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

[Penguinfan]

I really don't want to carry the argument over to another thread about weather or not Brian has a gambling problem, but rather talk about something else he said.

He claims to be a decent player since he has cashed out more than he has deposited and most of the money he has lost has been because of playing cash games above the limit he should be . Is this how we keep score, as in more money cashed out than deposited?

I feel just the opposite about my game, I feel I am not a very good player simply becaus I have WAY more losing sessions than winning sessions, despite the fact that I too have cashed out much more than I have deposited. Honestly I have deposited less than $2000 lifetime and cashed out well over that amount this year alone.

The only reason I can say that is because of the very infrequent big scores I have made along the way. Got deep in some MTT's and even won a Mini Step 5 game on Party for $2000, things like that.

So I guess I think I have gotten lucky to cash out what I have and still feel I am not a decent player since any given time I sit down at a table(tourney or cash) I am a big underdog to leave with more than I sat down with (hope that makes sense).

Seriously, anymore if you see Penguinfan at a cash table you can be sure of two things:

1. He's been drinking again

2. DEAD MONEY

Thoughts on the topic?

[Talking Poker]

Actually, I'm pretty sure Brian admitted that he's deposited more money than he's cashed out (as have MOST players), but that's neither here nor there.

It's an ok way of "keeping score," but it's not ideal. I mean, what if I cashed in $500 3 years ago and I now have $200,000 online. If I've never cashed out, that would mean I've put in $500 more than I've taken out, making me a loser by your system, and that's obviously not right.

Your total bankroll - whether you keep in on one poker site, on 10, all in Neteller, in the bank, etc - should be how you keep score.

To follow up on the above example, if I decide to go blow my $200k playing Pai Gow on Jetset, I think it would be absurd for me to claim to have lost only $500, since that's all I deposited. No..... I lost $200k. That was money that I owned. It doesn't matter where it came from or how I got it - it was mine to do with what I choose. I could have bought a house, but instead I blew it all playing Pai Gow, so I lost $200,000.... not $500.

People who insist they only lost $500 in that scenario are long term losers who need to justify their losses.

[Penguinfan]

I guess I have always thought of a winning player is someone who earns more money the more hours he plays. I cannot say that since it's just the occasional big score that keeps me in poker money.

[Talking Poker]

That's ok though... that's how poker goes - there is a lot of short term variance. But, take the total amount you are up and divide by the total number of hours you have played, and that's your overall hourly rate. You can't expect to earn that much money every hour, of course, but that's how much you've earned in the long run. Given that, yeah, the more hours you play, the more money you will earn.

[MAYHEM45]

Cash games: BB/100 positive? Winner. Negative? Loser.

Tourneys: ROI positive? Winner. Negative? Loser.

That about sums it all up.

[melioris]

this is an interesting topic, good thread PF.

I understand what you are saying TP, but it doesn't hold for all players. For instance, I am a micro/low player. I pretty regularly cash out instead of moving in levels. For whatever reason, it messes with my head to have more than 2K as my roll online (my well documented troubles with the morality issues which leads to my Nixon-tilt ala"I am not a crook").

So I build it up, play for a while, and then pull some or most out and buy something extra, give to charity, whatever. The point is, when this all started I point in $50. I pulled the first $50 profit out, and swore to never make another deposit. I have moved sites and keep my bankroll all on one site (as it is so damn small), but money is only a one-way street online for me. At this point, my bankroll is a lot less than what I have pulled out, and if I go broke (lose my bankroll) I will be done, but I will still consider myself a successful poker player.

[Aequitas58]

You have a $200k bankroll?

[Talking Poker]

Yes, that is correct. Because your true bankroll (as far as this thread is concerned) is the amount that you have won less the amount that you have lost. You may not be willing to play with your entire bankroll, which is perfectly reasonable (I'm the same way), but that's still money you've won. It still counts.

[2Tone]

Accepting the concept that poker is one never-ending game that you drop in and out of at will throughout your poker playing career, I keep ‘score’ based on how much I am up or down – lifetime – at end of my latest session. The number of winning or losing sessions doesn’t factor into this – just how much money I have made or lost in total.

Since that lifetime total is very much a macro view, I’ll also break that down into how I am doing year to date (or ‘month to date’, or even ‘Vegas trip to date’), as well as live vs. online, ring vs. tourney, etc.

TP’s example of the player who makes $200,500, then loses $200,000 back is interesting. Under my rules, his total score would still be +$500, though depending on how long he took to lose most of it back, the month to date total could reflect -$200k.

Meanwhile, bonuses, high hand jackpots, etc. all are added to the amount ‘won,’ just as if I had won them in a regular pot. But tips and ATM fees and any other directly related poker expenses (backing somebody) are all factored in as well, and count towards the minus column. This means if I am eventually fined $100k by Washington State for playing online, I’ll consider myself a losing player.

[Talking Poker]

No.

That was an "example." "Examples" often aren't real.

[Tony Cheval]

I have definately cashed out more than I have deposited lifetime, but I don't think the numbers either way are large enough to be terribly relevant.

As for Penguinfan...I think you are a decent player who gets down on yourself too easily.

[Kurn]

<shrug> I record each session I play. Each has a + or - number at the end. Those +'s and -s get summed up as the year goes on.

The bottom line is the bottom line. Evaluating what that means and how you got there is important, but if the bottom line is a +, you're a winning player.

A winning cash game player usually has more + sessions than - sessions. (a benchmark [for limit] is 2:1 wins vs. losses)

A winning tournament player has more - sessions than + sessions (over 40% ITM is good in the SNG world, and good MTT player's losing sessions probably outnumber winning sessions by 4:1, the wins are just bigger)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[thrash1294]

I am also poker micro player sometimes 5c/ 10c nl to 25c/50c nl I deposited a mere $15 in 2000. I play online and play an average of 1-2 hrs a day and I take out money to buy stocks and suprises or my for my 2 girls and pay to host a web site
thats make a few hundred bucks a year. I dont really keep track of totals but
average about $50 a week I play rings maybe a tourney or sit and go about once every 2 weeks.

[Dodoubled]

Actually, in Lou's world, wouldn't that be "Exhibit A?"

[Aequitas58]

I didn't know it was an example.