Irish Mike's Poker Tip #4 of 4
Irish Mike
In poker there's a big difference between winning money and having money.
Poker players and bad money management are a well established combination.
Some estimate Stu Unger won more than thirty million dollars in his poker
career but he died with $800 in his pocket. Johnny Moss, the Grand Old Man
of poker, finished up broke, standing on the rail and dependent on the
charity of Jack Binion. Mike Matasou stated in a recent interview that he
won more than a million dollars in a poker tournament but was broke less
than a week later. The same bad money management scenario plays out on a
smaller scale in poker rooms all over the country, every single day.
Despite their skill many poker players are constantly broke or on the verge
of going broke. Borrowing money, begging for backers and running errands
for tips becomes a sad, recurring cycle in their professional poker lives.
When you play poker for a living you own your own business. You are
president and chief financial officer of "You, Inc." Ask any business owner
what it takes to run a successful, solvent business and he or she will list
money management near the top. You can have a good business and a good
product but if you're a bad money manager you'll still go broke.
The first thing to understand is that if you aspire to play for a living
your initial poker bankroll really has two components. The first is the
money you actually need to play poker and the second is the amount needed to
cover your monthly living expenses while you get established. In my
experience most wanna-be professional poker players only look at the first
component and ignore, or greatly underestimate the second. If you want to
give yourself even half a chance to succeed you need at least six months of
living expenses in addition to your playing bankroll. It's the height of
blind optimism to think you're going to sit down in a poker game, as a
professional, and start winning from day one. The majority of new
professional poker players fail for the same reason the majority of new
businesses fail. They just run out of money.
But what if you have no intention of becoming a professional poker player?
(Let me pause here to congratulate you on a wise career decision) Well, a
lot of nonsense has been written about poker money management but the truth
is it's not mysterious or complicated. All it takes is a little common
sense and a lot of discipline.
I believe it's essential that even recreational players have a separate
bankroll that is used exclusively for poker. They also need to avoid the
very bad habit of mixing poker money with household funds. You just can't
play your best game if the chips in front of you represent this month's car
payment or grocery money. And when your opponents realize you're playing
with scared money, it's like bleeding in a shark tank.
So how much money do you need to play poker and how should you manage it?
Well that depends on three things. How well you play, the size of your
swings and your poker objectives (Remember tip #1; ask yourself why you
play poker and what you want to accomplish). Obviously the better you play,
and the smaller your swings, the less money you need in your bankroll.
However, a good rule of thumb is to have at least 300 times the big bet of
the highest limit game you play. So if you play $10/$20 for example, your
minimum bankroll should be (300 x $20) $6,000.00. If you play $40/$80 you'll
need at least $24,000. Remember, if you don't play particularly well and/or
regularly experience large swings, you'll need closer to 400 to 500 times
the big bet. If you're like me, and play on the road a lot, you also need
to build in enough to cover your travel expenses.
A worthwhile recreational poker objective is to eventually move up to the
highest limit game that you enjoy playing in, and can consistently beat. So
your $10/$20 bankroll should include taking an occasional shot at a $15/$30
or $20/$40 game, when you see the right kind of line-up. Conversely if you
start losing frequently, never be too proud to drop down and play a lower
limit game until you can identify your problem and rebuild your bankroll.
About now you're probably saying, "That sounds pretty basic". Well that's
because it is. There's no rocket science in poker money management. So why
do so many other-wise smart players do such a lousy job of it? As I said in
tip #3, "It doesn't matter how well you can play. It only matters how well
you do play". Same thing applies to money management. Knowing what to do is
one thing. Having the discipline to do it is another.
I'll give you a real life example. Just recently a young player asked my
advice about moving up from $4/$8 to a $10/$20 game. He'd never played
higher than $4/$8 but said he was "easily beating the game" and had turned
his initial $100 bankroll into $775. I advised him to stick to $4/$8 until
he had more money. He argued that there were two really big fish sitting in
the $10/$20 game. I had played in this particular game dozens of times and
had notes on every player in the line-up. I replied no, there are actually
four fish in that game, they've got a lot of money and they play like
chip-burning maniacs. Well that's as far as I got in my big advice speech
because they called his name and he took a seat in the $10/$20 game.
Sad story short, he bought in for his entire $775 bankroll. He won a couple
of pots right off the bat and was up about $400. Then he lost several big
hands plus one huge heads-up pot and tried to push some drawing hands past
the chip burners. He hit the rail broke in less than two hours. Now I'm
not saying he's a bad player . I am saying he's a bad money manager.
First, he sat in a jammed-up game without the bankroll to handle the swings.
Second, he gambled more of his bankroll than he could afford. Third, he
didn't lock up his win and fourth, he didn't set a loss limit.
So what can we learn from this poor lad's misfortune? First, if you're
going to make a run at a higher limit game at least consider how fast it's
playing. Yes, four maniacs with money can certainly be a +EV. But these
same maniacs can also burn up a lot of your chips along with their own. If
you're in a game where it costs you three or four bets to see every flop,
you better have the bankroll to handle the inevitable swings associated with
wild, loose play. In addition, this kind of game usually attracts some very
solid players who are there to take a shot at the fish tank. Focus too much
on the maniacs and one of these solid guys can knock you off. BTW, I'll
just assume you are keeping notes on any opponents you face regularly.
Don't gamble more of your bankroll in a single session than you can afford
to lose. In a typical $10/$20 game I'll buy in for 20 big bets ($400) and
have another $400 in my pocket. If my stack drops below $200, I re-buy for
another $200. I don't want to lose more than 10% of my total bankroll in
any single playing session. I'm not saying these rules need to be chiseled
in stone but they represent the kind of discipline it takes to keep from
going broke during the tough times.
Always look to lock up a win. The objective, of course, is to maximize your
wins and minimize your loses. The trick is to find that balance between
shutting down a winning streak too soon and giving back everything you won
plus some. How many times have you heard a player say, "Damn, I should have
quit when I was ahead?" Or, "Man, I was up $600 and now I'm stuck $500".
Well some where during that $1,100 swing would have been a good time to
think about locking up a win. If I'm up say $1,000 in a $10/$20 game I'm
not going to quit if I lose a pot. But I am going to decide on an amount of
that $1,000 that I am going to walk out with. For example, I might say,
"OK, I'll play back $300 of this win but when I'm down to $700, I'm out.
Now I can hear the RGPers screeching from here. "You shouldn't set an
arbitrary number like that." "It's all just one big game and it makes no
sense to quit today when you know you're going to play tomorrow." "You don't
play poker by the session; you play poker by the year". Or, the one that
has busted more players than any other single sentence in poker, "Never quit
as long as you are a favorite."
Well my response, with all due respect, is you manage your money and I'll
manage mine. If I'm up $1,000, in a $10/$20 game, that's a pretty decent
night. Now I blow back $300. Maybe I've been playing for three or four
hours and I'm getting a little tired. Maybe the line-up has changed and a
couple of weaker players have left or just tightened up. In any case, I'm
still ahead $700. Do I want to sit here and chase that $300 or is there
something else I would like to do? Am I going to sleep better tonight with
a $700 win or knowing that I developed ass glue, gave it all back and
ended-up losing $200? Am I likely to play better tomorrow knowing that I'm
fresh, rested and up $700 from the night before? Personally, I'll walk out
with the $700 win and sleep just fine.
I believe in setting loss limits. There, I said it and I ain't ashamed. I
know, all the experts say "Never quit as long as you are a favorite". Well,
yes they do and so does every RGPer who has ever read Sklansky or Malmuth.
Yet if all these poker players never quit when they are favorites, why do so
many of them end up losing their asses?
The answer is, they weren't favorites and they didn't have the discipline to
walk away with a small loss.
If you're stuck more than 30 big bets in a game, you need to stop and ask
yourself why. Maybe you're tired, maybe the line-up is now tougher than it
was or maybe it's just not your night. Hell, maybe there's some collusion
or out-right cheating going on. In any case, my recommendation is to
seriously consider calling it a night and walking away. Sure, some times
you can turn it around and fight back to even or scrape out a small win.
But, for every time that happens there will be a lot more where you'll just
bury yourself that much deeper. Again, how much of your bankroll are you
willing to lose in a single session?
To be fair, staying in a game as long as you are a favorite is actually good
advice. Assuming all poker players are totally objective, can accurately
pin point that exact moment when they switch over from being a favorite to
being a dog and then have the discipline to immediately get up and leave the
game. Sorry, but most of the players I've observed lack that accuracy. In
fact, most of them believe they are playing just as well in the eighth hour
as they were in the first hour and that they play just as well when they are
losing as they do when they are winning. Sadly, neither is usually true.
My personal rule is to never lose more in one session than I can reasonably
expect to win back in another session at the same limit. Here's why. Let's
stick with our $10/$20 game example. I'm stuck 30 big bets ($600, or 10% of
my $6000 total bankroll) so I get up and leave the game. Now I'm going to
review that session in my mind and try to figure out why I lost. Was I
tired or not feeling well? Did I get sloppy or start chasing? Did the
line-up change? Did I just get out played? I'll be a hell of a lot more
likely to come up with an honest answer once I'm out of the game and can
really think about it. I'm not happy but I know I can turn it around
tomorrow. I at least know I had the discipline to walk away with a small
loss. More importantly, my bankroll is still in good shape. All I need is
one good session at the same limit and I can recover my entire loss and
maybe even make a small net win.
Now compare that to what happens when a player stays in the game and starts
chasing his or her loses. That 30 big bet loss can easily turn in to 60 or
70 big bets. You're stuck $1,400 before you finally run out of money or
just throw in the towel. It turned into a marathon session and you're too
damned tired to see straight, let alone objectively analyze your play. Now
you get home and try to sleep. You know that it's going to take you at
least three winning sessions in a row just to claw your way back to even.
The more serious consideration is that you just dumped 23% of your total
bankroll in one session. Plus, it's psychologically harder to regain a
winning mind set - and mind set is a big part of the game. You're kicking
yourself for not having the discipline to quit sooner. When you walk back
into the poker room, every one who was in that game, or has heard about it,
knows you lost your ass and they're going to be looking for a way to exploit
it. The negative effect of a big loss can be cumulative and impact your
future play. No poker player wins all the time; the difference is having
the discipline to manage your money and control your losses.
Thank you for allowing me to share these four poker tips. I hope you found
something of value in them.
Good luck,
Irish Mike
da pickle
> Poker tip #4 of 4.
>
> In poker there's a big difference between winning money and having money.
I enjoyed all four tips, Mike. Thanks for starting some interesting
threads.
Bill Vanek
<mjo...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>There's no rocket science in poker money management. So why
>do so many other-wise smart players do such a lousy job of it?
Yeah, if only Moss & Ungar had a mid-limit pro like Irish Mike sharing
his wisdom with them.
> How many times have you heard a player say, "Damn, I should have
>quit when I was ahead?" Or, "Man, I was up $600 and now I'm stuck $500".
It's funny you'd ask. I've never heard a "mid-limit pro" say those
words. Not once. But I've heard every fish I've ever known say them.
>Thank you for allowing me to share these four poker tips. I hope you found
>something of value in them.
Well, gosh yes, Mike. The only thing is, I found something of value in
the legitimate ones about 20 years ago when the likes of Caro put them
in their gambling books as the most basic of advice. Nice job of
copying, though.
Paul Popinjay
news:ogfg13ppti4s2l0h3...@4ax.com...
>
> Well, gosh yes, Mike. The only thing is, I found something of value in
> the legitimate ones about 20 years ago when the likes of Caro put them
> in their gambling books as the most basic of advice. Nice job of
> copying, though.
Holy shit! You actually read that whole thing? My goodness, he wrote the
whole friggin Russian Bible. I've never SEEN Irish Mike write that long of
a post before.
Anyway, if anyone would like to give him the razzberries, it's me. But I
just couldn't bring myself to read that WHOLE friggin thing. I still can't
get past the other one where he talked about having a laminated card that he
studies while on the toilet. I just can't take him seriously. Geez, I've
got more fun things to do, like laundry and house cleaning. Sorry Mike.
Y'lost me on this one. Y'big dumb Irish oaf.
-Paul Popinjay
Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster
> Poker tip #4 of 4.
>
>
>
> In poker there's a big difference between winning money and having money.
> Poker players and bad money management are a well established combination.
> Some estimate Stu Unger won more than thirty million dollars in his poker
> career but he died with $800 in his pocket.
I'm sorry, but isn't that the definition of a perfectly lived life?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure don't know what I'm going for, but I'm gonna go for it for sure!
brewmaster at brewcam dot com
-----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Gary Carson
say "be disciplined, keep your eye on the goal".
There's no way anybody this tightly wrapped could play a game with 4 maniacs and
survive.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
AtticusCole
On Apr 7 2007 10:20 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
> It's amazing how tightly wrapped this guy is. He's found 4 different ways to
> say "be disciplined, keep your eye on the goal".
>
> There's no way anybody this tightly wrapped could play a game with 4 maniacs
> and
> survive.
And these people are eating it all up like it's fucking gold.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Bill Vanek
<ae2...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Apr 7 2007 5:01 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
>
>> Poker tip #4 of 4.
>>
>>
>>
>> In poker there's a big difference between winning money and having money.
>> Poker players and bad money management are a well established combination.
>> Some estimate Stu Unger won more than thirty million dollars in his poker
>> career but he died with $800 in his pocket.
>
>I'm sorry, but isn't that the definition of a perfectly lived life?
It sure is the defintion of perfect lifetime money management.
Paul Popinjay
news:1175998818$977...@recpoker.com...
> It's amazing how tightly wrapped this guy is. He's found 4 different ways
> to say "be disciplined, keep your eye on the goal".
>
> There's no way anybody this tightly wrapped could play a game with 4
> maniacs and survive.
>
Post of the WEEK! No, of the MONTH!
-Paul Popinjay
Alan Gilbert aka brewmaster
shut up, i'm busy laminating a card with poker rules on it, and i gotta
take a dump and read it.
--------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Paul Popinjay
news:YgWRh.3163$H_5....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
He hit the rail broke in less than two hours. Now I'm
> not saying he's a bad player . I am saying he's a bad money manager.
> First, he sat in a jammed-up game without the bankroll to handle the
> swings. Second, he gambled more of his bankroll than he could afford.
> Third, he didn't lock up his win and fourth, he didn't set a loss limit.
>
Ok. I didn't have the patience earlier to try to read this monstrocity. So
I'm trying to wade through it now.
Anyway, what's THIS shit? What is this shit about "he didn't lock up his
win"?
I know goddam well Irish Mike will not respond to MY asking him this. But
any of you Irish Mike groupies out there, please ask Mike what the FUCK he's
talking about by "locking up his win". Does Mike have a 'secret formula'
for calculating when this friend of his should have "locked up his win"?
I'd love to know that formula. Please, somebody ask Irish Mike to explain
THAT!
-Paul Popinjay
Chris in Texas
On Apr 7 2007 7:00 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
Well done on all 4, Irish Mike. Especially this final one. The last few lines
of the last paragraph are especially insightful, describing the negative
intangibles of a big losing session in a game with regular players. I've played
against players in that situation, and hearing their gripes about the
ass-kicking and other comments make their play transparent. It's almost like a
switch being thrown when their initial tight, disciplined play turns into
another "ah, fuck it, I gotta push it to make up for last night" style. Sort of
like a long-term example of Caro's "past the threshold of pain" concept.
Thanks for the posts,
Chris
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Howard Beale
> wins and minimize your loses. The trick is to find that balance between
> shutting down a winning streak too soon and giving back everything you won
> plus some. How many times have you heard a player say, "Damn, I should have
> quit when I was ahead?" Or, "Man, I was up $600 and now I'm stuck $500".
> Well some where during that $1,100 swing would have been a good time to
> think about locking up a win. If I'm up say $1,000 in a $10/$20 game I'm
> not going to quit if I lose a pot. But I am going to decide on an amount of
> that $1,000 that I am going to walk out with. For example, I might say,
> "OK, I'll play back $300 of this win but when I'm down to $700, I'm out.
I don't agree w/ this except to the very limited extent that if this is
what is needed for a particular player to keep his head on straight then
he should do it. However, such a player should do everything in his power
to remove this crutch and to continuing playing when he should be playing
which is when he knows he knows he is playing well and is in a profitable
game.
Personally, I've done what Mike recommends above on rare occasions. If
I've had a few tough, losing sessions in a row and find myself up a good
amount in my next game I may 'lock up' that win just for my head. Other
than that I think it's best to stick around if the game is good and I am
good. When either changes then I leave.
> Now I can hear the RGPers screeching from here. "You shouldn't set an
> arbitrary number like that." "It's all just one big game and it makes no
> sense to quit today when you know you're going to play tomorrow." "You
don't
> play poker by the session; you play poker by the year". Or, the one that
> has busted more players than any other single sentence in poker, "Never quit
> as long as you are a favorite."
>
>
>
> Well my response, with all due respect, is you manage your money and I'll
> manage mine.
If it works for you, fine, but I don't like it.
> I believe in setting loss limits.
Then why show up w/ more than you are willing to lose? IIRC, you said you
buy-in for $400 in the 10-20 and then re-buy $200 if you drop $200 or
something like that and you leave when you get to some other number. Why
not just buy-in for the $600? Am I missing something or did I not
understand that part?
> To be fair, staying in a game as long as you are a favorite is actually good
> advice. Assuming all poker players are totally objective, can accurately
> pin point that exact moment when they switch over from being a favorite to
> being a dog and then have the discipline to immediately get up and leave the
> game.
If coming down a significant percentage from your 'high-water' mark in the
game affects a player psychologically enough that he can no longer play
well then leaving is the best option. Otherwise he should stay.
> Thank you for allowing me to share these four poker tips. I hope you found
> something of value in them.
>
>
>
> Good luck,
>
>
>
> Irish Mike
Overall, I think you did a fine job.
Howard Beale
_____________________________________________________________________
Paul Popinjay
news:nmlme4x...@recgroups.com...
Your few criticisms of Mike's advice in this post are EXACTLY right, on all
counts. All I'm asking is why a guy with Mike's experience doesn't know
this BASIC stuff yet? Damn, he's been a traveling pro for years, and he
SAYS he reads all the books, every day. Lock up a win? I'm laughing my ASS
off. It's one thing to spout of some cockamamey ideas of his. But heck,
he put a lot of effort into this four-part series. If he doesn't know as
much about advantage gambling as he thinks he does, then perhaps he should
sit the fuck down, and Paul Harvey knows the rest of the story.
-Paul Popinjay
The unknown poker pro
On Apr 8 2007 1:28 AM, Howard Beale wrote:
> Then why show up w/ more than you are willing to lose? IIRC, you said you
> buy-in for $400 in the 10-20 and then re-buy $200 if you drop $200 or
> something like that and you leave when you get to some other number. Why
> not just buy-in for the $600? Am I missing something or did I not
> understand that part?
here is an example of what I do and why.
Say it is a 15-30 game. I buy-in for $300 play one round and then add another
$500 if I am still around the $300 mark.
I do this for two reasons. Reason one is to make sure I really want to play and
don't get stuck to a point where I now much grind out of a hole if I am playing
bad. Second reason if for some reason I start out hot the other players will
think I am on short money and will try to run me over which will increase my
early win rate.
My loss limit depends on just how much I can get my backers to go for :)
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
Paul Popinjay
news:1176019593$977...@recpoker.com...
>
>
> here is an example of what I do and why.
> Say it is a 15-30 game. I buy-in for $300 play one round and then add
> another
> $500 if I am still around the $300 mark.
> I do this for two reasons. Reason one is to make sure I really want to
> play and
> don't get stuck to a point where I now much grind out of a hole if I am
> playing
> bad. Second reason if for some reason I start out hot the other players
> will
> think I am on short money and will try to run me over which will increase
> my
> early win rate.
> My loss limit depends on just how much I can get my backers to go for :)
>
Who is this? Is this YOU, Maverick? Troll!
Howard Beale
> counts. All I'm asking is why a guy with Mike's experience doesn't know
> this BASIC stuff yet? Damn, he's been a traveling pro for years, and he
> SAYS he reads all the books, every day. Lock up a win? I'm laughing my ASS
> off. It's one thing to spout of some cockamamey ideas of his. But heck,
> he put a lot of effort into this four-part series. If he doesn't know as
> much about advantage gambling as he thinks he does, then perhaps he should
> sit the fuck down, and Paul Harvey knows the rest of the story.
>
> -Paul Popinjay
My best guess is that he is the type of person who needs all of these
strict rules to function well in the poker world. I don't know what type
or label would describe such a person but it seems to be what he needs. I
thought his first 3 tips were worthwhile even though a lot of it was basic
and repetitive because they were well written, laid out, and could be
helpful to some readers. This last one is 'dangerous' in that it could
well lead someone down the wrong path.
HB
____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Paul Popinjay
>
>
> My best guess is that he is the type of person who needs all of these
> strict rules to function well in the poker world. I don't know what type
> or label would describe such a person but it seems to be what he needs. I
> thought his first 3 tips were worthwhile even though a lot of it was basic
> and repetitive because they were well written, laid out, and could be
> helpful to some readers. This last one is 'dangerous' in that it could
> well lead someone down the wrong path.
>
I agree with EVERYTHING you just said. EVERYTHING!
Howard Beale
Not Maverick's style.
OP, don't tell this stuff to your backers unless they are 15.
HB
______________________________________________________________________
The unknown poker pro
On Apr 8 2007 2:37 AM, Howard Beale wrote:
> On Apr 8 2007 2:14 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
>
> > "The unknown poker pro" <4308...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
> > news:1176019593$977...@recpoker.com...
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > here is an example of what I do and why.
> > > Say it is a 15-30 game. I buy-in for $300 play one round and then add
> > > another
> > > $500 if I am still around the $300 mark.
> > > I do this for two reasons. Reason one is to make sure I really want to
> > > play and
> > > don't get stuck to a point where I now much grind out of a hole if I am
> > > playing
> > > bad. Second reason if for some reason I start out hot the other players
> > > will
> > > think I am on short money and will try to run me over which will increase
> > > my
> > > early win rate.
> > > My loss limit depends on just how much I can get my backers to go for :)
> > >
> >
> >
> > Who is this? Is this YOU, Maverick? Troll!
>
>
> Not Maverick's style.
>
>
> OP, don't tell this stuff to your backers unless they are 15.
>
>
>
> HB
Some call me the mouth
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
zimi87
> On Apr 8 2007 2:37 AM, Howard Beale wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8 2007 2:14 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
>
> > >news:1176019593$977...@recpoker.com...
>
> > > > here is an example of what I do and why.
> > > > Say it is a 15-30 game. I buy-in for $300 play one round and then add
> > > > another
> > > > $500 if I am still around the $300 mark.
> > > > I do this for two reasons. Reason one is to make sure I really want to
> > > > play and
> > > > don't get stuck to a point where I now much grind out of a hole if I am
> > > > playing
> > > > bad. Second reason if for some reason I start out hot the other players
> > > > will
> > > > think I am on short money and will try to run me over which will increase
> > > > my
> > > > early win rate.
> > > > My loss limit depends on just how much I can get my backers to go for :)
>
> > > Who is this? Is this YOU, Maverick? Troll!
>
> > Not Maverick's style.
>
> > OP, don't tell this stuff to your backers unless they are 15.
>
> > HB
>
> Some call me the mouth
>
> _______________________________________________________________
>
> - 따온 텍스트 보기 -
To: THOSE who criticize
Those who criticize this article are better to write his own better
than this.
IMHO, this article is based on his experience and honestly written,
although there is little lack of writing skill.
At least, thanks to this kind of article with his lifetime
knowledge. Any other posting of thers is WELCOMED!
Sir Benjamin Nunn
"Irish Mike" <mjo...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:YgWRh.3163$H_5....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>
> your wins and minimize your loses. The trick is to find that balance
> between shutting down a winning streak too soon and giving back everything
> you won plus some. How many times have you heard a player say, "Damn, I
> should have quit when I was ahead?" Or, "Man, I was up $600 and now I'm
> stuck $500". Well some where during that $1,100 swing would have been a
> good time to think about locking up a win. If I'm up say $1,000 in a
> $10/$20 game I'm not going to quit if I lose a pot. But I am going to
> decide on an amount of that $1,000 that I am going to walk out with. For
> example, I might say, "OK, I'll play back $300 of this win but when I'm
> down to $700, I'm out.
Yes, but you shouldn't set an arbitrary number like that. After all, it's
all just one big game and it makes no sense to quit today when you know
you're going to play tomorrow.
> Now I can hear the RGPers screeching from here. "You shouldn't set an
> arbitrary number like that." "It's all just one big game and it makes no
> sense to quit today when you know you're going to play tomorrow." "You
> don't play poker by the session; you play poker by the year". Or, the one
> that has busted more players than any other single sentence in poker,
> "Never quit as long as you are a favorite."
Ah.
BTN
da pickle
All your base are belong to us.
da pickle
> I don't agree w/ this except to the very limited extent that if this is
> what is needed for a particular player to keep his head on straight then
> he should do it.
Personally, that is what I think Mike is saying. Sure it is basic and
applies to him and people like him. If you tend to get into the
self-imposed traps he is describing (and I have observed many players that
do exactly that), you do not know this basic stuff. If you need to regroup
psychologically sometimes, it makes sense to stop right there.
> Personally, I've done what Mike recommends above on rare occasions. If
> I've had a few tough, losing sessions in a row and find myself up a good
> amount in my next game I may 'lock up' that win just for my head. Other
> than that I think it's best to stick around if the game is good and I am
> good. When either changes then I leave.
Well, isn't that exactly what he said? (OK, Mike is not the best writer in
the world and the four tips are basic ... there are many of us that should
"go back" and review our objectives and play style from time to time.)
Qdog223
requirement for any long term player. Its certainly a discipline that
I need to work on. As a recreational player, I move up to the highest
limits whenever I am ahead, a decision totally lacking regard to
bankroll preservation.
Bankroll preservation and management is so important, you can repost
Tip #4 everyday as a reminder.
Any poster indicating "oh, I heard of bankroll management before" is
likely the player that needs it the most.
Thanks again Irish Mike.
Qdog223
FL Turbo
I think the best reason for a stop-loss limit is this.
There can be a hundred different reasons why you are losing money at
any point in time.
A genius could probably think of 50 of them.
And Pal, you ain't no genius.
Will in New Haven
> "Irish Mike" <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
It's really easy. You simply get a CD of your game and watch it. After
you watch it, you go back to the point where you were furthest ahead
and quit at that point. I don't know if that is what Irish Mike means
by it but it's pretty much the standard my gf Joan wanted me to follow
back when I lived with her. If I won $200, she was happy but I better
never mention that I was ever ahead by more. Actually, I bet Mike
doesn't mean it quite as insanely as Joan did.
Will in New Haven
--
"Whiskey - I like it, I always did, and that is the reason I never use
it." - Robert E. Lee
>
> -Paul Popinjay
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> On Apr 8 2007 2:37 AM, Howard Beale wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8 2007 2:14 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
>
> > >news:1176019593$977...@recpoker.com...
>
> > > > here is an example of what I do and why.
> > > > Say it is a 15-30 game. I buy-in for $300 play one round and then add
> > > > another
> > > > $500 if I am still around the $300 mark.
> > > > I do this for two reasons. Reason one is to make sure I really want to
> > > > play and
> > > > don't get stuck to a point where I now much grind out of a hole if I am
> > > > playing
> > > > bad. Second reason if for some reason I start out hot the other players
> > > > will
> > > > think I am on short money and will try to run me over which will increase
> > > > my
> > > > early win rate.
> > > > My loss limit depends on just how much I can get my backers to go for :)
>
> > > Who is this? Is this YOU, Maverick? Troll!
>
> > Not Maverick's style.
>
> > OP, don't tell this stuff to your backers unless they are 15.
>
> > HB
>
> Some call me the mouth
Don't even GO there. Matuso wouldn't write what you have written for
two reasons:
He KNOWS better
and
He can't read and write.
Just joking. I like Matuso.
Don't like anything you've written so far but that's not your
problem.
Will in New Haven
--
"Whiskey - I like it, I always did, and that is the reason I never use
it." - Robert E. Lee
>
Howard Beale
No, I don't think it is what Mike said. He advocates 'giving a certain
amount back' and then leaving the game as strategy, not as a psychological
tool. He will 'lock up his win' after dropping a certain amount back and
then return the next day. But (supposing he sits down with the same
players the next day) the next hand he plays in the new session is the
same as if he had stayed the night before. There's no difference in the
game. The only difference is in HIS head. IOW, I think his advice is
results oriented and that's a bad thing.
HB
Bill Ricardi
> Poker tip #4 of 4.
When are you going to credit me for these tips, eh? :)
Gary Carson
On Apr 8 2007 3:06 AM, The unknown poker pro wrote:
>
>
> here is an example of what I do and why.
> Say it is a 15-30 game. I buy-in for $300 play one round and then add another
> $500 if I am still around the $300 mark.
I sometimes do that in a no limit game, mostly because I want to make sure I
didn't pick a bad seat. But it makes no sense at all to do that in a limit
game.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
On Apr 8 2007 4:58 AM, zimi87 wrote:
>
> To: THOSE who criticize
>
> Those who criticize this article are better to write his own better
> than this.
I have.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
pokerchimp
Agreed, the posts are helpful. I don't think they will work universally
for all temperament of player. You can pretty much sum it up to say "be
diciplined," but thanks for putting in the time to spell things out.
thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
---
pokerchimp
I thought he explained it pretty clearly. Obviously you are a mental
midget.
thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
------
Gary Carson
On Apr 8 2007 7:43 AM, Sir Benjamin Nunn wrote:
> > don't play poker by the session; you play poker by the year". Or, the one
> > that has busted more players than any other single sentence in poker,
> > "Never quit as long as you are a favorite."
>
>
If you go busted playing as a favorite then you aren't a favorite. Playing
underbankrolled is not playing as a favorite.
If you have $1 and I have a million, and we flip a biased coin for $1 flip,
biased in your favor 51/49 then you have a postive EV but you're almost certain
to go busted. There's more to having the best of it than EV.
I recommend my blog, www.mathandpoker.com , to The Mick.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Gary Carson
On Apr 8 2007 9:43 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> On Apr 8, 1:02 am, "Paul Popinjay" wrote:
> > "Irish Mike" wrote in message
> >
> > news:YgWRh.3163$H_5....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> >
> > He hit the rail broke in less than two hours. Now I'm
> >
> > > not saying he's a bad player . I am saying he's a bad money manager.
> > > First, he sat in a jammed-up game without the bankroll to handle the
> > > swings. Second, he gambled more of his bankroll than he could afford.
> > > Third, he didn't lock up his win and fourth, he didn't set a loss limit.
> >
> > Ok. I didn't have the patience earlier to try to read this monstrocity. So
> > I'm trying to wade through it now.
> >
> > Anyway, what's THIS shit? What is this shit about "he didn't lock up his
> > win"?
> >
> > I know goddam well Irish Mike will not respond to MY asking him this. But
> > any of you Irish Mike groupies out there, please ask Mike what the FUCK he's
> > talking about by "locking up his win". Does Mike have a 'secret formula'
> > for calculating when this friend of his should have "locked up his win"?
> > I'd love to know that formula. Please, somebody ask Irish Mike to explain
> > THAT!
>
> It's really easy. You simply get a CD of your game and watch it. After
> you watch it, you go back to the point where you were furthest ahead
> and quit at that point. I don't know if that is what Irish Mike means
> by it but it's pretty much the standard my gf Joan wanted me to follow
> back when I lived with her. If I won $200, she was happy but I better
> never mention that I was ever ahead by more. Actually, I bet Mike
> doesn't mean it quite as insanely as Joan did.
I used to rathole from her, telling her I won $200 when I really won $400. That
way I could go to the rathole those nights I didn't want to talk about it.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
On Apr 8 2007 11:34 AM, pokerchimp wrote:
> >
> > I know goddam well Irish Mike will not respond to MY asking him this. But
> > any of you Irish Mike groupies out there, please ask Mike what the FUCK he's
> >
> > talking about by "locking up his win". Does Mike have a 'secret formula'
> > for calculating when this friend of his should have "locked up his win"?
> > I'd love to know that formula. Please, somebody ask Irish Mike to explain
> > THAT!
> >
> > -Paul Popinjay
>
> I thought he explained it pretty clearly. Obviously you are a mental
> midget.
>
Here's how you do it.
You have to have good records of your history, if you don't have good records
just start with the norm of 1 big bet per hour.
Estimate your expected win from a session.
If you reach that point at some time in the session, then stop.
Of course doing that will reduce your expected win form a session (if you don't
understand why you need to be a regular reader at
http://www.mathandpoker.com/). So, just re-estimate the expected win before
each session based on your most recent history.
This works well for MIck because he has a hefty retirement income.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
pokerchimp
u really are a dolt if u don't know who this is
thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
----
pokerchimp
if you are a grinder and you are living off your bankroll, I think there
is merit to locking up a win. mike said if he was up $1000 at 10-20 and
lost back $300, he would lock up the $700 win. It depends what your
objective is in playing poker, as well as how u feel (alert, tired, A
game?). So what the game is good? There are good games all over the
place. I pretty much followed his line of thinking and it worked for me
for seveal years. I think it will evntually work for me again. For you,
this is obviusly not advice you would apply. I don't think you play for a
living Paul (I'm not sure but I think you are a biz owner of some sort).
You may not even play everyday, so if the game seems juicy to you and you
feel you can beat it, you'll keep playing. To some mike's advice is
golden. Not all players are the same. Not all play for the same reasons.
thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
----
Chris in Texas
On Apr 8 2007 8:18 AM, da pickle wrote:
> "zimi87"
>
> All your base are belong to us.
Thanks for the Easter morning laugh, Pickle. I was thinking the same thing but
my planned response wasn't as funny.
Chris
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
Will in New Haven
> On Apr 8 2007 3:50 AM, Paul Popinjay wrote
<snipped liberally, because the chimp NEVER snips>
>
> if you are a grinder and you are living off your bankroll, I think there
> is merit to locking up a win. mike said if he was up $1000 at 10-20 and
> lost back $300, he would lock up the $700 win.
He says it as an absolute, as if there were no other factors.
It depends what your
> objective is in playing poker, as well as how u feel (alert, tired, A
> game?).
Yes, THOSE other factors. If you bring them into the mix, it makes
sense. If not, it doesn't. As long as you are going to hand X+1
SOMETIME, there is no sense quitting after hand X to lock up a session
win of whatever size. If you are tired, then there is a reason. If you
aren't playing your A game, there is a reason. If the lineup has
changed and you don't like the new lineup, there is a reason. Winning
a thousand and then losing three hundred is NOT a reason.
How you are doing, winning or losing, IS a powerful indicator of how
you are playing and a powerful indicator of whether you are in a good
game. If a player isn't experienced, it might be the best, even the
only, indicator and, no matter how arrogant we get, it is always a
good indicator. In a game where you have won a grand at those stakes,
you are very likely playing well against a suitable lineup. I question
that losing three hundred changes that, absent knowing that you are
now playing sloppy or the kind of lineup change that sets off alarms.
I don't say that you shouldn't CONSIDER calling it a day, because
there might be a reason to do so. I just don't think you should
automatically do that.
>So what the game is good? There are good games all over the place.
Not really. Maybe if you play online but there are often only mediocre
games and the lists are long in casinos all across the country.
>I pretty much followed his line of thinking and it worked for me
> for seveal years. I think it will evntually work for me again. For you,
> this is obviusly not advice you would apply. I don't think you play for a
> living Paul (I'm not sure but I think you are a biz owner of some sort).
> You may not even play everyday, so if the game seems juicy to you and you
> feel you can beat it, you'll keep playing. To some mike's advice is
> golden. Not all players are the same. Not all play for the same reasons.
His advice is best for players who have no other indicator of whether
they are in a good situation than their results. That is a huge number
of players and how we are doing IS an important indicator. However,
people who can't get beyond that are not analyzing their game very
well. His advice is very bad for someone who is trying to make a
living at the game because it encourages that player to depend on his
or her results as the only indicator of the suitability of the game
and how she is playing. It is ok advice for beginners.
Will in New Haven
--
"Never try to outstubborn a cat." - Robert Heinlein
"I am not stubborn, Mr. Heinlein, I am just in charge." - Feather
da pickle
>> All your base are belong to us.
>
> Thanks for the Easter morning laugh, Pickle. I was thinking the same thing
> but
> my planned response wasn't as funny.
I could not help myself. Gary had one of the best clips:
"Those who criticize this article are better to write his own better than
this."
Wow!
da pickle
> No, I don't think it is what Mike said. He advocates 'giving a certain
> amount back' and then leaving the game as strategy, not as a psychological
> tool.
I guess we read it different ways ... which is not surprising ... Mike is
not the most gifted writer. I don't think he "advocates" giving any of it
back ... I think he is saying that if you get up some ... decide whether you
will quit at some point if your variance moves downward. This is very
psychological. He does not explain whether he reorients his "stop loss"
should his win increase even more (i.e. if he moves from $1000 up to $1200
up, does his stop loss move from $700 to $900 or some other number) ... I
suspect, if he thought about it, it would ... or should. The idea is NOT
that he advocates giving any back, he is saying do not give it all back.
Many part time pros don't really have anything else to do but play poker.
Many have additions to -EV table games. There are psychological problems
infecting so many "poker players" that are not addressed here in this thread
nor should they be, but they are still important. Some folks want to make
$100 a day and will quite their game as soon as they make their $100. That
is their desire ... that is there reason for playing. I don't like that
idea, but that is their goal.
Some folks would "like" to lock up a win at $1000, whenever it happens, but
when they get to $1000, they don't leave at all ... they have no place to
go. People without lives do stupid stuff all the time ... so do other
people. So do we all.
> He will 'lock up his win' after dropping a certain amount back and
> then return the next day. But (supposing he sits down with the same
> players the next day) the next hand he plays in the new session is the
> same as if he had stayed the night before. There's no difference in the
> game. The only difference is in HIS head. IOW, I think his advice is
> results oriented and that's a bad thing.
Again, I think he means that if he gets up $1000 and he sets his sights on
winning at least $700 and he thinks he will be psychologically "hurt" if he
loses more than $300 of his $1000 ... then he is following his goals very
good if he leaves if he "loses" that $300. Someone else might be able to
overcome the potential psychological damage with "other" considerations
(such as this is a great game and I might make $2500 or more from this
group) ... but if you don't have the psychological feeling that Mike has,
you are not even thinking the same way ... so, if you wind up $500 in the
hole instead of $700 ahead and you are happy with the idea that even though
you did not make that $2500, you'll do better tomorrow ... then that is YOU
and that is not the type of person Mike is talking about.
There is no difference in the game ... it is all in your head ... or rather,
his head.
I admit that I do not like to leave a game a loser. I admit that if I get
ahead in a game, I usually think that I am playing well, making good
observations and decisions, and I can make even more. If "things" go BAD,
whatever that means, and I lose everything I won and more, I do not like
that much at all. It has a psychological effect on me. I admit that often
I play for a specific time period rather than because the game is good or
bad. There is a lot wrong with my poker strategy ... the idea that I should
quit while I am ahead does have a certain ring to it.
Gary Carson
On Apr 8 2007 11:17 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
a
> living at the game because it encourages that player to depend on his
> or her results as the only indicator of the suitability of the game
> and how she is playing. It is ok advice for beginners.
>
I think it's terrible advice for beginners. It's a suggestion that they learn
to focus on all the wrong things.
Whether you're winning or losing doesn't matter one whit. It's how you won or
lost that matters.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
guy
On Apr 7 2007 4:00 PM, Irish Mike wrote:
> Poker tip #4 of 4.
>
>
Irish Mike: Thank you for the posts. I appreciate anyone who is willing to put
his toughts out there for public scrutiny.
Too often, many people on these boards have little to offer, but are quick
to criticize the efforts of others.
Thanks, again.
May you NEVER "seven-out,"...*guy...
Paul Popinjay
news:1176058014$977...@recpoker.com...
>
> Irish Mike: Thank you for the posts. I appreciate anyone who is willing to
> put his toughts out there for public scrutiny.
>
> Too often, many people on these boards have little to offer, but are quick
> to criticize the efforts of others.
>
> Thanks, again.
>
Others have had plenty to offer. We offer our criticism. Nobody is trying
to jam it up Irish Mike's ass for his effort. Not one single person here
has not complemented Mike for his effort. But if he's wrong about
something, it's going to get corrected. And in this case, in this thread,
the criticizing posts were BETTER than Mike's advice.
So why don't you people who are having a pity party for poor Irish Mike just
shut the fuck up. He's a big boy. He's supposed to be able to handle the
criticism. And it has been GOOD criticism. Quit whining for Mike.
-Paul Popinjay
Gary Carson
On Apr 8 2007 2:07 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
> So why don't you people who are having a pity party for poor Irish Mike just
> shut the fuck up. He's a big boy. He's supposed to be able to handle the
> criticism. And it has been GOOD criticism. Quit whining for Mike.
>
> -Paul Popinjay
It would have been better criticism if Mick had responded.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
pokerchimp
Oh shit. I agree with Paul. It has been good criticism and i don't hear
Mike whining. I have started to participate more in the poker threads.
When I have people like gary and Will and some others suggesting that my
thinking is incorrect, it certainly helps my game a lot more than it hurts
it. When it comes to poker, especially hold em, I know my game is not the
best, and even if I thought it was, there is always room for improvement.
I just think it's great to have threads that talk about poker.
thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
_______________________________________________________________________
Will in New Haven
> On Apr 8 2007 3:07 PM, Paul Popinjay wrote:
>
>
>
> >news:1176058014$977...@recpoker.com...
>
> > > Irish Mike: Thank you for the posts. I appreciate anyone who is willing to
> > > put his toughts out there for public scrutiny.
>
> > > Too often, many people on these boards have little to offer, but are quick
> > > to criticize the efforts of others.
>
> > > Thanks, again.
>
> > Others have had plenty to offer. We offer our criticism. Nobody is trying
> > to jam it up Irish Mike's ass for his effort. Not one single person here
> > has not complemented Mike for his effort. But if he's wrong about
> > something, it's going to get corrected. And in this case, in this thread,
> > the criticizing posts were BETTER than Mike's advice.
>
> > So why don't you people who are having a pity party for poor Irish Mike just
> > shut the fuck up. He's a big boy. He's supposed to be able to handle the
> > criticism. And it has been GOOD criticism. Quit whining for Mike.
>
> > -Paul Popinjay
>
> Oh shit. I agree with Paul. It has been good criticism and i don't hear
> Mike whining. I have started to participate more in the poker threads.
> When I have people like gary and Will and some others suggesting that my
> thinking is incorrect, it certainly helps my game a lot more than it hurts
> it. When it comes to poker, especially hold em, I know my game is not the
> best, and even if I thought it was, there is always room for improvement.
> I just think it's great to have threads that talk about poker.
It has been a very good thread and mike is to be commended for
starting it. Note that I didn't say "condemned." Much of what he has
said is generally correct and is intended to be helpful.
One thing I THOUGHT he was going to say follows on the theme that he
brought up "There's a difference between winning money and having
money." That is an important fact that should be hammered repeatedly.
However, at-the-table money management is not the whole battle, far
from it.
One thing that many of the top players have done in recent years is
diversify. They don't put all of their winnings into their poker
bankroll. They take out insurance against fate in the form of other
investments. Even though I am not a pro, I decided to follow that
example when I put a large fraction of my poker bankroll into this
condo. It isn't an income-producer but now, no matter what kind of
flush-chasing donkey I become in my senility, I have a place to live.
Will in New Haven
--
"The difference between food and beer is that beer
has some food value, while food has no beer value"
- Linda the waitress
jimpepper
> Oh shit. I agree with Paul. It has been good criticism and i don't hear
> Mike whining. I have started to participate more in the poker threads.
> When I have people like gary and Will and some others suggesting that my
> thinking is incorrect, it certainly helps my game a lot more than it hurts
> it. When it comes to poker, especially hold em, I know my game is not the
> best, and even if I thought it was, there is always room for improvement.
> I just think it's great to have threads that talk about poker.
>
> thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
When I used to post more, I always wanted constructive criticism, as that was
the only way to learn anything.
Maybe Mike thinks he knows all he needs to !..? If so,that is a flaw in his
game.
So I think for this reason, he needs to answer his critics.
But I don't think this is the reason he hasn't answered yet.
I think he is waiting, sizing up his opponents a bit before he does.
I think he will eventually answer as I think he is a winning/continually
learning player.
He did get some good threads going, and for that,( I agree with Will)
he should be commended.
I still get more out of the replies, but the back and forth stuff really gets
you thinking about your own game.
jim
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Deadmoney Walking
I think he focuses the attention on the practical over the
theoretical. Too often I say "I will play as long as the game is
good. I play the same whether I am winning or losing." Of course in
real life, that doesn't happen.
Knowledge of one's own limitations can be a good thing.
> I admit that I do not like to leave a game a loser. I admit that if I get
> ahead in a game, I usually think that I am playing well, making good
> observations and decisions, and I can make even more. If "things" go BAD,
> whatever that means, and I lose everything I won and more, I do not like
> that much at all. It has a psychological effect on me. I admit that often
> I play for a specific time period rather than because the game is good or
> bad. There is a lot wrong with my poker strategy ... the idea that I should
> quit while I am ahead does have a certain ring to it.
Sounds like it might work for you just fine.
Paul Popinjay
>
> I think he focuses the attention on the practical over the
> theoretical. Too often I say "I will play as long as the game is
> good. I play the same whether I am winning or losing." Of course in
> real life, that doesn't happen.
>
I don't play the "same whether I am winning or losing". And I certainly
haven't advocated that.
You certainly SHOULD play differently when winning or losing.
-Paul Popinjay
da pickle
> You certainly SHOULD play differently when winning or losing.
I am capable of different play every hand.
Paul Popinjay
news:rKKdnfXU1rT...@giganews.com...
> "Paul Popinjay"
>
>> You certainly SHOULD play differently when winning or losing.
>
> I am capable of different play every hand.
>
1st gear and 3rd gear. No 2nd gear, but constant shifting in and out
between 1st and 3rd. Of course, if you're getting pounded, then it's
usually best to spend a lot of time in 1st gear, either that or leave the
game for greener pasteurs.
-Paul Popinjay
bjgka...@aol.com
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
<snip>
> One thing that many of the top players have done in recent years is
> diversify. They don't put all of their winnings into their poker
> bankroll. They take out insurance against fate in the form of other
> investments. Even though I am not a pro, I decided to follow that
> example when I put a large fraction of my poker bankroll into this
> condo. It isn't an income-producer but now, no matter what kind of
> flush-chasing donkey I become in my senility, I have a place to live.
>
> Will in New Haven
Good advice, Will. Several years ago, I started an on-line business.
After a few years, I sold out and went to work at the Bike for 2
years.
Doing this helped me to accumulate enough to pay for land and a house
in North Carolina where my son lives. I'm probably going to rent it
out until I decide to go there to live. This will give me additional
income until then.
Knowing I'll have a roof over my head no matter what is a great
feeling, especially considering how reckless I lived during my middle
years. Meanwhile, I'm living and playing poker here in the Los Angeles
area and having a great time.
My advice to young people is don't follow my example. Finish school,
get a job, and play poker for extra income. Of course, I know you
won't all do that, because I see young people every day at the tables
here. Good luck, kids, you're going to need it.
Barbara Gallamore.
>
> --
>
> "The difference between food and beer is that beer
> has some food value, while food has no beer value"
> - Linda the waitress
>
>
>
>
>
> > thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
>
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Batman
seen all this before, and there's nothing new here....
Mike
On Apr 7, 6:06 pm, Bill Vanek <bilva...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 20:01:09 -0400, "Irish Mike"
>
> <mjos...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> >There's no rocket science in poker money management. So why
> >do so many other-wise smart players do such a lousy job of it?
>
> Yeah, if only Moss & Ungar had a mid-limit pro like Irish Mike sharing
> his wisdom with them.
>
> > How many times have you heard a player say, "Damn, I should have
> >quit when I was ahead?" Or, "Man, I was up $600 and now I'm stuck $500".
>
> It's funny you'd ask. I've never heard a "mid-limit pro" say those
> words. Not once. But I've heard every fish I've ever known say them.
>
> >Thank you for allowing me to share these four poker tips. I hope you found
> >something of value in them.
>
> Well, gosh yes, Mike. The only thing is, I found something of value in
> the legitimate ones about 20 years ago when the likes of Caro put them
> in their gambling books as the most basic of advice. Nice job of
> copying, though.
Will in New Haven
Well, MAKE it happen. Don't, "of course," me. You can do it and
adjusting to your own character flaws is not the way to fight them.
Will, being judgmental, in New Haven
--
>
> Knowledge of one's own limitations can be a good thing.
>
> > I admit that I do not like to leave a game a loser. I admit that if I get
> > ahead in a game, I usually think that I am playing well, making good
> > observations and decisions, and I can make even more. If "things" go BAD,
> > whatever that means, and I lose everything I won and more, I do not like
> > that much at all. It has a psychological effect on me. I admit that often
> > I play for a specific time period rather than because the game is good or
> > bad. There is a lot wrong with my poker strategy ... the idea that I should
> > quit while I am ahead does have a certain ring to it.
>
> Sounds like it might work for you just fine.- Hide quoted text -
John_Brian_K
used someone to knock me in the head when I sat for 15 hours this
weekend at the 5-10LHE table and proceeded to lose 540.00 and win a
TOTAL of 3 pots the whole weekend!!! lol HOLY SHIT talk about card
dead.
Seriously though good advise Mike and while it may seem basic it is
very important to manage your money. You gave good examples and i am
sure there are others who have a different mindset on it, but your
advise is well intentioned and seems reasonable to me.
Gary Carson
I was living in Cleveland, Texas, about 2 hours from Lake Charles, LA. They had
gambling in Louisisana, but not poker. My girlfriends son came back from a
weekend trip to Lake Charles and tole me they had a poker room now.
I was broke. I mean really broke. I cashed a $100 hot check at the grocery
store and drove to Lake Charles. Player's Casino had two boats. I got on the
one that was on the dock and bought into a 3/6 game. I won a little. It was a
Friday and about nighttime they made the game a 3/6/12. I won a little more.
Then somebody told me that the other boat had a room that spread bigger games.
I moved to the other boat (they alternated sailing and there was about a 10
minute window every 2 hours where you could change boats). I got in a 10/20/40
game and won a little. About midnight we changed the game to 20/40.
At one point I was up to about $2,000. Then I got stuck a little. Then I got
involved in a really jammed up pot, and got all but my last $50 into the pot
with multiway action with a flush draw and a gutshot and two overcards. Heart
draw and a ten for a straight. The river was a 10h, I bet out and got 3-4
callers on the river, drug about a $1,900 pot.
I was exhausted, to tired to drive the two hours to get home. Went across the
street and rented a motel room, came back Saturday, played all night, won $8,000
that weekend. Made a bank deposit Monday morning that covered the check.
I wonder how Irish Mike would have done?
On Apr 9 2007 8:01 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> On Apr 8, 8:18 pm, "Deadmoney Walking" wrote:
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> I've told this story here before but I'll tell it again.
>
> I was living in Cleveland, Texas, about 2 hours from Lake Charles, LA. They had
> gambling in Louisisana, but not poker. My girlfriends son came back from a
> weekend trip to Lake Charles and tole me they had a poker room now.
>
> I was broke. I mean really broke. I cashed a $100 hot check at the grocery
> store and drove to Lake Charles. Player's Casino had two boats. I got on the
> one that was on the dock and bought into a 3/6 game. I won a little. It was a
> Friday and about nighttime they made the game a 3/6/12. I won a little more.
> Then somebody told me that the other boat had a room that spread bigger games.
> I moved to the other boat (they alternated sailing and there was about a 10
> minute window every 2 hours where you could change boats). I got in a 10/20/40
> game and won a little. About midnight we changed the game to 20/40.
>
> At one point I was up to about $2,000. Then I got stuck a little. Then I got
> involved in a really jammed up pot, and got all but my last $50 into the pot
> with multiway action with a flush draw and a gutshot and two overcards. Heart
> draw and a ten for a straight. The river was a 10h, I bet out and got 3-4
> callers on the river, drug about a $1,900 pot.
>
> I was exhausted, to tired to drive the two hours to get home. Went across the
> street and rented a motel room, came back Saturday, played all night, won $8,000
> that weekend. Made a bank deposit Monday morning that covered the check.
>
> I wonder how Irish Mike would have done?
>
He'd say that he would never be in that situation. Maybe he would be
right. I know I could have avoided a similar situation by just not
paying a big honking medical bill when my employer went a few months
without paying the insurance. I could have just told them to fuck off
and, because they really couldn't do much about it, paid my rent and
all my other bills instead and stayed solvent. But I paid them and
left myself with about $200 and went up to Foxwoods and won my rent,
etc out of the damn $5/10 stud game. It was my first casino poker and
the first serious poker I played after our regular games in New Haven
dried up in the early Nineties. Yeah, it was stupid planning but it
was really NO planning.
Will in New Haven
Howard Beale
Exactly.
HB
-------
Deadmoney Walking
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well you don't want to be 'results oriented' right? Because he is, he
wouldn't see the brilliant plans you 2 executed.
Irish Mike
would have done in that situation; I don't know. But I hope that I wouldn't
have put myself in a position to have to write a "hot" $100 check in the
first place. It kind of goes back to that "discipline in how you manage
your money" stuff.
Irish Mike
"Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:cedqe4x...@recgroups.com...
Will in New Haven
> On Apr 7, 9:43 pm, "Paul Popinjay" <popin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "Gary Carson" <garycar...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
>
> >news:1175998818$977...@recpoker.com...
>
> > > It's amazing how tightly wrapped this guy is. He's found 4 different ways
> > > to say "be disciplined, keep your eye on the goal".
>
> > > There's no way anybody this tightly wrapped could play a game with 4
> > > maniacs and survive.
>
> > Post of the WEEK! No, of the MONTH!
>
> > -Paul Popinjay
>
> It's a shame both you and Gary read posts through your political
> viewpoint. Try to forget for a moment the guys political bent.
>
> --
> ML
It would be rather hard to find two people more unlikely to agree on
anything political than Gary and Paul. For that matter, I don't have
that much in common with either of them. None of us found Mike's tips
that compelling. Not that the general direction of each tip was far
off but he made statements we, each of us on our own, found incorrect
and chose to criticize.
Will in New Haven
> First, congratulations on your win. Second, as to your question about how I
> would have done in that situation; I don't know. But I hope that I wouldn't
> have put myself in a position to have to write a "hot" $100 check in the
> first place. It kind of goes back to that "discipline in how you manage
> your money" stuff.
While I disagreed on many of your at-the-table points, your statement
"In poker there's a big difference between winning money and having
money" was a real winner. I don't know whether Gary could have avoided
getting into that situation, but I do know that I could have avoided
getting into a similar situation and having to play poker for money I
couldn't afford not to win. Not "couldn't afford to lose," I have
never done that, but "couldn't afford not to win."
This reminds me of Steve Badger's remark that many poker questions he
gets resemble "How do I find my car keys after I threw them out the
front door in the middle of the night" where the only answer is "Don't
DO that."
In general, I think your tips are intersting and start good
discussions. The devil, however, is in the details.
Will in New Haven
--
>
> Irish Mike
>
> "Howard Beale" <a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:cedqe4x...@recgroups.com...
>
>
>
> >> I wonder how Irish Mike would have done?
>
> > Exactly.
>
> > HB
>
> > -------
> > * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted text -
Gary Carson
On Apr 9 2007 12:41 PM, Deadmoney Walking wrote:
> On Apr 9, 12:22 pm, "Will in New Haven"
> wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 11:54 am, Gary Carson
I always liked the way a friend of mine in Austin used to say -- I don't play
poker when I have money, I play poker when I need money.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
I always liked what one friend of mine used to say when he was asked
why he didn't work more steadily.
"You think I should stick a gun in man's face and make him give me the
money out of the till when I don't NEED it? That would be mean."
Will in New Haven
--
>
> Gary Carsonhttp://www.garycarson.com
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Your Online Poker Community -http://www.recpoker.com- Hide quoted text -
Gary Carson
On Apr 9 2007 1:30 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> On Apr 9, 1:52 pm, "Irish Mike" wrote:
> > First, congratulations on your win. Second, as to your question about how I
> > would have done in that situation; I don't know. But I hope that I wouldn't
> > have put myself in a position to have to write a "hot" $100 check in the
> > first place. It kind of goes back to that "discipline in how you manage
> > your money" stuff.
>
> While I disagreed on many of your at-the-table points, your statement
> "In poker there's a big difference between winning money and having
> money" was a real winner. I don't know whether Gary could have avoided
> getting into that situation,
Yes, I could have. But I didn't.
In the previous year I'd been homeless for about 6 months, in Austin. Even
though I owned a house in Cleveland, Texas I was homeless in Austin, Texas.
That's what happens when you get depressed, quit your job, and sit and stare at
the wall for a couple of months. A few months after that win in Lake Charles I
started taking medication for depression for the first time in my life.
but I do know that I could have avoided
> getting into a similar situation and having to play poker for money I
> couldn't afford not to win. Not "couldn't afford to lose," I have
> never done that, but "couldn't afford not to win."
The thing was I could have afforded to lose. I had a TV I could have hocked to
cover the check. I could have even sold the house. But, like you say, I
couldn't afford to not win.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
On Apr 9 2007 12:50 PM, ML wrote:
> On Apr 7, 9:43 pm, "Paul Popinjay" wrote:
> > "Gary Carson" wrote in message
> >
> > news:1175998818$977...@recpoker.com...
> >
> > > It's amazing how tightly wrapped this guy is. He's found 4 different ways
> > > to say "be disciplined, keep your eye on the goal".
> >
> > > There's no way anybody this tightly wrapped could play a game with 4
> > > maniacs and survive.
> >
> > Post of the WEEK! No, of the MONTH!
> >
> > -Paul Popinjay
>
>
> It's a shame both you and Gary read posts through your political
> viewpoint. Try to forget for a moment the guys political bent.
>
> --
I didn't say anything about his politics.
Liberal nutcases can be just as tightly wrapped and judgemental as Mick is.
Maybe you should forget the guys political bent and just look at the kind of
person he is.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
cappeca
>
> I always liked the way a friend of mine in Austin used to say -- I don't play
> poker when I have money, I play poker when I need money.
>
>
And THAT's having no money management at all. Great advice, gambler.
bjgka...@aol.com
wrote:
> On Apr 9 2007 12:50 PM, ML wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 7, 9:43 pm, "Paul Popinjay" wrote:
> > > "Gary Carson" wrote in message
>
> > >news:1175998818$977...@recpoker.com...
>
> > > > It's amazing how tightly wrapped this guy is. He's found 4 different ways
> > > > to say "be disciplined, keep your eye on the goal".
>
> > > > There's no way anybody this tightly wrapped could play a game with 4
> > > > maniacs and survive.
>
> > > Post of the WEEK! No, of the MONTH!
>
> > > -Paul Popinjay
>
> > It's a shame both you and Gary read posts through your political
> > viewpoint. Try to forget for a moment the guys political bent.
>
> > --
>
> I didn't say anything about his politics.
>
> Liberal nutcases can be just as tightly wrapped and judgemental as Mick is.
>
> Maybe you should forget the guys political bent and just look at the kind of
> person he is.
>
> Gary Carsonhttp://www.garycarson.com
Agreed. "Irish" Mike reveals more of his character in his posts than
he realizes. When I read how he still studies poker books an hour a
day before he plays and carries a laminated card with odds posted on
it, I was amazed. How could a player who's logged many years playing
poker need this sort of reinforcement? How could proper play not be
instinctive by now? Besides, every poker game is unique. The correct
play is determined by the lineup and has to be adjusted constantly
when players change.
His approach to playing poker tells me he's rigid, unimaginative, and
not very bright. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
Barbara Gallamore
Paul Popinjay
news:1176141031.1...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> It's a shame both you and Gary read posts through your political
> viewpoint. Try to forget for a moment the guys political bent.
>
> --
> ML
>
Maybe YOU should try to forget political bent for a moment. I think we both
had legitimate criticism of Mike's advice, and I don't think I mentioned
even ONCE that he is a hypocrite who supports Irish terrorists who
assassinate policemen and blow people up, if that's what you're implying.
So it is YOUR lack of objectivity that is causing you to see my criticism of
Mike's poker advice as anything other than what it was.
-Paul Popinjay
Gary Carson
On Apr 8 2007 11:50 AM, pokerchimp wrote:
> if you are a grinder and you are living off your bankroll, I think there
> is merit to locking up a win.
No, there isn't There's merit in getting a job.
Unless you are hugely over-bankrolled for the level you play, then if you aren't
actually growing your bankroll you have a very good chance of going busted. If
you're living off your bankroll you have no chance of survival at all.
Locking up a win puts a cap on your win per session, which is more important for
covering living expense than win per hour. That reduces your income.
A reduction in income creates more risk than the reduction in risk from locking
up a win.
mike said if he was up $1000 at 10-20 and
> lost back $300, he would lock up the $700 win. It depends what your
> objective is in playing poker, as well as how u feel (alert, tired, A
> game?). So what the game is good? There are good games all over the
> place.
So you're going to leave this game to move to another game? Mick plays limit,
what is the point of rat-holing in a limit game?
>I pretty much followed his line of thinking and it worked for me
> for seveal years. I think it will evntually work for me again.
In no limit games it does but simply because if you have a big win and are
playing on the edge you have too large a percent of your bankroll on the table.
If you have $1000 and buy in into a small NL game for $50 then you're putting 5%
at risk, if you double up twice you have 17% of your bankroll on the table,
which is too much, you need to leave and re-buy for $50 in another game.
But if you're in a 20/40 game with $2,000 on the table you don't have any more
money at risk than if you have $500 on the table.
For Mick, who claims to have a large bankroll, the whole thing is complete
nonsense.
>For you,
> this is obviusly not advice you would apply. I don't think you play for a
> living Paul (I'm not sure but I think you are a biz owner of some sort).
> You may not even play everyday, so if the game seems juicy to you and you
> feel you can beat it, you'll keep playing. To some mike's advice is
> golden. Not all players are the same. Not all play for the same reasons.
Paul makes a good living providing small mammals to drug testing companies, but
that doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about regarding playing
poker for a living.
smoothcortex
described as a Donkfest populated by callingstations and uber-maniacs
- and the flops are hitting me like never before . I make an Easter
bonus of $1050 in 7 hours ( i.e. 15 BB/hr !!! ) .
Problem is , I was feeling tired at 5 hours and +$590 . So this was
when I should have "locked it up" ?
Paul Popinjay
news:1176048364$977...@recpoker.com...
>
>
> Paul makes a good living providing small mammals to drug testing
> companies,
Ha! Very funny, wiseguy. Very fucking funny. :-)
Peg Smith
> mike said if he was up $1000 at 10-20 and
>> lost back $300, he would lock up the $700 win. It depends what your
>> objective is in playing poker, as well as how u feel (alert, tired, A
>> game?). So what the game is good? There are good games all over the
>> place.
>
>So you're going to leave this game to move to another game?
Perhaps she thinks it actually makes a difference whether or not she
takes her next hand in five days instead of five seconds. It doesn't,
of course, which is why this whole "locking up a win" discussion is
nonsense for limit players. As you said, all it does is put a cap on
your winnings.
Peg
Peg Smith
Perhaps, yes. It depends on just how much your judgment deteriorates
when you're tired. Your extra winnings may have been just horseshit
luck.
You're being very results oriented. If you knew you weren't going to
play well, yes, you should have left.
Peg
Howard Beale
The only thing I can support about locking up a win is for people who will
start to play scared when they become afraid of losing some part of the
(what is to them) satisfying win that they are sitting on. If a player is
subject to that influence, if it will throw him off his game, then he
should leave. I will admit that it sometimes happens to me as much as I
try to fight it. If I ever get to the point where I start to think that I
don't want to lose what I've won I leave right away because it means my
head isn't in the right place anymore.
HB
------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
da pickle
> The only thing I can support about locking up a win is for people who will
> start to play scared when they become afraid of losing some part of the
> (what is to them) satisfying win that they are sitting on. If a player is
> subject to that influence, if it will throw him off his game, then he
> should leave. I will admit that it sometimes happens to me as much as I
> try to fight it. If I ever get to the point where I start to think that I
> don't want to lose what I've won I leave right away because it means my
> head isn't in the right place anymore.
People skills is important in poker. Reading others is very important.
Reading yourself is also important. Is there a poker player so skilled that
he/she has never had a small voice inside say "do you think it's time to
leave?" Sure, there are many "other" considerations other than "I am way up
for my normal game" ... but being "up" is not an insignificant consideration
for many (most?) players.
da pickle
This is the crux, Peg, and you are correct. It depends. If you are "up"
and you are playing your A game and then "things change" and you begin to
feel tired and you feel your judgment is clouding your A game ... it could
be time to go. (And even if you shouldn't let it affect you, if you hear
the voice say "you are going to lose all this money that you have won, you
donkey" and you have not yet reached the stage of your poker career that
lets you ignore that voice or let that voice influence your play, you should
consider leaving as well.)
Some folks (perhaps many folks) that are pretty good poker players (maybe
not the best or even better than folks here ... but pretty good when
compared to those they play with) ... anyway, those folks "really" are
affected when they have a good day, play well, get ahead and then "lose it
all back" ... they sometimes lose it all back because they got "scared"
about protecting their win ... they sometimes lose it back because of bad
beats that they should shrug off because they played correctly and it was
just a bad beat ... to them, however, they still "lost it all back" ... they
have not learned to shrug off that "feeling" ... for those people, "locking
up a win" has psychological value that is just as important to them as
"optimum play" might be to someone else.
People are different. What is "important" to them is different. What
affects them is different. I think there are many people that might
"profit" by "locking up a win" from time to time. It is not the only thing
to consider, but for some, it might be something to consider.
Deadmoney Walking
The Pickle speaks the truth.
For a lot of us, poker is about winning. (see Tip#1). For us, the
benefit to morale and pride over preserving a small win is greater
than what we get from embiggening the win size.
Will in New Haven
If your goal is long-term money-making, this attitude is a flaw. You
can embrace it and enshrine it and even embiggen it, lovely word but
what's wrong with "enlarge," but you can't make it a positive quality.
That's no problem for me but I don't think any set of poker tips
should include it.
It's like the kid who came to me for help with his batting. He said,
after a few minutes, "but I don't LIKE taking pitches." I have been
fairly succesful teaching young people to hit a baseball for forty-
some years. Should I adjust my tips to him because he doesn't like
taking pitches?
Will in New Haven
--
da pickle
> For a lot of us, poker is about winning. (see Tip#1). For us, the
> benefit to morale and pride over preserving a small win is greater
> than what we get from embiggening the win size.
I have added "embiggening" to my spell check dictionary. Nice hand!
da pickle
> If your goal is long-term money-making, this attitude is a flaw.
Back to being honest about your "goal" isn't it.
I am sure most folks that play poker might say that their "goal" is
money-making, but if they are really honest with themselves, that is not
really their goal ... not something that they are really willing to dedicate
themselves to. One could say the same thing about someone who says, "I
really want to lose weight ... my goal is (insert fantasy here)." How about
someone's golf game ... do they really play golf on Saturday morning REALLY
want to be the best golfer they can be?
I still think that for many (maybe most) of us, making money is a false goal
(faux gold) and we are NOT willing to do what it takes to make it a real
goal.
Peg Smith
>If I ever get to the point where I start to think that I
>don't want to lose what I've won I leave right away because it means my
>head isn't in the right place anymore.
But you should always leave the game when your "head isn't in the
right place anymore." Whether or not you're ahead is irrelevant.
Peg
Gary Carson
On Apr 10 2007 12:10 PM, Peg Smith wrote:
>
> But you should always leave the game when your "head isn't in the
> right place anymore." Whether or not you're ahead is irrelevant.
>
Are you nuts.? You might get even the next hand.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Deadmoney Walking
> It's like the kid who came to me for help with his batting. He said,
> after a few minutes, "but I don't LIKE taking pitches." I have been
> fairly succesful teaching young people to hit a baseball for forty-
> some years. Should I adjust my tips to him because he doesn't like
> taking pitches?
>
> Will in New Haven
You could tell him if he doesn't take pitches he will make more
contact but have a lower batting average.
cappeca
How? Explain to me how specifically is one playing a flawed game if
one has a rule of quitting once one looses 30% or more of his maximum
wins for the session? How does one play a bad game in long term by
saving *at least* 70% of his maximum wins of every session?
Susan
"Gary Carson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:1176225385$978...@recpoker.com...
Gary Carson
Thirty percent of your maximum win doesn't even make sense. Before your first
hand your maximum win is zero. What's thirty percent of that?
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Will in New Haven
If you lost back thirty percent of your previous peak, you might be
tired, you might not be playing well or the lineup might have changed.
I would advocate taking a good, long look at your game every once in
awhile and deciding if one of these things are true. This would be
true even if you hadn't lost that money back but especially if you
had. It might be right to quit at this point. It might OFTEN be right
to quit at this point but making it a rule is ignoring the fact that
you can, or should be able to, take these other factors into account.
If you are not tired, still playing well and the lineup is still
favorable, you are in a game where you figure to make money. If you
figure to make money, you should play. How do you KNOW what your
"maximum win" would be in a session? Do you have that CD of your
session we talked about before? Guarding against overconfidence at
this point in a game is important. That is why I think it is important
to consider the important factors of how you are playing and whether
the game has gotten harder to beat. Ignoring all that because of an
arbitrary rule can cost you a big winning session, bigger than your
"maximum win," whatever that is.
Now you tell me. What is so magical about a session that you have to
protect your win? If you are ever going to play the next hand, why not
play it now? That next hand, or fifty hands, is going to count for or
against your bankroll, whether you play it now or later. If you are in
a favorable situation, looked at with ruthless honesty, why would you
leave?
Even more important, why wouldn't you want to learn to evaluate your
game honestly and well, so you could make this decision based on
factors that would affect your ability to win money? Why is it better
to rely on a rule? Don't you trust yourself?
Howard Beale
I meant to say that I leave the game whenever my head isn't in the right
place and worrying about losing some back is one of the indicators and I
stand by what I meant to say. :)
Mark-T
> It's amazing how tightly wrapped this guy is. He's found 4 different
> ways to say "be disciplined, keep your eye on the goal".
>
> There's no way anybody this tightly wrapped could play a game
> with 4 maniacs and survive.
Why?
Mark
Mark-T
> I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
How often do you believe your opionion is wrong?
Mark
Mark-T
> > Paul makes a good living providing small mammals to drug testing
> > companies,
>
> Ha! Very funny, wiseguy. Very fucking funny. :-)
Stray cats... to perfume manufacturers?
Mark
Mark-T
> Poker tip #4 of 4.
>
> In poker there's a big difference between winning
> money and having money. Poker players and bad money
> management are a well established combination.
Here's my strategy, which never fails:
Play cautiously, wait out the losing streaks
until the cards are running your way, then get
aggressive and build up your bankroll. Then
you can really go crazy, because you're playing
with other people's money, it's a freeroll.
It's the same strategy I employ for roulette.
Mark
Kenneth Sloan
>...(And even if you shouldn't let it affect you, if you hear
> the voice say "you are going to lose all this money that you have won, you
> donkey" and you have not yet reached the stage of your poker career that
> lets you ignore that voice or let that voice influence your play, you should
> consider leaving as well.)
RULE 0: If you ask the question: "Is it time to leave?", the answer is
always "YES!"
--
Kenneth Sloan Kennet...@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
Kenneth Sloan
>
> It's like the kid who came to me for help with his batting. He said,
> after a few minutes, "but I don't LIKE taking pitches." I have been
> fairly succesful teaching young people to hit a baseball for forty-
> some years. Should I adjust my tips to him because he doesn't like
> taking pitches?
It depends. What is the kid's goal in playing baseball?
Will in New Haven
> Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>
>
> > It's like the kid who came to me for help with his batting. He said,
> > after a few minutes, "but I don't LIKE taking pitches." I have been
> > fairly succesful teaching young people to hit a baseball for forty-
> > some years. Should I adjust my tips to him because he doesn't like
> > taking pitches?
>
> It depends. What is the kid's goal in playing baseball?
That's a fair point. However, if it isn't getting on base, scoring and
driving in runs and helping his team win, why is he coming to me for
tips? I have almost never coached anyone who didn't end up getting on
base a lot and most of them hit the ball hard. If he wants to "just
meet the ball," as many coaches teach kids, and put it in play and
mostly make outs, he can find another coach. I didn't seek him out.
Tips should be about how to do something well.
Will in New Haven
--
>
> --
> Kenneth Sloan KennethRSl...@gmail.com