent, which meant that you were unlikely to see such a similar situation against the same opponent that often, but it was still a bit spooky to come up with two hands so similar within a week).
No macro run on this, so apologies for the primitive notation.
Texas Hold'em NL $0.50/$1.00
Table Esquel
Seat 1: jayjaypg7922 ($202.63 in chips)
Seat 2: iTouchU ($42.50 in chips)
Seat 4: villain ($114.64 in chips)
Seat 5: hero ($97.50 in chips)
Seat 6: nicobln30 ($57.04 in chips)
Seat 7: ShipItshiiipIT ($32.00 in chips) DEALER
Seat 10: frenchbulldog ($59.00 in chips)
frenchbulldog: Post SB $0.50
jayjaypg7922: Post BB $1.00
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Villain (27%/8% on small sample) [Kd Td]
Dealt to Hero [Jd Ad]
iTouchU: Fold
Villain: Call $1.00
Hero: Raise $5.00
Early Saturday evening, so this kind of raise can often end the argument there and then or, if it fails so to do, can win it on the flop. There's an argument for just raising to $3 (because the hand is suited and there are multi-way possibilities as well as heads-up), but I like the bigger raise here because it tends to get rid of any AQoffsuit that might be sitting behind you. If the players behind you treat $3 and $5 the same, I might go for the smaller raise. I don't want opponents getting emotionally committed to a hand where I want them to fold.
nicobln30: Fold
ShipItshiiipIT: Fold
frenchbulldog: Fold
jayjaypg7922: Fold
Villain: Call $4.00
*** FLOP *** [5d 2h 2d]
Villain: Check
Hero: Bet $9.00
Villain: Call $9.00
You might recall Hector's observation on the merits and demerits of Check-calling here.
*** TURN *** [3c]
Villain: Check
I think that this rules out a pair of threes at this level.
Hero: Check
*** RIVER *** [7d] completes my nut flush
Villain: Bet $15.00
LOL, as I said to myself. I have been here before, but holding the other hand. I can't see Villain holding a full house here, and I can't see him betting $15 into a $31 pot with a full house (say, if he holds 77). It could be a blocking bet with trips (say, A2s?), it could be a value bet with a lower flush. Either way, I think I can extract a call for a smallish raise. But, how much? I went with a gut instinct here and put in a bit more than I would normally. If opponent has 77, then I'm getting stacked off, but I can't see him holding any other hand that beats me.
Hero: Raise (to) $50.00
Villain: Call $35.00
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $126.50 Rake $3.00
Hero: wins $126.50
++++++++
And, for those of you who thought I had drifted irredemably to the right, I took the American presidential test:
69% Dennis Kucinich
68% Mike Gravel
68% Chris Dodd
64% Barack Obama
62% Hillary Clinton
62% Bill Richardson
60% Joe Biden
60% John Edwards
51% Rudy Giuliani
47% Ron Paul
47% Mitt Romney
39% John McCain
34% Fred Thompson
33% Mike Huckabee
27% Tom Tancredo
2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz
Blues are Democrats in the odd US colouring system of political preference.
Actually, the results rather surprised me (not that the top three are no-hopers, that's only to be expected) in that I thought my views would find at least some reflection amongst the more socially liberal Republicans.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-01-06 01:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-06 08:29 am (UTC)I've edited it, although it's not a matter that concerns me overly. In deed, on Stars my screenname is such that anyone who knew me would guess it was me ("PJB", which shows how long I've been registered at Stars!)
Thanks for pointing it out!
Pete
no subject
Date: 2008-01-06 01:56 am (UTC)Poor little soft city lamb.
Sustainability... you little scamp.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-06 08:29 am (UTC)PJ
no subject
Date: 2008-01-06 10:06 am (UTC)Kelvin is the absolute temperature scale. 6K is 6 degrees above absolute zero ie. -267C
When De Sun Does Shine
Date: 2008-01-06 07:06 pm (UTC)With a couple of A-Levels in Maths & Mechanics, I had the choice of going for either History or Maths at Oxford (not quite good enough for Cambridge, which would have been a proper degree). I chose History, because (hard to believe) it's even less effort.
And then I ended up with a BA (Hons) Cantab, simply because I chose to do a postgraduate degree in what I believe you might call a proper "subject" (rather than a "proper" degree). I am humiliated. I no longer have a proper degree. I mean, who in their right mind would study History at Cambridge?
But it's on the record.
But, to Birks: I assume that, ensconced as you are in your trendy south-east London pad, you are aware that the sun is still out there? I know life can be depressing, but really, that's one of the few things that you can rely upon: even at 19:01. And although it's true that when global warming really kicks in, the view outside your window will probably consist of the river Lea turning into marshland, the sun will still be shining. It's kind of a constant.
Of course, it won't look like it's been eclipsed by a giant rice-paper facsimile of the moon. And it won't look like it's been re-written as the inside of a particularly dreary "Cheer up!" card from Hall-Mark, what with all those spangly pseudo-flares...
But it will still conform to the every-day expectations of the unwashed, un-scientific morons such as wot me and Birks are. It'll be spewing out gaseous heat in the tens of millions of something that might start at 0, or -273, or (insert electron voltage equivalent here). Badly-educated as we are, we just won't notice the difference.
Re: When De Sun Does Shine
Date: 2008-01-06 07:30 pm (UTC)I look forward to your next series on BBC4. I shall marvel at all the great cities of the world that you travel to. Gasp at your recounting the exploits of the famous statesmen of the world. And watch you weep, as you tell us how nobody learns any lessons from history and make the same mistakes over and over again.
Camera fades as AJP Aardvark tears his degree up and says, "Do you want extra fries with that?"
JayBee. BSc (Hons) Essex in housebreaking and car-jacking
Re: When De Sun Does Shine
Date: 2008-01-06 07:37 pm (UTC)Next stop: Wivenhoe. (Oops, sorry, Colchester.)
You available as "colour" in the background?
Re: When De Sun Does Shine
Date: 2008-01-06 08:32 pm (UTC)JayBee. xxx's
Re: When De Sun Does Shine
Date: 2008-01-06 08:50 pm (UTC)Personally, I never went through the perspiring phase -- it just seemed like a short-cut worth taking....
Now, if I am up to the task of taking my big (I mean Huge) BBC4 unit to Colchester, quite how puffy are you prepared to be? And do we need to bring our own lights? Things are tough in Shepherd's Bush, y'know.
I know what you mean. And I've just looked sideways at Google's adverts: "Distance Learning MBA from Oxford Brookes University, since 1865."
That's one hell of a lot of distance. And not one iota of sense.
(You might want to compare the MA and MBsc version of "iota." In essence, they converge.)
Luv,
Aardvark.
Re: When De Sun Does Shine
Date: 2008-01-06 08:58 pm (UTC)What you do in a Shepherd's Bush is up to you. I know you BBC types.
My MBSc didn't cover Ancient Greek. Iota is... well, all Greek to me but I believe it is a little bigger than a quantum, which for BAs is an Australian airline company.
JayBee. Actooooooor
Quoting Lloyd Bentsen
Date: 2008-01-06 09:20 pm (UTC)I've worked for quantum. Also, as I believe we have established, I have a B.A. (As opposed to the initials of the world's most useless and offensive airline.) Those of us without BScs refer to it as "Qantas," partly because it's a funny name and partly because, well, because it's a funny name. (Actually I worked for TIAS, which was the booking system for Qantas, Ansett and, um, The Other One. A bit like quarks, really. Very colourful, but you never saw one of them without the other two.)
Properly, one should learn Ancient Greek before one's degree; or at least cheat on the alphabet. Us Grecian types have spent around 1,950 years being annoyed that the Emperor Claudius (and why he didn't pick a better capital like Rochdale is beyond me) mis-spelt his name as "Cladius," but then, what do you expect of state education in the sarf-east these days? If, indeed, ever?
-- Aardvark: Reagent.
Re: Quoting Lloyd Bentsen
Date: 2008-01-06 09:58 pm (UTC)I turned a blind eye to classical goings on in Laxton House at Oundle and turned out relatively normal.
JayBee. xxx... errr.
Re: Quoting Lloyd Bentsen
Date: 2008-01-06 10:26 pm (UTC)PJ
Re: Quoting Lloyd Bentsen
Date: 2008-01-06 10:35 pm (UTC)You may be pleased to know that Alvarez and Holden went to Oundle. I preferred rugby to poker but succumbed to 5-card draw in 6th form.
Re: When De Sun Does Shine
Date: 2008-01-06 10:24 pm (UTC)Let's look at it in terms of consistency. When it's cloudy, it shows a cloud (despite the fact that the sun is, presumably, somewhere behind that cloud). It also says "London" and gives a, usually accurate, statement of the temperature (in Centigrade, I believe, although, since I don't go out that much and since my central heating is particularly efficient, I suppose that it might be Kelvin) outside, in London, rather than on the surface of the sun, or Mombasa, I think that it's fair to say that what the Google thingy is trying to do is not to state that "the sun does exist" but that "if you look out of the window, you will see a shining sun".
At 7pm on a January night in London, I consider this to be unlikely.
Let's look at it another way. Do you accept the use in English of the words "sunrise" and "sunset", or do you use other, more scientifically accurate, terms?
I think you can see where the differences lie.
PJ
Re: When De Sun Does Shine
Date: 2008-01-10 11:20 pm (UTC)In passing, do you realise that you, personally, are probably the force behind 50% of Dick marketing in the UK and Eire (hi, William!) over the last thirty years? The nearest rival is whoever crafted the original cover to Electric Sheep,and whilst trying to figure that one out over the web I found Chris Moore at http://www.chrismooreillustration.co.uk/galleries/image.php?idx=1&gallery=1. which is just so not right ...
Anyway, to business.
The bit I left out was a comment on the fundamentals of the graphic in question. You, obviously, focus on the spangly Sun with its cheery little solar flares. I, on the other hand, saw the Big Picture ... which looks a lot like the Lee valley would have looked in Edwardian times. I was charmed. Frankly, it took a while for the silly yellow splotch to register.
But then, I'm from The Rest Of The Country (© Stuart Rose), so what would my aesthetic perceptions be worth? A 20% drop in the share price overnight, that's what.
And I know what you're saying. I know what you're thinking. I have Palmer Eldritch powers, y'know.
"It says 'London' here, not Lewisham."
And you're right. But Lewisham is by far the nicest part of London, isn't it?
And besides, the temperature range is correct; the clock is right; and, should you have a sudden desire to take a ramjet from Lewisham to the Falkland Islands, even the Mercator-ish projection is more or less useful. Toasted mutton on kelp at sun-down, yum yum yum.
I think what I'm trying to say is that, no, I can't see where the differences lie. I prefer to see where the differences tell the truth.
Copying JayBee,
xxx Aardvdark
Re: When De Sun Does Shine
Date: 2008-01-11 07:32 am (UTC)And, yes, I am aware that I was one of the lone voices for Phil Dick (outside SF fandom) in the years before Blade Runner (well, not all that alone, NME ran a big story on him when he died). Quite satisfying, really.
I tried to read Mary And The Giant, a couple of months ago. To be honest, not that good.
PJ
Re: When De Sun Does Shine
Date: 2008-01-11 12:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-07 06:17 am (UTC)Its amusing that I agree with most of what you said re: young poker players and tournament players especially, yet Im turning 28 in a couple of weeks. I used to be much more despondent about the state of poker journalism/news, then I realised that in general the people who report on it are a separate bunch than those who are good at it, hence the total lack of sense or poker knowledge when it comes to tournament reporting. Its important to remember this dissonance helps to keep the public in the dark on how to play poker which is has to be a good thing for us!
Theres a great if lengthy post about the nature of tournaments, here: http://ncane.com/qq8
You may of read it already. Its by Tom Weidermen.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-08 08:16 am (UTC)Alternatively, he may fold the bet on the turn, which, while winning you the pot there and then, gives up the equity of a future bet.
These players at this level seem quite keen to fold bets on the turn (at $200, a c-r is a bigger possibility), so perhaps the comparison should be the expected gain to a fold to your turn bet compared with the expected gain on the river. It's probably fairly close.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2008-01-07 07:02 pm (UTC)I didn't get the impression he quit on his own terms as perhaps he illudes to - he lost control of his emotions, then money and quit claiming some moral victory.
poker isnt that stressful to me, demoralising yes, but not stresssful compared to other aspects of life and, indeed, jobs. It's stressful on the bread-line, but one way or another that won't last long fora poker pro. You only hate getting up in the morning when the previous night was horrible. Work can be like that every day.
90% not good enough! I'd love to average 90%. If you need to be 100% to beat your game, then you're too high. But I agree, you can't go missing when you're having a bad day at the poker-office.
Think he also suggests, because so much changes, historical data is a worthless indicator as to whether you are a winning play, only that you were. Which is nonsense; sure, it isn't definitive, but it's one hell of a pointer. It can be a real crutch on a down-run, esp, if you can answer "no" to: have you changed; has the game changed?
JPS
no subject
Date: 2008-01-08 08:22 am (UTC)There's nothing wrong with putting a positive spin on your reasons for doing something or on the way things turned out. We all do it to some extent. "Perhaps it's for the best" is a great comforter when things have not gone according to plan.
On the historical data, I agree that perhaps he over-emphasized the degree of change, but for people to whom self-doubt is a way of life, the question "I know I was a winner last year, but am I a winner this" is perpetual. One reason for this is that, one day, the game will improve, or you will deteriorate, to such a degree that you are no longer a winner. It's the players with the self-awareness who avoid going broke.
However (and Maroon spots this) it's important not to go too far the other way and to have excessive self-doubt. So, while it's good to have a crutch during a bad run, it's bad to use that crutch when the change is permanent. The problem is, how do you know which is which, because it's important to be able to tell the difference.
I think that I probably average 95% when I play. These days if I feel even the slightest bit below par, I will only play short sessions. So the "100%" times outweigh the 90% times through sheer weight of hands played in the session. If I'm only at 80%, I reckon that I'm probably a marginal loser.
PJ
My presidential profile
Date: 2008-01-08 04:15 pm (UTC)88% Dennis Kucinich
87% Mike Gravel
81% Barack Obama
78% Chris Dodd
78% Hillary Clinton
76% John Edwards
76% Bill Richardson
75% Joe Biden
39% Rudy Giuliani
35% Ron Paul
30% John McCain
26% Mitt Romney
23% Mike Huckabee
15% Tom Tancredo
13% Fred Thompson
2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz (http://www.gotoquiz.com/candidates/2008-quiz.html)
Do you think Mike Huckabee stood because he got a good deal on a job lot of "I heart Huckabee" badges?