Spin off from something TP and Brian talked about in another thread

[Penguinfan]

I am honestly suprised, in a good way, about the number of different approaches. In Kurn's reply he says "The bottom line is the bottom line". I agree that in the end game of it all we are playing to make money, but even in one of the minus sessions you could have played great poker and got unlucky, right?

Long run (however long that is) the luck and odds should play themselves out, which is why we want a player to call our set of Aces when the have a flush draw after the turn.

It just seems to me that absloute dollars won and lost, while the divideing line, isn't a true interpretation on how good a player you may be.

[Tony Cheval]

Good...bad...TP's the man with the money.

[melioris]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Tony Cheval again."

Damnit Tony, why do you have to go and quote "The Army of Darkness" on me. You know how it gets me all hot and bothered.

[2Tone]

In Jesse May’s great novel (a must read!), the narrator goes through an interesting discussion of the challenges of trying to figure out who the ‘best’ player is. He provides a few different examples:
A championship stud player who has to switch games because all the money is in hold ‘em these days …

A gifted, consistent winner at the poker tables who can’t stay out of the pit, and hence is often broke, having blown his winnings at craps …

A solid but unspectacular grinder with a small but steady monthly profit.

Any of who you could make a case for, with no right answer.

[Penguinfan]

Not that it matters, but this is the type of player I would like to be.

[Tony Cheval]

That is indeed what I am aiming for, and managed for the last few weeks anyway. We'll see when The Great Variance God wakes up and decides to kick my ass.

[Robbie Robb]

My thoughts are a little different than everyone else's I think (including Nikki's ). We've been lucky enough (thanks to her two tourney wins) to be able to cash out more than we've ever deposited, so, as far as I'm concerned, everything now is gravy. But this is how I look at the whole poker scene as far as I'm concerned: I measure my success based on how long my bankroll/deposit lasts me. As an example, I deposited $100 into UB back in August of 2004. From my wins there and moving the bankroll over to Stars, I finally busted that $100 around May of this year. Almost a two year run on $100. Sure, there was some additional money added to it from various sources (such as one or two of TP's deposit bonuses) but it still lasted me a hell of a long time. For me, that's +EV.

Now, let me clarify the above statement: During that period I was playing poker for fun. I had absolutely zero expectation of profit. I feel my game has now improved such that I do now have a decent expectation of more winning sessions than losing ones. I've managed to move up to .50/1 limit and $25NL levels and am doing fairly well on those. My next move up won't be until my bankroll hits $1000 (probably quite a ways off). I still play for fun though - without a word of a lie, if I were to bust tomorrow, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Sure, I'd be pissed that I burned through my current bankroll in less than 24 hours and I might kick a cat or two because of THAT, but as long as I had fun losing it, that's all that counts. Seriously though, if I went on a losing run that culminated in me going busto, I'd be aggravated but as long as I didn't do anything stupid like drop the last $100 of my roll into a $1000NL table trying to double/triple up quick, then I'd be happy.

I hope that ramble above makes some kind of sense.

[melioris]

to do this I think you have to follow all the "rules" about playing within your bankroll and playing only when you are emotionally able to handle the suckiness of the grind. What i mean by this is actually being satisfied when you get the money in when you are favorite, no matter that ass-clown hits his two-outer and destacks you. It can hurt, but you have to be satified with how it went down. Thus the suckiness of the grind.

[bdawg31]

Yep. I have recently 'started over' and i am back to grinding bdawg-old-school. I notice that when i am at the lower levels - well within my bankroll - i can shrug off the two outers. I can get down 20-30 big bets and not be all that phased by it and still remain emotionally neutral.

When i move up too quickly - then i get flustered. People often talk about that 300 BB rule, and that is a nice guide, but i also think you need to find your 'emotional' point as well. Maybe that is 300 BB. Maybe 500 BB. I am finding that it fluctuates for me as i move up. For example, while i am grinding out 1/2 i can emotionally withstand a loss of 50 big bets a lot easier than if i am playing 5/10 - even if my bankroll is exponentially equivalent. Does that make sense? So, i think i might need 300 BB for 1/2 and feel fine with the fluctuations - but i think i might need like 400 or 500 BB for 5/10. That does not sound logical i guess, but emotion is a part of the game in my opinion and needs to be taken into account.

I am rambling - but i am on a roll....

I find the 'grind' of grinding can get to me as well. If i get to restless (i call it 'punchy') - i find that i try to push too much or get to clever. So, i need to mix it up. I take breaks from grinding LHE by either changing games or playing sit n goes or low-buy-in MTTs. I have found that the switching of games has been a beneficial thing. Say if you feel comfortable playing 2/4 LHE. When you are ready for a break from grinding - try some .50/1 Omaha. Or some low buy-in stud. I am glad i have done this. The low-level games are pretty soft in all games, and i think you will find that you can turn a profit in these games as well.

[Tony Cheval]

Heh, I was just looking for a better response than the old 'better lucky than good' saw.

I should say as for myself, the money I've withdrawn from poker has certainly been significant FOR ME, I'm just not anywhere near 5/10 level or anything.

[Talking Poker]

Of course not... and I don't think anyone suggested it was.

Absolute Dollars won and lost determine if you are a winning or losing player (duh), but that definitely doesn't directly relate to "skill."

Take Jamie Gold: He won $12 million last week. Is he a good player? I'm sure he is. He's made more money than a number of top pros COMBINED. Does that make him a better player than al lof them though? Of course not.