Gambling or Poker?

[csuf_gambl0r]

$2 million, thats it?

i have already thought that he was some big tymer dot-com guy. i always thought that he made somewhere in the neighborhood of at least $100 mil in the web. Certainly not a mesly little 2 million.

[thing85]

[ QUOTE ]
"Every time I put $100 into the pot I expect to take $100 or more out."


[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly he didn't factor in tilt...

[Butcho22]

It's pretty obvious you guys are pretty focused on me understanding that poker is gambling. Okay, fine. If you want to break it down to 2+2=4, i'll bite. Poker=gambling.

I still think, and would like your opinion on the idea that there are many players out there who could be turning a profit, or could have turned a profit, had they had more patience and LESS gamble in them.

I don't want to hear from you who are going to say that, "all the great players have gamble in them"

All those great players who have gone broke trying to move up are the exception, and many, many more have failed along the way.

The situation in my post represents playing with the mindset of complete focus and patience. If you only had that $200, you would NEVER enter a $20sng. But if you know that even if you lose this $200 you can come up with more cash to play with, you will be much more likely to enter that $20 sng which is obviously poor bankroll management.

I think that all these stories of people like Freddy Deeb going broke numerous time AND FINALLY making it, are very bad for the general playing public to take much stock in.

[thing85]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to break it down to 2+2=4

[/ QUOTE ]

Oooh, punny.

[VBCurtis]

[ QUOTE ]

The situation in my post represents playing with the mindset of complete focus and patience. If you only had that $200, you would NEVER enter a $20sng. But if you know that even if you lose this $200 you can come up with more cash to play with, you will be much more likely to enter that $20 sng which is obviously poor bankroll management.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the "obvious" here? If I can come up with more cash to play with in the low-probability case I dump $200 in $20SNGs, why is that poor bankroll management? Your "obvious" claim relies on *your* internal definition of bankroll. Put into precise language what bankroll is, and you'll gain great insight into why different people have a MUCH greater risk tolerance than you espouse as wise-- their BR def'n is simply wider/different than yours.
Example: My online-poker balance is about $1500, but if I lost all of it, I would be willing to send a few hundred from checking to reload. What, exactly, is my bankroll? If I lose $1500, I am *not* busto, since I can reload without damage to my lifestyle.

If I have evidence to support a belief that $20 SNGs are the most profitable poker opportunity for me, I simply cannot see how playing them is poor bankroll management, even with $200. Besides, if I lose $100, I can then reevaluate, and play $10SNGs. This makes the effective BR bigger in buyin or big-bet terms- I would have to lose 15 buyins to lose the $200 this way, not just 10. Again, nothing "obvious" here about $20 SNGs being too rich for $200.
-Curtis

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
I still think, and would like your opinion on the idea that there are many players out there who could be turning a profit, or could have turned a profit, had they had more patience and LESS gamble in them.

[/ QUOTE ]

if this is the point you are trying to make you have succeeded simply by writing it. it is correct by definition.

Barron

[fep]

Okay butcho, I'll bite.

I'd play $5 NL SNG with that $200 bankroll and would feel pretty safe. I'd do this until I hit $400 and then move up to $10 but would drop back down to $5 at $300. I'd continue to move up in this fashion as my bankroll warranted. But I'd avoid moving up to a level where the competition was to tough for my ability.

But I'd realize that I'd always have a risk of ruin that was something greater than 0%. There is no way to avoid that.

Have you heard of the Peter Principle. That is why I think a lot of strong players end up losing their bankroll.

[fep]

Butcho, there's another thing you are not factoring in and that's risk vs. return.

You could invest in T bills and if you held them to maturity your risk of losing any of your principle would be close to zero. But you might only earn 4 - 5% and barely keep up with inflation.

Or, you could invest in an S & P index fund and expect much higher returns on average but you would take the chance of losing some of your principle if the market drops.

Or, you could invest in your own business and take a decent chance of going bankrupt. But there's also a chance you might end up like Bill Gates.

-----------------------

In poker you could continue to play 1/2 limit Holdem with a 3BB/100 earn rate and a $10,000 bankroll.

Or you might have taken more risk and moved up whenever your bankroll hit 300BB and now you're earning 1.5BB/100 at 15/30, you have a $60,000 bankroll and you're a much stronger player from the experience. Or you may have gone bust and now are struggling to get a poker bankroll to start over again.

It's an individual choice based on risk tolerance. But there is a risk associated with being too conservative. That's the risk of missing opportunities to earn more and learn more.

[Butcho22]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The situation in my post represents playing with the mindset of complete focus and patience. If you only had that $200, you would NEVER enter a $20sng. But if you know that even if you lose this $200 you can come up with more cash to play with, you will be much more likely to enter that $20 sng which is obviously poor bankroll management.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the "obvious" here? If I can come up with more cash to play with in the low-probability case I dump $200 in $20SNGs, why is that poor bankroll management? Your "obvious" claim relies on *your* internal definition of bankroll. Put into precise language what bankroll is, and you'll gain great insight into why different people have a MUCH greater risk tolerance than you espouse as wise-- their BR def'n is simply wider/different than yours.
Example: My online-poker balance is about $1500, but if I lost all of it, I would be willing to send a few hundred from checking to reload. What, exactly, is my bankroll? If I lose $1500, I am *not* busto, since I can reload without damage to my lifestyle.

If I have evidence to support a belief that $20 SNGs are the most profitable poker opportunity for me, I simply cannot see how playing them is poor bankroll management, even with $200. Besides, if I lose $100, I can then reevaluate, and play $10SNGs. This makes the effective BR bigger in buyin or big-bet terms- I would have to lose 15 buyins to lose the $200 this way, not just 10. Again, nothing "obvious" here about $20 SNGs being too rich for $200.
-Curtis

[/ QUOTE ]


First of all, thank you for providing a perfect example of my exact point.

When you say you can just "reload", that is exactly what I mean. Too many players think this way. You don't think playing $20 sng's with a $200 bankroll is a bad thing? Get real....

[VBCurtis]

Define bankroll. $200 in my Party account? $200 online? $200 to my name? I feel no need to defend my online as if it is my last, because I can easily shift money around. I also feel no need to keep 1000 BB online for the limit I play-- if I hit a nasty downswing, I can move some of the profits I previously withdrew to checking back online. If you define bankroll as whatever you have online, you're missing the point about resources available to a player.
I personally play more live than online, so I need more of my poker money in checking than at Neteller or Party. Since it's all part of my BR, I see no problem at all in playing $20 SNGs with the $200 I have left at Party. Having to reload often is an effect of my money management, which you appear blind to. I play 1/2 online and 6/12 live, so I need MUCH more bankroll offline than online. The only penalty I suffer for the risk-of-ruin from $200 online roll playing 1/2 is waiting a few days for a checking-to-Neteller reload. Why is this bad?
(note I'm not this extreme in reality, but I see nothing really wrong with it-- I keep about $1000 online and $2000 live bankroll, and I'm more likely to bust the $2000 than the $1000)