What's the REAL reason(s) so many "top" players are busto?

[JJBuffone]

[ QUOTE ]
Coke is a helluva drug.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[luegofuego]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Coke is a helluva drug.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[/ QUOTE ]

i really isnt

[EmpireMaker2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Coke is a helluva drug.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[/ QUOTE ]

i really isnt

[/ QUOTE ]

[warrantofice]

I realized i didn't complete explain my concept of the ceiling. The reason there is a ceiling in the stock market at around 500 million dollars is that at that point your much to large to invest in smaller companies, because you either will end up owning the company or not allowing enough shares for the market to dictate the value of it you also can't invest small portions in lots of companies because of the ammount of time involved in researching the companies, you'd need a very very large team of great investors looking in many different markets. This basically forces you into investing in large companies, though the problem with this is that, large companies are generally held by lots of people so the shares are generally very accurate in representing the company worth. Similar to sports betting on the NFL, unless your the very best, the lines are so close that the average bettor can not make any money off them.

So when were discussing this in regards to poker, the pool of players obvs shrinks as you move up in limits and you can't take advantage of all the donkeys at the 10nl level when your playing but the possibility that a good portion of the 9 players you will play against at your 10nl table will suck is very high, well the proportion of donkeys at each subsequent level decreases probably to some percent, although there may be some random varation. So when you start to reach the 100/200nl (some random level i choose) then the probablity that you will sit with a donkey has dratmatically decreases, and your now happy if a player has a couple of leeks. So obv everyone knows the variance increases as skill increases.

The next factor is that if your treating your money and time spent at poker as an investment, than you'll be looking at your entire bankroll as your principle and trying to see how you grow it. Now the if you consider a poker player who has 1 million dollars, you want to grow it, well playing 25/50plo table and you win $5 000 so you now have $1 005 000 dollars. Congrats you just increased your bankroll by .5% so obv its kinda pointless so you step up to the 250/500plo tables and win $50 000, you just increase your bankroll by 5% now you feel like you have something in your pocket. However now your have 5% of your entire bankroll on the table and when you loose well it works a lot different from winning...you ever time you win 50k 250/500plo its not 5% anymore.
(going to use smaller amounts to make it easy)
100nl $2000br
win $100 = 2100br +4.7%
win $100 = 2200br +4.5%
win $100 = 2300br +4.3%

Now watch when you loose

loose $100 = 1900br -5.2%
loose $100 = 1800br -5.5%
loose $100 = 1700br -5.9%
loose $100 = 1600br -6.25%

So as can be seen the compounding works against you on the way up, you need to keep more money in play to keep the same size of returns, however, as you loose money you can't keep at the same level of play without threating larger and larger percentages of your bankroll each time you play.

I was going to write some whole thing about internet leting the very best players play each other and yadda yadda yadda but i wno't cover that now.

I hope this helps answer the question at bit better though

[Stinger88]

[ QUOTE ]
I realized i didn't complete explain my concept of the ceiling. The reason there is a ceiling in the stock market at around 500 million dollars is that at that point your much to large to invest in smaller companies, because you either will end up owning the company or not allowing enough shares for the market to dictate the value of it you also can't invest small portions in lots of companies because of the ammount of time involved in researching the companies, you'd need a very very large team of great investors looking in many different markets. This basically forces you into investing in large companies, though the problem with this is that, large companies are generally held by lots of people so the shares are generally very accurate in representing the company worth. Similar to sports betting on the NFL, unless your the very best, the lines are so close that the average bettor can not make any money off them.

So when were discussing this in regards to poker, the pool of players obvs shrinks as you move up in limits and you can't take advantage of all the donkeys at the 10nl level when your playing but the possibility that a good portion of the 9 players you will play against at your 10nl table will suck is very high, well the proportion of donkeys at each subsequent level decreases probably to some percent, although there may be some random varation. So when you start to reach the 100/200nl (some random level i choose) then the probablity that you will sit with a donkey has dratmatically decreases, and your now happy if a player has a couple of leeks. So obv everyone knows the variance increases as skill increases.

The next factor is that if your treating your money and time spent at poker as an investment, than you'll be looking at your entire bankroll as your principle and trying to see how you grow it. Now the if you consider a poker player who has 1 million dollars, you want to grow it, well playing 25/50plo table and you win $5 000 so you now have $1 005 000 dollars. Congrats you just increased your bankroll by .5% so obv its kinda pointless so you step up to the 250/500plo tables and win $50 000, you just increase your bankroll by 5% now you feel like you have something in your pocket. However now your have 5% of your entire bankroll on the table and when you loose well it works a lot different from winning...you ever time you win 50k 250/500plo its not 5% anymore.
(going to use smaller amounts to make it easy)
100nl $2000br
win $100 = 2100br +4.7%
win $100 = 2200br +4.5%
win $100 = 2300br +4.3%

Now watch when you loose

loose $100 = 1900br -5.2%
loose $100 = 1800br -5.5%
loose $100 = 1700br -5.9%
loose $100 = 1600br -6.25%

So as can be seen the compounding works against you on the way up, you need to keep more money in play to keep the same size of returns, however, as you loose money you can't keep at the same level of play without threating larger and larger percentages of your bankroll each time you play.

I was going to write some whole thing about internet leting the very best players play each other and yadda yadda yadda but i wno't cover that now.

I hope this helps answer the question at bit better though

[/ QUOTE ]

good thing I never loose

[demon102]

I like what u said there warrant

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
I realized i didn't complete explain my concept of the ceiling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm. I have to admit this is kind of interesting stuff that surprisingly I haven't heard mentioned anywhere else.

[Margaud]

[ QUOTE ]


The next factor is that if your treating your money and time spent at poker as an investment, than you'll be looking at your entire bankroll as your principle and trying to see how you grow it. Now the if you consider a poker player who has 1 million dollars, you want to grow it, well playing 25/50plo table and you win $5 000 so you now have $1 005 000 dollars. Congrats you just increased your bankroll by .5% so obv its kinda pointless so you step up to the 250/500plo tables and win $50 000, you just increase your bankroll by 5% now you feel like you have something in your pocket. However now your have 5% of your entire bankroll on the table and when you loose well it works a lot different from winning...you ever time you win 50k 250/500plo its not 5% anymore.
(going to use smaller amounts to make it easy)
100nl $2000br
win $100 = 2100br +4.7%
win $100 = 2200br +4.5%
win $100 = 2300br +4.3%

Now watch when you loose

loose $100 = 1900br -5.2%
loose $100 = 1800br -5.5%
loose $100 = 1700br -5.9%
loose $100 = 1600br -6.25%

So as can be seen the compounding works against you on the way up, you need to keep more money in play to keep the same size of returns, however, as you loose money you can't keep at the same level of play without threating larger and larger percentages of your bankroll each time you play.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very important point and one that exposes a flaw in the poker buy-in system.

As a former sports bettor, I'll explain one bankroll system that addresses the above problem. When making a sport wager, instead of betting on each game with a standard dollar amount, you bet a % of your entire bankroll. Say 1.5% for each game (other rules in the system control the amount of games you wager on and how much % of your total bankroll is at stake at any one time but that's not the point). By wagering a % of your bankroll, when you're winning, you win more and when you're losing you're losing less. It's all proportional.

With poker's typical 100bb buy-in, you cannot manage your roll the same way. The result is what warrant showed above.

Maybe using a % br system and playing 1 level up (not fully stacked) would allow for good br management.

Regarding the OP's question. I think the problem is that at low/mid stakes, there is still a wide range of skill level which is more profitable. The poker economy is a pyramid where all the cash goes to the top. The field of players at the high stakes level is much smaller and the difference in skill is not as wide. That means it's more of a gamble as your edges are smaller than it was at the lower games. More gamble + higher stakes is a recipe for bust.

[Komponist]

Margaud wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe using a % br system and playing 1 level up (not fully stacked) would allow for good br management.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this essentially the Jesus Experiment?

[0524432]

[ QUOTE ]


Regarding the OP's question. I think the problem is that at low/mid stakes, there is still a wide range of skill level which is more profitable. The poker economy is a pyramid where all the cash goes to the top. The field of players at the high stakes level is much smaller and the difference in skill is not as wide. That means it's more of a gamble as your edges are smaller than it was at the lower games. More gamble + higher stakes is a recipe for bust.

[/ QUOTE ]

good point. imo, it's this combination of very little easy $ floating around in these HSNL/PLO tables and a self-destructive EGO that keeps these players from moving down to a level where they can easily make a wealthy living and still feel comfortable playing that those stakes after even the biggest of downswings.

I personally do not gamble in any way, other than with the luck involved in poker. I really can't level with the mindset of enormous flips, the pit, or even playing above and outside reasonable BR management in order to keep the game enjoyable. As far as I'm concerned this degenerate behavior is the single biggest leak in any poker player's game - thriving on the action.

....if there were only a way for disciplined (the real top players) to take advantage of these degens flips and HS pit games etc....casinos ftw