Shannon Shorr thinking of quitting ...

[stephenNUTS]

[ QUOTE ]
Good post tex.

Shannon,

"It has been a losing one, but 90% of my 2007 losses are from live MTTs (all 40 of them...how do you like that sample size?)."

That's sarcasm right? 40 MTts is obviously nothing, about the equivilant to like 4000 hands of nl cash.

GL turning it around.

[/ QUOTE ]



Understand that Shannon's "small" sample size of 40 tourneys was playing the majority of them LIVE with a buy-in of 5-$10K which is over $300k alone.It cant be compared as if he lost in the nightly $109 Stars tournament or whatever

His brutal HONESTY is not only admirable here....but has also seemed to be make him a target to shoot at,for NO [censored] reason whatsoever except from the jealous broke punk kids on this forum that get their rocks off seeing anyone"maybe" falling

Misery loves company....but Shannon is smart enough to address this now,and if its time for him to move on from poker....he will be the one laughing last with A TON of $$$$ that in some way,shape or form has trickled down from 90% of the losers on this forum in the poker economy

Stephen

[Brad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't learn my lesson and continued to play and had one more awful session playing HU criss-cross with a friend who was knowledgable abt Chinese and lost more of my online roll.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never heard anybody around here talk about playing criss cross before. I used to play it back in the 80's.

[wet work]

Awesome post Tx.

[Seattleallstar]

geez, Id love to be busto living in a Condo in Vegas and playing major buy in tournys, and having percentages of people.

I guess someone has to explain the meaning of being broke, and poker broke

[ahnuld]

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.

[NicksDad1970]

[ QUOTE ]


I think that's all I've got. Hate on.

SS

[/ QUOTE ]

I basically love you(in a I'm married and don't mean like I wanna kiss you or anything type love). Well I actually mean I respect you, your honesty and wish I were in your shoes.

I also wish I was able to look inwards at my flaws and deal with them likke you seem to be doing.

[EWS87]

[ QUOTE ]
Understand that Shannon's "small" sample size of 40 tourneys was playing the majority of them LIVE with a buy-in of 5-$10K which is over $300k alone.It cant be compared as if he lost in the nightly $109 Stars tournament or whatever

[/ QUOTE ]

why the quotations on small as if 40 tournaments is not a small sample??

its the same sample no matter how long it takes...just because it took a year to do 40 tournaments live and takes a week to do it online doesnt mean that the live 40 is any more of a sample

all it goes to show is how all these live superstars could be getting the better side of variance for YEARS and easily turn out to be lifetime losers in poker when its all said and done (not sayin this is Shannon btw)

[Takeover_inc]

some really great post in here

[gobbomom]

[ QUOTE ]


I also wish I was able to look inwards at my flaws and deal with them likke you seem to be doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, Shannon, Ansky,..... alot of these young guys really have it together. Maybe they don't even know it. So, here's to you guys, for your maturity, wisdom, honesty and class. I look forward to your generation ruling the world.

[budblown]

[ 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.