how to dominate and pro no-limit

[pokerdoc32]

why is winning "consistently" so important? Or to put it another way, why do we assume this should even be a goal?

WHAT? Most people want to win consistently, I think. An extreme example: If a person plays 363 days of the year and loses each time, then plays the 364th day and wins more than he lost during the rest of the year, it's a nice win but it could be a little hard on the bankroll and the liver. Winning three times out of four would be a nice consistency to enter onto the record sheet and some of those wins could be big ones from big games.

More caveats up front from Sam might have been useful. The first part of the book is aimed at beginners. There is a summary paragraph on page 25 which sets out the goal, but it may not stick with the reader. That kind of thing is repeated more often later.

[pokerdoc32]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm waiting on both books, I was wondering if I should read 1 before the other ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both books are excellent.

One book sets out the formulaic considerations as a main stream, the other book sets out the people factor as its main tactic.

If you are a mathematics person, read DOMINATE first and read the formulas second. The formulas will stick with you.

If you are a people person, read PNL first and then absorb the people factors in DOMINATE. You'll see how the formulas apply.

It's good to finally have two quality books dedicated solely to the no limit game.

[facepull]

i always would rather win 10000 over 2000 hours then play in a way that could win me 13000 over 1500 hours but increases my fluctuations greatly. if the consistent way produces the first then great. i dont like styles that produce the 2nd way if it also increases potential risk. i have been a solid player since ive been playing. i depend on playing at a table of bad players to win. i expect to at max hold my own against other good players. its a mental thing i guess. when i lived in ac i hated the loose (limit)agressive games because it made my wins big but my losses big too. consistent wins tend to stave off going broke.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
why is winning "consistently" so important? Or to put it another way, why do we assume this should even be a goal?

WHAT? Most people want to win consistently, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, obviously, if you phrase it like that. But stop and think. Yes, your extreme example is exactly that - extreme.

Limit players have known for a long time that good players only win *roughly* half their sessions. So why do we need to win consistently? It's enough to simply win.

Take a different extreme example. You can win a penny every day for your whole life. Or, you can lose $1 one day, and win $100 the next, and repeat for a whole year. Which would you prefer? So you're saying, you wouldn't want to win "consistently"? The point is pretty obvious.

No, we don't want to lose 364 days a year and have a big win on the 365th day, all to show $5 profit. But that's silly.

So the question becomes, how much EV are we willing to give up to gain consistency? Some, for sure, depending on how much variance you can kill. But it's pretty fuzzy, eh?

[silvershade]

I think, personally that I'd actually be willing to give up a fair share of ev to win consistently. On that basis I probably will pick this up and read it now.