Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

I maintain that no-one is winning WAY more than 2x avg. Obviously I expect to win more than average, but winning WAY more than 2x avg (which I see as you know, like 4-5x avg) would be a little ridiculous.

I haven't played 180s much but I'm sure I'm probably better than 1/90 to win, but am I 1/45? hell no.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I maintain that no-one is winning WAY more than 2x avg. Obviously I expect to win more than average, but winning WAY more than 2x avg (which I see as you know, like 4-5x avg) would be a little ridiculous.

I haven't played 180s much but I'm sure I'm probably better than 1/90 to win, but am I 1/45? hell no.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a rather large difference between twice as much to win as four times as much to win.

WAY MORE than 2x average to win is something like 2.5x-3x.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

I played baseball most of my life up until I started playing poker when I was 16. Playing a competitive sport where failing 70% of the time on offense was standard for good players helped me develop my "apathetic desire" for poker tournaments. It's probably different with most people who are used to excelling at a high level when being associated in regards to being "successful". It's not so much apathy or unquenched desire, but more both.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone that is winning way more than 2x avg is going to have an absurdly high ROI, do you not see that?

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong it's closer to a reverse bell curve if you are playing more optimally than your opponents. So you can finish 2x avg 1st and will be less then them in other finishing positions. While having a solid ROI not a massively larger ROI. Just because you are winning 2x as often as others you will be finishing less in other places then avg.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

Did you not see Brandon's earlier post?

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I played baseball most of my life up until I started playing poker when I was 16. Playing a competitive sport where failing 70% of the time on offense was standard for good players helped me develop my "apathetic desire" for poker tournaments. It's probably different with most people who are used to excelling at a high level when being associated in regards to being "successful". It's not so much apathy or unquenched desire, but more both.

[/ QUOTE ]

At risk of getting flamed, I'll point out that Chad Brown wrote an article in Bluff last month where he discussed how his former career as an actor, where you go to dozens of auditions for every 1 gig you get, prepared him mentally for the virtually constant losing interspersed with very occasional successes you experience on the live tournament circuit. My former profession, criminal defense attorney, is one of virtually constant defeats, albeit unlike with acting or poker you still get paid when you lose (in fact, it's illegal to have a success-based fee structure in a criminal case).

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

If you succeed only 30% of the time in baseball you better be a damn good shortstop.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone that is winning way more than 2x avg is going to have an absurdly high ROI, do you not see that?

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong it's closer to a reverse bell curve if you are playing more optimally than your opponents. So you can finish 2x avg 1st and will be less then them in other finishing positions. While having a solid ROI not a massively larger ROI. Just because you are winning 2x as often as others you will be finishing less in other places then avg.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude I never argued that you having 2x the win avg means you also have 2x 2nd place, 2x 3rd, etc.

Look at the math I did above, it assumes 2x wins and the REST OF YOUR CASHES (A CONSERVATIVE 15% ITM, hell the tourney I took prize-pool from you should probably cash 20%) are the last place casher and your ROI would be 80%.

If you won 2.5x avg and had a normal distribution, your ROI would probably be like 200%+

Yes I'm throwing that number out of my ass, but I'm busy betting and multi-tabling so I can't actually figure it out, but it's going to be way higher than you think.

You all way over estimate how often you can win these long-term.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you succeed only 30% of the time in baseball you better be a damn good shortstop.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or be short, white, "scrappy" and full of "heart."

fwiw I played baseball for 13 years and it took me at least a few of those years to stop getting super angry at myself if i made an out. Maybe I just don't handle failure well.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you succeed only 30% of the time in baseball you better be a damn good shortstop.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or be short, white, "scrappy" and full of "heart."

fwiw I played baseball for 13 years and it took me at least a few of those years to stop getting super angry at myself if i made an out. Maybe I just don't handle failure well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same here. I always thought I sucked, but the last year I played the coach of our big rival came up to me and said something about how they always "worried" about me - Newsflash to me since I was never happy with myself.

I mean golf is the same way if you think about it.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you succeed only 30% of the time in baseball you better be a damn good shortstop.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or be short, white, "scrappy" and full of "heart."

fwiw I played baseball for 13 years and it took me at least a few of those years to stop getting super angry at myself if i made an out. Maybe I just don't handle failure well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got mad at myself for like the first 13 years I played. I think team sports are much worse because you're letting the whole team down not just yourself. At some point I realized this was just making me play worse and there was no need for it so I just stopped caring as much. And that's how I became the apathetic [censored] I am today. But I'm still incredibly driven to succeed.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone that is winning way more than 2x avg is going to have an absurdly high ROI, do you not see that?

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong it's closer to a reverse bell curve if you are playing more optimally than your opponents. So you can finish 2x avg 1st and will be less then them in other finishing positions. While having a solid ROI not a massively larger ROI. Just because you are winning 2x as often as others you will be finishing less in other places then avg.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude I never argued that you having 2x the win avg means you also have 2x 2nd place, 2x 3rd, etc.

Look at the math I did above, it assumes 2x wins and the REST OF YOUR CASHES (A CONSERVATIVE 15% ITM, hell the tourney I took prize-pool from you should probably cash 20%) are the last place casher and your ROI would be 80%.

If you won 2.5x avg and had a normal distribution, your ROI would probably be like 200%+

Yes I'm throwing that number out of my ass, but I'm busy betting and multi-tabling so I can't actually figure it out, but it's going to be way higher than you think.

You all way over estimate how often you can win these long-term.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are 2x more likely to finish 1st, your likelihood of finishing 2nd is going to have to be close to 2x, and same for 3rd, etc. It's completely impossible to be 2x more likely to finish 1st while being 1/2 as likely to finish 2nd.

I think it would be a real struggle to come up with a distribution that makes any sense where a player is well over 2x average to win but his ITM % is between 13 and 15%.

I also think the structure of a tournament makes a big difference here -- the more players and the shorter the playing time, the less likely that the cream will consistently rise to the top, because the luck factor, which we all know is huge to begin with, is going to be magnified. I think this includes most online tourneys, some obviously more than others. Field strength also has an influence, it determines the "average" that we're comparing against.

If great players played the WSOP ME, which has a phenomenal structure and weak field, once a week, I think we'd see massive ROIs, and players, I don't know, as much as 10x more likely to win than others. OTOH, I've been toying with the theory that superslow structures favor crappy players, since it makes it much easier to simply wait for cards. If you look at the results of the last few WSOP MEs and WPT Championships, there are a lot of people at the final tables who most would not consider to be great, or even good players.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

<----

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

i was gonna make an unquenched desire gimmick account but im lazy, someone without a life plz help

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

[ QUOTE ]
ICM clearly shows that it is sometimes best not to make the decision that gives you the best chance of winning the tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

ICM is also not the end all be all of equity calculation, even in SNGs there are situations where you should be ignoring ICM(not even that uncommon), I think if someone REALLY did a lot of work in the field of math for MTTs it would be shown ICM doesnt apply nearly as much as most think it does. cEV is just a crutch used in general, I dont think anyone really has a full grasp of what various stack sizes are worth though I think some people have an idea, there are so many variables its a truly interesting problem. Good discussion going on in this thread, I like it.

Also I think it was a really REALLY low class move for nath to post dbs, though I agree somewhat with his underlying point relating to tournament equity.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

You know, I might be wrong, but I think . . .

[ QUOTE ]

I also think the structure of a tournament makes a big difference here -- the more players and the shorter the playing time, the less likely that the cream will consistently rise to the top, because the luck factor, which we all know is huge to begin with, is going to be magnified.

[/ QUOTE ]
not =

[ QUOTE ]

OTOH, I've been toying with the theory that superslow structures favor crappy players, since it makes it much easier to simply wait for cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just sayin' . . . sounds like us crappy players are going to win no matter what the structure is . . .

On the topic at hand, I think what I try to strive for is a sort of quiet focus that leaves my mind able to think clearly while retaining enough of that fear/desire to make possible the sort of gut-level decisions that are beyond the mathematics of the game. If I'm too wound-up, I can't think as clearly, but if I'm too apathetic, I'll miss some of the whispers from my gut that tell me something unusual is happening here. Can't always do it, but I try to practice it.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

[ QUOTE ]
i was gonna make an unquenched desire gimmick account but im lazy, someone without a life plz help

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Posts: 14638

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

touche

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

Interesting thread theres some cool posts in there...

lately i haven't been playing much tournament poker as i have been able to make a much better living playing proffesssional soccer-baseball in canada.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

Shaun & Nath,

I think most of the time something is -EV on the surface but +EV long run it probably means there is some great strength/weakness to your game that you're getting into or avoiding by making that play. Taking the 45% chance to double if you were a great short stack player may not be right, but if you excel at pressuring people, then maybe it is.

Nath,

I don't think the stats you're posting mean much of anything, because you're both freqeuntly playing in tournaments with $20k+ first place prizes.
One extra good run in those easily tips things.

However, if you think they mean something, here's a comparison of you and Rizen.

http://members.cox.net/tfgray/NathRizen.jpg

Look at the Avg. Finish numbers. You're going out in early / early middle almost twice as often as he does.
I can't imagine that means Rizen is taking lots of gambles early, but he has a better ROI.
(And it'd be even better if you only look at his NL Tournies.)

When Rizen makes the money, he final tables 25% of the time.
You do 36% of the time, and have been top 3 almost twice as often as he has.
I think that shows top 3 is not all there is to MTT profitability.

And shockingly, that there's more than one way to win at this game.

Re: Apathy or unquenched desire?
 

I feel that being apathetic and competitive can both be useful. You can't let your emotions overtake your decision making and you can't be so apathetic that you could care less about your results.

Some of the best sporting figures in the world are extremely competitive inside but don't overly show it on the outside. Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, etc. They are the best at there respective sports but never are they out of control. They almost "appear" apathetic....going about their sports but not appearing overly emotional.

You have to be competitive. Why play the game if your not in it to win it? But going about it cool, unemotional, with apathy makes your judgement and perspective in control. Going into a game totally torqued, hyped-up, emotional can't possible make your game better. You can't think because emotions get in the way. Granted, there are some people that can perform hyped up but most people can not do it.

There has to be a balance. You need the drive inside and but you need to keep your emotions in balance.

Maybe we can call our new aura Feng Shui of Poker (FSOP)

Stipe