Jesse May's "Shut Up And Deal" makes a similar point: the best players are not necessarily the winners, who are the people who can take money out of poker - avoiding other gambling-related links. Being better at taking money out of poker won't win you as much fame as winning at poker, but it'll result in much more money.
At the risk of confusing terminology, fifteen or twenty years ago you would have said that that was the counterpart of editorial from a 'zine editor who was planning to fold before long. If you were to deliberately curtail your online poker grinding career, potentially leaving yourself some mad money to play the game at low stakes once in a while or leaving yourself a reasonable roll for ftf play, what would you do with the time instead? Granted, you don't have a second income any more, but with the US$60k you've made, that's a fund to pay off a large chunk of a mortgage, or get you a trip or two per year to warm, beautiful European destinations for, well, possibly the rest of your life. It's not as if you've actually been paying yourself much, other than trips to Vegas, rather than growing your roll over the years to date.
Rakeback: I would have thought that paying less rake is inherently good, and making less rakeback because you've been paying less rake no bad thing, but this may be naive and incorrect.
Come the end of this year I'm going to make a big reappraisal.
Are you sure you want to wait? You're not short of data already!
I always enjoy reading what you have to say about poker and it's a thrill to see you doing so well, in the long term, year after year. However, I always enjoy reading what else you have to say as well, even if I can't respond to it and cheerlead nearly so much. If you end up writing as much in the future about, say, classical music and your piano practice as you do about poker at the moment, that's cool too.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-08 08:38 pm (UTC)Jesse May's "Shut Up And Deal" makes a similar point: the best players are not necessarily the winners, who are the people who can take money out of poker - avoiding other gambling-related links. Being better at taking money out of poker won't win you as much fame as winning at poker, but it'll result in much more money.
At the risk of confusing terminology, fifteen or twenty years ago you would have said that that was the counterpart of editorial from a 'zine editor who was planning to fold before long. If you were to deliberately curtail your online poker grinding career, potentially leaving yourself some mad money to play the game at low stakes once in a while or leaving yourself a reasonable roll for ftf play, what would you do with the time instead? Granted, you don't have a second income any more, but with the US$60k you've made, that's a fund to pay off a large chunk of a mortgage, or get you a trip or two per year to warm, beautiful European destinations for, well, possibly the rest of your life. It's not as if you've actually been paying yourself much, other than trips to Vegas, rather than growing your roll over the years to date.
Rakeback: I would have thought that paying less rake is inherently good, and making less rakeback because you've been paying less rake no bad thing, but this may be naive and incorrect.
Come the end of this year I'm going to make a big reappraisal.
Are you sure you want to wait? You're not short of data already!
I always enjoy reading what you have to say about poker and it's a thrill to see you doing so well, in the long term, year after year. However, I always enjoy reading what else you have to say as well, even if I can't respond to it and cheerlead nearly so much. If you end up writing as much in the future about, say, classical music and your piano practice as you do about poker at the moment, that's cool too.