Shannon Shorr thinking of quitting ...

[Luckboxxx]

I never heard of Shannon Shorr before this thread, but after looking at his website, reading his blog and reading the posts of people who know him personally, it is obvious to me that he is a great guy and a very good poker player.

Even though I am a losing poker player myself, I do not enjoy reading about peoples bad streaks in poker as much as I enjoy reading about people's success in this game.
I will probably never meet the guy, but I wish him the best luck in poker and in life!

P.S TX's post was one of the best I ever read on this board.

[budblown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the big issue I get from this post is how much live poker can suck in the sense that it takes so long to get to the long run that its easy to get disheartened along the way. Thank gods for the internet. Even though someone like ansky or daryn could have been stuck 4 months into the year they will almost never have a losing year whereas in live MTTs you can be the best player in the world and go over a year as a losing player easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we need to define what the long run is. I think the long run is from the time poker was invented to the time poker will cease to exist. Since no one will ever be able to figure out what the long run will be you can't say that people are winners "over the long run" because they aren't. It's absolutely impossible to be a winner over the long run because nobody will play "over the long run". Maybe that makes sense or maybe I need to smoke some kush.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can know if someone is a long term winner before actually seeing them reach the long term.

[/ QUOTE ]

How?

[Ansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the big issue I get from this post is how much live poker can suck in the sense that it takes so long to get to the long run that its easy to get disheartened along the way. Thank gods for the internet. Even though someone like ansky or daryn could have been stuck 4 months into the year they will almost never have a losing year whereas in live MTTs you can be the best player in the world and go over a year as a losing player easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we need to define what the long run is. I think the long run is from the time poker was invented to the time poker will cease to exist. Since no one will ever be able to figure out what the long run will be you can't say that people are winners "over the long run" because they aren't. It's absolutely impossible to be a winner over the long run because nobody will play "over the long run". Maybe that makes sense or maybe I need to smoke some kush.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can know if someone is a long term winner before actually seeing them reach the long term.

[/ QUOTE ]

How?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious???

If they play well or not...

[budblown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the big issue I get from this post is how much live poker can suck in the sense that it takes so long to get to the long run that its easy to get disheartened along the way. Thank gods for the internet. Even though someone like ansky or daryn could have been stuck 4 months into the year they will almost never have a losing year whereas in live MTTs you can be the best player in the world and go over a year as a losing player easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we need to define what the long run is. I think the long run is from the time poker was invented to the time poker will cease to exist. Since no one will ever be able to figure out what the long run will be you can't say that people are winners "over the long run" because they aren't. It's absolutely impossible to be a winner over the long run because nobody will play "over the long run". Maybe that makes sense or maybe I need to smoke some kush.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can know if someone is a long term winner before actually seeing them reach the long term.

[/ QUOTE ]

How?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious???

If they play well or not...

[/ QUOTE ]

But if they are not around for the long term (which is the lifetime of poker, not the player) how can you know if they would be a long term winner. Also, in order to be a long term winner you would need to consider every hand of poker that has ever been played which is in the trillions (probably more but I'm not sure what comes after trillions). What hands a player plays in their lifetime is still only a short term sample and therefore you can't say that someone is a long term winner.

[suzzer99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I always get a kick out of people who knock frat guys too. Has anyone ever heard anyone who actually was in a frat regret their experience? No, they all have a great time and make a bunch of great friends. Jealousy is a bitch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha yeah shallow retards don't know they're retarded or shallow, or don't care. I totally agree, Stinger.

[/ QUOTE ]

haha yeah being in a group of 1 that hates and errantly pigeonholes every frat boy is much much cooler. i totally agree cero

[/ QUOTE ]

Ooh ooh do me now. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Pokabandito]

You're over analyzing it. You will be a longterm winner if you make long term +EV decisions. You can tell by how someone plays whether or not they are making +EV decisions, and irrespective of short term results these are winning players.

[killakev]

Not that this thread isn't long enough already, but I think with what has been said so far that I should show Shannon some love and give him my respect.

I started playing poker about three years ago and not too long after started reading DN's blog. I enjoyed it thoroughly and somehow found Shannon's blog. Since then I have started my own blog and friends/readers of my blog have started their own based on my blog. However that sounds, it just shows that someone like Shannon can have a greater effect on others than he probably realizes due to the hate and ill words that naysayers show him.

Since then I have been reading his blog and following him in his success and struggle like a sports team. Why? Because he posts his wins and his losses. He shows us (the public) what he's going through and a huge part of that is what he's going through now.

For every (decent) poker player, they have to look at their flaws when they are losing. What Shannon is noticing right now seems to be that he has lost his passion for the game of poker and that is what needs to be adjusted. He obviously mentioned that he has tried to play tight and tried to play loose and neither has worked, but on a much higher level he has lost his love for the game.

Does losing have to do with it? Undoubtedly. But for some of us who have lost and gone busto, we continue to yearn for the game and have a hunger to learn more and correct our missteps.

For Shannon, that means exploring other options in life, which he is lucky enough to have.

So why not explore them? Poker will always be there. Youth will not.

Also -- it's funny that people always remember one hand where you failed miserably and forget the hundreds of hands that you played perfectly. In this case it's the straight flush hand. I'm sure that the people mentioning that hand have never overlooked a hand or made a horrible read.

Good luck Shannon and just realize that your supporters will take you a lot further than your haters can ever hold you down.

Also -- Tex, great post, well stated.

[Tomcruise]

Shaniac made a good point when he said the reason ppl are rubbed wrong by the blog entry is b/c shannon has takin a lot from poker. made great money. has run incredibly well. and now sits there and calls it a "stupid game"....correct me if im wrong shane.

[Moonshine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the big issue I get from this post is how much live poker can suck in the sense that it takes so long to get to the long run that its easy to get disheartened along the way. Thank gods for the internet. Even though someone like ansky or daryn could have been stuck 4 months into the year they will almost never have a losing year whereas in live MTTs you can be the best player in the world and go over a year as a losing player easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we need to define what the long run is. I think the long run is from the time poker was invented to the time poker will cease to exist. Since no one will ever be able to figure out what the long run will be you can't say that people are winners "over the long run" because they aren't. It's absolutely impossible to be a winner over the long run because nobody will play "over the long run". Maybe that makes sense or maybe I need to smoke some kush.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can know if someone is a long term winner before actually seeing them reach the long term.

[/ QUOTE ]

How?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious???

If they play well or not...

[/ QUOTE ]

But if they are not around for the long term (which is the lifetime of poker, not the player) how can you know if they would be a long term winner. Also, in order to be a long term winner you would need to consider every hand of poker that has ever been played which is in the trillions (probably more but I'm not sure what comes after trillions). What hands a player plays in their lifetime is still only a short term sample and therefore you can't say that someone is a long term winner.

[/ QUOTE ]


you have to be leveling. you cant possibly be this stupid

[budblown]

[ QUOTE ]
You're over analyzing it. You will be a longterm winner if you make long term +EV decisions. You can tell by how someone plays whether or not they are making +EV decisions, and irrespective of short term results these are winning players.

[/ QUOTE ]


Not true. You can try and make +EV decisions and if you were in every single hand ever dealt then you could say that you would theoretically be a long term winner, but since you aren't dealt into every hand you can't say that. Here's an example, there are millions of tables, at each table someone has AA and another person has KK. Now we know the odds are roughly 80/20 in favor of the AA, but we don't know how the 80/20 will be distributed throughout those tables.