Lessons learned from playing poker?

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
phillysteve	Lessons learned from playing poker?	Lead	[-]
Posts: 574 (01/31/08 02:13:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Tags : None Lessons learned from playing poker? TOURNAMENT/EVENT DATE PLACE WINNINGS 2006 37th Annual ******** No-Limit Hold'em 07/23/2006 12 $48,503.00 2006 ****** Friday/Saturday No-Limit Hold'em Tournament No-Limit Hold'em 06/17/2006 3 $8,700.00 2005 ****** Friday/Saturday No Limit Hold'em Tournament No-Limit Hold'em 12/31/2005 1 $13,095.00 2005 ******** Friday/Saturday No Limit Hold'em Tournament No-Limit Hold'em 12/17/2005 5 $5,710.00 Here are some stats from a poker player who is now having grave financial problems. Seemingly nice winnings of over $75,000, right? But too much gambling is never enough for an addicted gambler. Wouldn't have mattered if the winnings were over $750,000 or $7,500,000 with an addicted gambler...the gambling would have only escalated to the point of eventually going broke. It is a fact that many, virtually all, of the so-called poker "pros" seen on TV are dead broke and in debt. Just like the above stats, these poker pros had a lucky variance for awhile, sometimes much luckier than the above stats, but sooner or later, with all the tournament entry fees, cuts and rakes, they eventually go broke. Plus after a big win, they get engrossed in the thinking that they are now some sort of superior poker player, blessed with unique skills or at least endless luck...and even if the winning money isn't gambled back right away, it is usually squandered in some manner, and then of course the rest does gets gambled back. That's just the way it is...no exceptions. The poker "pros" seen on TV who aren't broke? That is because they receive income from books, gambling website endorsements and ads, affiliate commission programs, and other ways. It is hoped addicted poker players can read this post and learn from it...and be warned about the realities and consequences of continuing to play poker offered by the gambling industry. Plain and simple - playing online poker or brick & mortar poker is a sucker's game, a game for mugs...the only sharks are the gambling business owners who eventually windup with all the money. Gambling addiction is a tough addiction...arguably the toughest. The solution to the problem? Stop gambling and begin working a good recovery program. YFIR, Steve
phillysteve	more	#1	[-]
Posts: 574 (01/31/08 07:42:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	An important thing to remember about poker and gambling in general - The "variance" which in poker basically is another word for "luck" - a bankroll goes up or down depending on variance but with the gambling house cuts, rakes, etc., a gambler's bankroll is always long term headed in a negative direction which will eventually hit zero - meaning broke. Most gamblers understand this, but most if not all addicted gamblers not in recovery, keep hoping that their next bet, their next hand of poker, their next poker tournament or whatever the gambling activity, could be a good one, a winner, perhaps a big winner - and this type of thinking makes this one tough addiction. My viewpoint since beginning recovery over 5 years ago, and it has been a very successful recovery, is not to blindly look at the possible positives of the next bet, but to clearly look at the definite negatives of the next bet...and the next bet for me will eventually lead to harm and destruction - maybe not this minute, maybe not even this month or year...but eventually that harm and destruction will occur, and it's usually sooner than later, and it's usually very soon if not immediate. My feeling in recovery is that life is hard enough without adding to it a money losing activity of gambling which makes life harder - I don't need that and I don't want that. Gambling truly is a pathetic waste of money, time and life...and wasting one's money, time and life trying to beat online poker or brick & mortar poker, exemplifies that. YFIR, Steve
phatus		#2	[-]
Posts: 1 (03/03/09 06:58:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phillysteve wrote: An important thing to remember about poker and gambling in general - The "variance" which in poker basically is another word for "luck" - a bankroll goes up or down depending on variance but with the gambling house cuts, rakes, etc., a gambler's bankroll is always long term headed in a negative direction which will eventually hit zero - meaning broke. My viewpoint since beginning recovery over 5 years ago, and it has been a very successful recovery, is not to blindly look at the possible positives of the next bet, but to clearly look at the definite negatives of the next bet...and the next bet for me will eventually lead to harm and destruction - maybe not this minute, maybe not even this month or year...but eventually that harm and destruction will occur, and it's usually sooner than later, and it's usually very soon if not immediate. are you for real? You're the worst losing poker player i've ever seen on a forum. Most just moan about how it's fixed. I've never known anyone to write a book about it. The reason your 'next bet' is a definite negative isn't because it's impossible to win at poker. The reason is because you suck at poker plain and simple. The first paragraph in the above quote about variance is just dumb. You're basically saying that all poker players have equal ability at the game therefore they will all lose money because of the rake. This would be true if all players were of equal ability but they're not. Do you seriously believe the player that sits down at a full ring cash table with 100xbb and raises 10xbb with k,q from UTG then calls when someone puts him all in for his stack is better than someone who understands why this is a terrible play? Do you believe both these players are of equal ability? If you do then you were right to quit poker because you obviously don't understand the game. It's a bit sad that you can't just admit you aren't very good at poker. Instead you have to write a book about how poker is fixed. lol just lol.
phillysteve		#3	[-]
Posts: 307 (03/03/09 09:23:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phatus wrote: phillysteve wrote: An important thing to remember about poker and gambling in general - The "variance" which in poker basically is another word for "luck" - a bankroll goes up or down depending on variance but with the gambling house cuts, rakes, etc., a gambler's bankroll is always long term headed in a negative direction which will eventually hit zero - meaning broke. My viewpoint since beginning recovery over 5 years ago, and it has been a very successful recovery, is not to blindly look at the possible positives of the next bet, but to clearly look at the definite negatives of the next bet...and the next bet for me will eventually lead to harm and destruction - maybe not this minute, maybe not even this month or year...but eventually that harm and destruction will occur, and it's usually sooner than later, and it's usually very soon if not immediate. are you for real? You're the worst losing poker player i've ever seen on a forum. Most just moan about how it's fixed. I've never known anyone to write a book about it. The reason your 'next bet' is a definite negative isn't because it's impossible to win at poker. The reason is because you suck at poker plain and simple. The first paragraph in the above quote about variance is just dumb. You're basically saying that all poker players have equal ability at the game therefore they will all lose money because of the rake. This would be true if all players were of equal ability but they're not. Do you seriously believe the player that sits down at a full ring cash table with 100xbb and raises 10xbb with k,q from UTG then calls when someone puts him all in for his stack is better than someone who understands why this is a terrible play? Do you believe both these players are of equal ability? If you do then you were right to quit poker because you obviously don't understand the game. It's a bit sad that you can't just admit you aren't very good at poker. Instead you have to write a book about how poker is fixed. lol just lol. I have clearly stated numerous times that unraked poker is a game of pure skill and the best players make money in the long run - Most poker players already know this. However raked poker turns poker from a skill game into a sucker's game whereby nobody beats the rake. I guestimate that I have played around 500,000 hands of poker in private unraked cash games and I was a long term winner. I have never railed aginst playing poker - it's the "exploitation" from gambling websites that bugs me.
phatus		#4	[-]
Posts: 4 (03/03/09 14:48:30) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	If you click on the below link and type 'skilled_sox' into the search field under pokerstars you will see this player has won over $650,000. How can you explain this? Maybe it's just a case of variance over 20,000 games - lol. http://www.sharkscope.com/
phillysteve		#5	[-]
Posts: 314 (03/03/09 18:28:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phatus wrote: If you click on the below link and type 'skilled_sox' into the search field under pokerstars you will see this player has won over $650,000. How can you explain this? Maybe it's just a case of variance over 20,000 games - lol. http://www.sharkscope.com/ I've already explained these type of things a number of times in other threads. One thing I've never discounted is the possibility that a sophisticated cheating ring or highly intelligent bot could possibly beat raked online poker. When I state "Nobody beats the rake" it is presumed, it is a given, that "nobody" means an honest individual poker player, playing by the rules without cheating - It is so completely crystal clear that this type of player has no chance of beating online poker in the long run, and it really shouldn't even be debatable at this point because it is so obvious after reading the threads throughout this forum, and understanding the game of poker. "Store bought" bots have all proven to be losers, and I personally know some members of poker cheating rings who stated that despite their colluding with other poker players on poker websites, they still couldn't make money against the rake - their bankrolls still always got ground out. But could a very sophisticated highly intelligent cheating ring beat online poker? Could a brilliantly programmed, constantly monitored bot beat online poker? - I'm not sure and I keep an open mind about that. This "winning player" could be anybody. The player may have won this money and lost a million dollars under another poker name meaning the player in total lost $350,000 playing online poker. Maybe it's more clear now that only an audited, documented profit/loss statement could possibly prove this player's overall results. This "winning player" could be a house bot. Could be a player in a chip dumping tournament scheme, etc, etc. The possiblilities are almost endless and it would be very naive to believe these possiblities couldn't exist. Frankly, only a naive gambler or an affiliate commission huckster would take these statistics at face value and believe that it is a certainty the winnings came from an honest individual poker player playing by the rules without cheating, and that this was their only poker name...because the chances of that type of player winning money in the long run is zero.
phatus		#6	[-]
Posts: 5 (03/04/09 04:00:22) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	You're an idiot. There's no point trying to make you understand what you're saying is rubbish. You've obviously lost ALOT of money at poker and can't allow yourself believe that it's because you suck so it must be because poker is unbeatable. If making yourself believe this keeps you from playing a game YOU can't beat then fair enough.
phillysteve		#7	[-]
Posts: 324 (03/04/09 11:21:25) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phatus wrote: You're an idiot. There's no point trying to make you understand what you're saying is rubbish. You've obviously lost ALOT of money at poker and can't allow yourself believe that it's because you suck so it must be because poker is unbeatable. If making yourself believe this keeps you from playing a game YOU can't beat then fair enough. I knew that a name calling response was coming sooner or later. What took you so long? LOL
lolololol		#8	[-]
Posts: 5 (11/17/09 03:35:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	hey stevie, if unraked poker is beatable, that means that for example, a winning player will be making on average $5/hand. Now, if you put in a rake of $3/hand, our winning player now wins at $2/hand but is STILL winning right ? so what do you have to say against that.
lolololol		#9	[-]
Posts: 6 (11/17/09 15:30:14) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Why didn't you answer that one Steve ? hard to come up with an argument against pure, simple math right ?
phillysteve		#10	[-]
Posts: 386 (11/17/09 18:52:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	lolololol wrote: Why didn't you answer that one Steve ? hard to come up with an argument against pure, simple math right ? I've already answered this question a number of times in this forum...and BTW, you're making the claim...so provide just one long term audited documented winner at online poker...prove what you claim otherwise it's all BS. My "proof" is no long term audited documented winners, and that's hard for someone to get around who goes ranting about how all these players are making all this money playing online poker.
sqwerty12		#11	[-]
Posts: 6 (11/17/09 20:43:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phillysteve wrote: I have clearly stated numerous times that unraked poker is a game of pure skill and the best players make money in the long run - Most poker players already know this. However raked poker turns poker from a skill game into a sucker's game whereby nobody beats the rake. I guestimate that I have played around 500,000 hands of poker in private unraked cash games and I was a long term winner. I have never railed aginst playing poker - it's the "exploitation" from gambling websites that bugs me. I'm sorry but the mere fact that you have said what you have said in paragraph 1 means that you could not possibly be a winning player as you contend in paragraph 2. Purely and simply you just don't don't get it. Are you suggesting that a winning player in unraked poker cannot make a profit in raked poker when he has to offload 3% in rake? So every winning player in the unraked world is only beating the game by between 0-3%?? I'd love to see the evidence of this. You can provide it no doubt?
xPeru		#12	[-]
Posts: 3 (11/17/09 21:40:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I've learned a lot from playing poker professionally: 1. Self Discipline: Even as an ex Army Officer and former CEO of a Financial Services company, I've never really needed to learn self discipline until I started playing poker professionally. Previously, working hard was easy because other people had expectations of me, and my fear of social humiliation led me to fulfill their expectations. Now nobody sees how much I work or how many hours I study. 2. Emotional stability: human beings are not evolved to deal with situations statistically. This is plain from behavioural finance studies. Losing $10 is emotionally more stressful than winning $10. Now I have managed to lose my emotional involvement with money. Because I care less about money, I have found time to care much more about my family and so spend much more quality time with them. I have also found that I can control my emotions and stress much better, so my family doesn't get affected when I'm in a bad mood. TBH, I'm still a bear first thing in the morning, though 3. Poker players are a really nice group of people to have as professional colleagues. Most are very highly educated - mainly maths and computer geeks, which means they've almost all been brought up with conventional values and morals. They believe in being well mannered, and are interested in new things, have open minds about new subjects, and are fortunate enough that their poker skill means they rarely have major money worries. Above all, they trust people first, unlike the wider modern society where suspicion is the rule.
lolololol		#13	[-]
Posts: 7 (11/17/09 21:55:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phillysteve wrote: lolololol wrote: Why didn't you answer that one Steve ? hard to come up with an argument against pure, simple math right ? I've already answered this question a number of times in this forum...and BTW, you're making the claim...so provide just one long term audited documented winner at online poker...prove what you claim otherwise it's all BS. My "proof" is no long term audited documented winners, and that's hard for someone to get around who goes ranting about how all these players are making all this money playing online poker. way to evade the simple question I asked you. So your proof is that you have no proof of the contrary. Well let me break it to you, that is not a proof. Just because a math student cannot solve a problem doesn't mean it can't be solved. You're making so many logical errors I just don't believe you anymore when you say you have a finance degree from UPenn, can you please provide a proof of that by the way? There is 2 rational explanations to your delusionality. 1)you have lost a ton of money playing poker, you're still not admitting it, but you have sheltered yourself in that vision that poker is unbeatable because that prevents you from falling back into it. As good a mindtrick as any other I guess. 2)you're completely retarded
phillysteve		#14	[-]
Posts: 398 (11/18/09 00:37:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	lolololol wrote: phillysteve wrote: lolololol wrote: Why didn't you answer that one Steve ? hard to come up with an argument against pure, simple math right ? I've already answered this question a number of times in this forum...and BTW, you're making the claim...so provide just one long term audited documented winner at online poker...prove what you claim otherwise it's all BS. My "proof" is no long term audited documented winners, and that's hard for someone to get around who goes ranting about how all these players are making all this money playing online poker. way to evade the simple question I asked you. So your proof is that you have no proof of the contrary. Well let me break it to you, that is not a proof. Just because a math student cannot solve a problem doesn't mean it can't be solved. You're making so many logical errors I just don't believe you anymore when you say you have a finance degree from UPenn, can you please provide a proof of that by the way? There is 2 rational explanations to your delusionality. 1)you have lost a ton of money playing poker, you're still not admitting it, but you have sheltered yourself in that vision that poker is unbeatable because that prevents you from falling back into it. As good a mindtrick as any other I guess. 2)you're completely retarded Once again, you show that you didn't read the back posts - I have already stated that I made money at poker, decent money, for the low stakes in which I played....mostly in pots of $100 and less, but sometimes larger. No question has been evaded...I'm just not going to waste time regurgitating old posts simply because you're too lazy to go back and read them.
lolololol		#15	[-]
Posts: 14 (11/18/09 05:10:45) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	yeah I've read you said you won money, but where is the proof ? and what about that finance degree ?
phillysteve		#16	[-]
Posts: 408 (11/18/09 14:33:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	lolololol wrote: yeah I've read you said you won money, but where is the proof ? and what about that finance degree ? Yea...like that is a good analogy between asking for audited documented proof of just one long term winner at online poker. Go to the Penn State library and go through the yearbooks and you'll find my picture - I even had hair back then - LOL Sorry I don't have any proof of my poker winnings played in homes and clubs - I didn't keep tabs but I know I am up, way up, because most times I won...but that was at unraked poker which I've stated many times is a skill game in which the best players win...the best players at raked poker only lose their money slower than the lesser skilled players. Got it now? Probably not...but one day you might get it...hopefully before you lose too much money.
lolololol		#17	[-]
Posts: 16 (11/18/09 19:07:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	nope you got that wrong, raked poker is beatable for the same reason that unraked poker is beatable. If you don't understand that you should go back to high school and take a math refresher class. (hint: this has nothing to do with pot odds calculations or the ability to win with the worse hand) Once again I'll provide you with an explanation that a highschooler would understand: say you play 1million hand of unraked poker and that you have won money over that sample. That means that you have won an average amount of money in every hand, say for instance $1/hand. Total you won $1million. You follow me so far ? Now put in a rake of 50cents/hand. This rake doesn't change anything to your edge against other players, so what this means is now instead of winning at $1/hand, you are winning at 50cents/hand. Total you made $500k. There you go, it is possible to win at raked poker, ou just need to have a bigger edge. For instance someone that was winning at 25cents/hand in unraked poker would now lose 25cents/hand and be a loser at raked poker. Get it ? You can use that reasoning for 10billion hands if you say that 1million is not longterm enough, well that doesn't matter since you're winning money every hand on average. CAN YOU PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT AND STOP BEING SUCH A BLIND MORON ?
phillysteve		#18	[-]
Posts: 419 (11/18/09 19:38:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	lolololol wrote: nope you got that wrong, raked poker is beatable for the same reason that unraked poker is beatable. If you don't understand that you should go back to high school and take a math refresher class. (hint: this has nothing to do with pot odds calculations or the ability to win with the worse hand) Once again I'll provide you with an explanation that a highschooler would understand: say you play 1million hand of unraked poker and that you have won money over that sample. That means that you have won an average amount of money in every hand, say for instance $1/hand. Total you won $1million. You follow me so far ? Now put in a rake of 50cents/hand. This rake doesn't change anything to your edge against other players, so what this means is now instead of winning at $1/hand, you are winning at 50cents/hand. Total you made $500k. There you go, it is possible to win at raked poker, ou just need to have a bigger edge. For instance someone that was winning at 25cents/hand in unraked poker would now lose 25cents/hand and be a loser at raked poker. Get it ? You can use that reasoning for 10billion hands if you say that 1million is not longterm enough, well that doesn't matter since you're winning money every hand on average. CAN YOU PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT AND STOP BEING SUCH A BLIND MORON ? All that sounds good in theory, but in practise it doesn't work that way. There is too much luck involved in poker to overcome the long term accumulative effect of the rake.
lolololol		#19	[-]
Posts: 21 (11/18/09 19:41:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	yeah ok i give up you have no idea what you're talking about, not the slightest idea
phillysteve		#20	[-]
Posts: 421 (11/18/09 20:01:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	lolololol wrote: yeah ok i give up you have no idea what you're talking about, not the slightest idea Hey what are ya doing...don't give up and leave now...this forum hasn't had this kind of action in a long time. LOL Everyone wants to think they can get rich playing online poker which is why poker forums are popular. Once someone finally figures out that they've been duped, they usually wanna forget about online poker and move on, sorta I think like the forum owner here did - I don't think he has posted here in a few years. I understand that, but it certainly doesn't make for an ongoing lively forum. Oh well...cest la vie. and I'm gonna move on for now as well until I see an interesting article to post. Rehashing the same stuff becomes boring to me. I thought online poker in the US would have possibly been legalized by now by Barney Frank and his gang, but with Obama being weak it may not happen - that would have lead to some very interesting conversation here, and I would have retracted comments that online poker can't be beat, because if a US site offers it rake free with a legitimate RNG, there will then be players beating online poker...sadly though the addiction rate will likely become worse, much worse.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Lessons learned from playing poker?

Lessons learned from playing poker?

Quick Reply