How long did it take you to become a winning player?

[raze]

I beat up play money limit before playing for cash.

[Curse]

I put $50 into party 10 times for $500, which was mostly home game winnings, and probabley took a month before I made it about to $1000, I lost it all in one shot at $1000NL, I felt as I should just quit, but I could'nt about three months later I won a $109 party for $10,000+ I slowly lost that at $400-$2000NL over the course of 3-4 months, then realized I was doing something wrong and came to 2+2, and I learned so much more but by losing that $10,000 profits really let me get some experience in. If you start out losing don't worry about it, once you understand the game, you really just need to not play when your on tilt and use good choices with your bankroll.

[Shandrax]

I started becoming a winning player once I got good cards.

As soon as I started missing 42 out of 48 flops, got my bluffs called and had my sets cracked by two outers on a regular basis, I was that hot anymore.

I used to be on a +20BB/100 streak for weeks and now I am on a -20BB/100 streak for days and I hardly changed anything in my play. It's just the run of cards.

People like to kid themselves by assuming that skill dominates luck, but it's actually vice versa. Also people tend to overrate their own skill in relation to the other guys on the table. Since many plays are automatic in limit, it narrows the edge down to nothing but a few exceptions where a weaker player could go wrong.

Last but not least, there is one thing that 2+2 theory fails to explain: Why is it always the biggest idiot at the table who ends up as the biggest winner? I mean those 38% VPIP, 22% PFR, 0.8 AF guys....or in other words, those who are furthest away from the accepted consensus on model play.

[nuclear500]

[ QUOTE ]
Last but not least, there is one thing that 2+2 theory fails to explain: Why is it always the biggest idiot at the table who ends up as the biggest winner? I mean those 38% VPIP, 22% PFR, 0.8 AF guys....or in other words, those who are furthest away from the accepted consensus on model play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't someone like Negreanu's stats look something like that or am I way off base?

[PokerBob]

6 months.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Last but not least, there is one thing that 2+2 theory fails to explain: Why is it always the biggest idiot at the table who ends up as the biggest winner? I mean those 38% VPIP, 22% PFR, 0.8 AF guys....or in other words, those who are furthest away from the accepted consensus on model play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't someone like Negreanu's stats look something like that or am I way off base?

[/ QUOTE ]

I should add that I was talking about FR Limit. Not sure if DN can play such a style when the implied odds are capped like that.

[Eric Stoner]

[ QUOTE ]


People like to kid themselves by assuming that skill dominates luck, but it's actually vice versa. Also people tend to overrate their own skill in relation to the other guys on the table. Since many plays are automatic in limit, it narrows the edge down to nothing but a few exceptions where a weaker player could go wrong.

Last but not least, there is one thing that 2+2 theory fails to explain: Why is it always the biggest idiot at the table who ends up as the biggest winner? I mean those 38% VPIP, 22% PFR, 0.8 AF guys....or in other words, those who are furthest away from the accepted consensus on model play.

[/ QUOTE ]

With these players, bluffs don't work, they never fold, and value betting is the only way to win good money.

In my most recent live play, there was a guy who fit this model and sat directly to my left (also the first to criticize other players to me - usually bad players are the first to do this and I knew that it would just be a matter of time). I wished that he was to my right, but a seat change was impossible.

For the first hour, he hit absolutely everything. When I hit my monster, he paid me off well. I went home winner, and he bought into a higher game because, "The players were better and they respect my raises more."

In other words, skill does matter.

[bernie]

Win a big tourney. Then you'll likely have more than you'll ever blow back, and hence, by your money amount, you'll be a winning player over the long haul regardless of what anyone says. All's you'd have to say to skeptics is, 'how much are you up in your career?'
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

b

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
"The players were better and they respect my raises more."

[/ QUOTE ]

There is some truth in this, because you are going to miss the flop 2 out of 3 times, so many times you would simply prefer your opponents to fold.

For instance, if you are on the button and the BB is defending about 80% of the time and willing to call down with any pair if an ace doesn't hit, you got a problem.

Yes, he will miss the flop 2 out of 3 times also, but including your automatic continuation bet, he is getting 4.5:1 for his call after all.

To beat this sort of player you simply need to have the best hand. Now you may argue that you are playing a better distribution than he defends with so you are likely to have the better hand more often, but he has the power of the checkraise to equalize that.

Value betting isn't the magic formular either, because you are giving them better implied odds for their calls.

[CardSharkGames]

[ QUOTE ]
Last but not least, there is one thing that 2+2 theory fails to explain: Why is it always the biggest idiot at the table who ends up as the biggest winner?

[/ QUOTE ]

The key to that question is 3 words you left off the end: "for that session".

If you play by "2+2 theory", you will only be playing a small fraction of the hands played by the weak-loose players ("WLP") at the table. When one of the WLPs gets very lucky, he will win more than you simply because he is playing more hands (most of them garbage).

But what you are missing is that in the vast majority of other sessions where that same WLP is *not* being very lucky, he is usually the big loser while some other WLP is having his moment of glory as the big winner.

Meanwhile, the "2+2 Theory" player, while not winning the most money in any one session, is the big winner in the long run (assuming you have selected a good game).

And I think that most 2+2 books do explain that it's these brief moments of glory which keep the fish coming back, contributing to you in the long run. Thus not only should you not begrudge the fish their good moments, you should actively celebrate them to help keep them in the game.