Gambling or Poker?

[Butcho22]

[ QUOTE ]
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)

[/ QUOTE ]


Remind me again where I said your entire roll should be online?

I'm simply saying this..

Pretend you had $200 and COULD NOT reload. For whatever reason you have lost all of your money except for this $200. Certainly you wouldn't play $20 sngs right?

[Butcho22]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have not heard of the Peter Principle...link?

And thank you for actually understanding my post...I too would play $5 sngs until my roll was at least $400.

[fep]

[ QUOTE ]
Have not heard of the Peter Principle...link?


[/ QUOTE ]

It's been discussed on the boards before, don't know where though. It's a business principle that I think applies more accurately to poker than business. The difference is in poker we get to promote ourselves.

The Peter Principle:
The original principle states that in a hierarchically structured administration, people tend to be promoted up to their "level of incompetence".

A link: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/PETERPR.html

Here's someting from Mike Caro:

[ QUOTE ]
Don't make the mistake of routinely promoting yourself to higher limits as you continue to win.
You might eventually find a level you can't beat. When this happens, most players refuse to step back down, and they lose or "spin their wheels" for the rest of their poker careers.

This is actually an application of the Peter Principle (about how people get promoted until they reach their level of incompetence) to poker.



[/ QUOTE ]

[Butcho22]

Thanks for the link....interesting stuff.

So I pretty much discovered the Peter Principle without knowing it....sweet!

Just kidding but thanks again for the link....

[LeftyRuggiero]

It is amazing to me that Phil Gordon makes such a careless statement like that. "I have never gambled a day in my life." Huh? How do you think you got your two million? Investors, stock traders, poker players, etc it is ALL gambling. You are "investing" on an uncertain outcome! The comment that winning players have "less gamble in them", that is up to YOUR definition of the word gamble. Doyle Brunson is a winning player yet wrote in his first trip to Vegas he lost his whole bankroll and was back home with nothing but a $20 bill to throw in a 7 card stud game. Now that's a whole lotta gamble to me! "There are many more winning players out there that are losing overall." At face value the quote contradicts itself but, I understand the point you were trying to put out to us. Your point was that there are many more players out there who are skilled enough to be winning players yet their horrible bankroll management skills prevents them from doing so. Sorry for the long post.

-Lefty

[Butcho22]

That's EXACTLY what I meant Lefty.....