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.