#41
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Daniel Negreanu\'s Latest Cardplayer Article
[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile your point about your risk tolerance being decided by age 15 is true but unacceptable. There is a theoretically correct risk tolerance. And if your own personal psychology pushes you too far away from it in EITHER direction, it behooves you to try to change. [/ QUOTE ] Isn't this like the probability machine not being able to predict you? You're inside the system being described. If I've learned anything it's that you can't change who you are, but maybe you can accept it better and not be distracted by image concerns. I don't know if that's +EV or just feels it. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Daniel Negreanu\'s Latest Cardplayer Article
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] "I completely agree that those who never push themselves past their comfort level are somewhat sad cases. If you can afford it, play in higher games than you are used to if for no other reason than it will help your game." I think this is quite ignorant. If you are a kid playing for fun or playing for ego, sure, push yourself as much as you choose. If it is your career, you should play within your comfort zone. Undoubtedly you will have pushed yourself outside of it on your way to making it your career. But once there, to say it is sad to be responsible and have your job have some kind of stability is just pathetic. [/ QUOTE ] I would also like to know who David Sklansky is as a poker player. I mean is he a high stakes online player? Live? Has his income come from actual cash game play since the poker boom? It's easy to say people should be playing over their comfort zones, but if it is what they do, it's isn't so clear. [/ QUOTE ] This reminds me of being at a fiction reading by Richard Ford where he read from his book of short stories and someone asked him if he'd ever thought of writing a novel. (His novel Independence Day won the Pulitzer.) |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Daniel Negreanu\'s Latest Cardplayer Article
daniel negreanu is a calling station if he can't put his opponent on a hand.
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Clarifying
My position is that if you think there is any reasonable chance that you can average more money per hour in a higher game, once you got some experience in it, then you should play in that higher game for a while as long as you don't risk the money that you would need to have a proper cushion in your smaller bread and butter game. And as long as you don't lose a ridiculous amount in the bigger game.
I also believe that these shots should not be taken if it is almost certain that the bigger game would not lead to significantly bigger earnings. In Daniel's column, the nit refused to move up from 5-10 NL to 10-20 NL. That was what I meant by a sad case. Personally I play 300-600 mixed games for the most part. The bottom line is this: If you can make one big bet an hour and your hourly standard deviation is ten big bets, you really need a 500 big bet bankroll. But that required bankroll is proportional to your standard deviation and inversely proportional to your hourly rate. So if you double your stakes but figure to earn only the same amount, you need four times as much money. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Daniel Negreanu\'s Latest Cardplayer Article
[ QUOTE ]
"hree years ago when these players were all nobodies many did take big risks, relative to their br, by playing all the 10k events and big live games. the ones that found success now enjoy great endorsement deals" taylor, i dont think this is a good argument that the risks these guys took were reasonable simply bc no one had any idea that poker was gonna blow up and make big tourney winners celebrities. and really, if they suspected poker would achieve mainstream popularity, there were far better poker related investements for the money. [/ QUOTE ] no one knew about it in 2003 when moneymaker won, but after this it was pretty widely known that winning a WPT event or getting far in the main event would lead to endorsements and fame. there was a two year period where basically any "pro" who won anything could expect to see a ton of cash and possibly an endorsement deal for doing anything noteworthy in poker. i agree about the business aspect. however, most people that were drawn to the poker lifestyle (before the boom) are not the types of people that have the forsight to realize this and/or have what it takes to succeed in business. the smart ones simply bought a piece of companies but most didn't even do that. tc |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Clarifying
[ QUOTE ]
My position is that if you think there is any reasonable chance that you can average more money per hour in a higher game, once you got some experience in it, then you should play in that higher game for a while as long as you don't risk the money that you would need to have a proper cushion in your smaller bread and butter game. And as long as you don't lose a ridiculous amount in the bigger game. I also believe that these shots should not be taken if it is almost certain that the bigger game would not lead to significantly bigger earnings. In Daniel's column, the nit refused to move up from 5-10 NL to 10-20 NL. That was what I meant by a sad case. Personally I play 300-600 mixed games for the most part. The bottom line is this: If you can make one big bet an hour and your hourly standard deviation is ten big bets, you really need a 500 big bet bankroll. But that required bankroll is proportional to your standard deviation and inversely proportional to your hourly rate. So if you double your stakes but figure to earn only the same amount, you need four times as much money. [/ QUOTE ] I can only agree if you believe moving up would mean FAR bigger earnings, but I don't understand how you and others don't see "stress" as a factor to be taken into account if this is what you do. I mean if moving up a big jump in stakes means tougher games, but you know for sure it will mean a 10% increase in overall earnings, it still is not that desirable, as you must ask is a 10% raise worth the stress of swings that are now 100k when they were 20k. It is a factor. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Daniel Negreanu\'s Latest Cardplayer Article
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] "hree years ago when these players were all nobodies many did take big risks, relative to their br, by playing all the 10k events and big live games. the ones that found success now enjoy great endorsement deals" taylor, i dont think this is a good argument that the risks these guys took were reasonable simply bc no one had any idea that poker was gonna blow up and make big tourney winners celebrities. and really, if they suspected poker would achieve mainstream popularity, there were far better poker related investements for the money. [/ QUOTE ] no one knew about it in 2003 when moneymaker won, but after this it was pretty widely known that winning a WPT event or getting far in the main event would lead to endorsements and fame. there was a two year period where basically any "pro" who won anything could expect to see a ton of cash and possibly an endorsement deal for doing anything noteworthy in poker. i agree about the business aspect. however, most people that were drawn to the poker lifestyle (before the boom) are not the types of people that have the forsight to realize this and/or have what it takes to succeed in business. the smart ones simply bought a piece of companies but most didn't even do that. tc [/ QUOTE ] Is this really the case? I didn't think anyone aside from Martin Dejkniff or Gus Hansen got any kind of endorsement deals from poker sites for winning WPT titles (as most of the ones won by pros were already signed on to FT/Stars). |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Daniel Negreanu\'s Latest Cardplayer Article
[ QUOTE ]
Is this really the case? I didn't think anyone aside from Martin Dejkniff or Gus Hansen got any kind of endorsement deals from poker sites for winning WPT titles (as most of the ones won by pros were already signed on to FT/Stars). [/ QUOTE ] Really? so if Erik lindgren didn't win any wpt's or wpt player of the year you think he'd be an orig. Full Tilt member? You don't think Barry's WPT success had anything to do with pokerstars sponsoring him? Same with DN and his rise in popularity over the years. He first became known to the general poker fan public in relation to the WPT. Would the grinder have had any endorsements if it wasn't for the WPT? EDIT: I also don't agree that it was guaranteed that if you win on the WPT you gain an endorsement windfall, but the players who had multiple wins and final table appearances benefited greatly |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Daniel Negreanu\'s Latest Cardplayer Article
[ QUOTE ]
You don't think Barry's WPT success had anything to do with pokerstars sponsoring him? [/ QUOTE ]Not really, has he even made a FT since being signed by PS? Barry was the man before getting signed by Stars and he still is. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Daniel Negreanu\'s Latest Cardplayer Article
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You don't think Barry's WPT success had anything to do with pokerstars sponsoring him? [/ QUOTE ]Not really, has he even made a FT since being signed by PS? Barry was the man before getting signed by Stars and he still is. [/ QUOTE ] That's the point. His success in TV tournaments got him name recognition which got him sponsorships. |
|
|