btw, the house really does always win in poker. i'm seriously.
Notifications
Clear all
General Poker Discussion
78
Posts
32
Users
0
Reactions
12.4 K
Views
Originally posted by Kruppe
btw, the house really does always win in poker. i'm seriously.
are you super cereal?
But yeah, the rake takes 9.5BB/100 out of my winrate on NL50 LOL ♠_cry:
Originally posted by NickSeraphim
Looking at most of these guys that win massive tournament mostly at pokerstars like the 1,5 mill garaunteed tourneys, the players that won it were actually all losing players before that win and down thousands.
I somehow find this a bit hard to believe 
I didn't obviously go through looking at who won every big tourney,It must of just happened to be a coincidence that the last 3 sunday million tourneys at pokerstars have been won by severly losing players.
And yes, anyone can obviously name Durr and Phil Ivey who are well known for winning online, but there are also well known pros that are losing like Patrik Antonius who is down like 300k this year.
My main prob has not been making profit, I actually can make quite abit of cash, I always get tempted by all of these big tourneys pokerstars offers and well, you know the result. I always come close to winning like finish 100th place out of 2k maybe really often, but unless you finish in the final table, the cash pretty much sucks 
And I don't wanna hear players that have't pld more than 1k games saying that they are winning 
Upswings ALWAYS happen awkardly enough, and after you play a certain amount of games the fight to make profit really begins.
For me I actually make a lot of profit playing loose agressive at ring games short handed, however I do find sngs more fun so I choose to play those, I usually win 1 in 4, by win I mean 1st or 2nd not 3rd.
Originally posted by NickSeraphim
I didn't obviously go through looking at who won every big tourney,It must of just happened to be a coincidence that the last 3 sunday million tourneys at pokerstars have been won by severly losing players.And yes, anyone can obviously name Durr and Phil Ivey who are well known for winning online, but there are also well known pros that are losing like Patrik Antonius who is down like 300k this year.
My main prob has not been making profit, I actually can make quite abit of cash, I always get tempted by all of these big tourneys pokerstars offers and well, you know the result. I always come close to winning like finish 100th place out of 2k maybe really often, but unless you finish in the final table, the cash pretty much sucks
And I don't wanna hear players that have't pld more than 1k games saying that they are winningFor me I actually make a lot of profit playing loose agressive at ring games short handed, however I do find sngs more fun so I choose to play those, I usually win 1 in 4, by win I mean 1st or 2nd not 3rd.
PA is up 5m this year...
Hmm, there is so much different software out there that states all different results :/
Originally posted by NickSeraphim
Hmm, there is so much different software out there that states all different results :/
One year, except for people who play a ton like Durrr, is not considered "the long run".
Did you stop to think about how insignificant 300k is to Patrick's bankroll?
Yeah I've made money playing poker. Not enough to live off but enough to help my student lifestyle and pay for a few fancy nights out.
Can check my tournaments at Smileyphil FTP. But I usually play cashgames.
P.s. I'm not very good at SnG's. Most of the losses there were right at the beginning of my poker career. But my winrate over a hundred or so MTT's is ok.
I read an interesting article the other day by Arthur Reber a Psychologist turned poker player (or poker player turned psychologist) he plays NL200..........i'll illegaly paste some of it below........QUOTE:-
LOW STAKES
I am quite certain that, among the legions of regulars, there are no long-term winners. None, ningunos, net, keine. This game essentially cannot be beaten on anything like a long-term basis.
The problem is the natural variation in the game (i.e., "luck"), plus a host of other factors. These include the rake - and a "bad beat" jackpot.
The rake is the real winner
HIGH STAKES: Preying on the Rich
Not surprisingly, it is at this level that the true poker professional first shows up. I'm counting as high stakes anything above NL200. Here, things shift once more. My educated guess is that well over half of the players are longtime winners.
As with the preceding category, this is mainly because they feed off a (smaller but reliable) stable of well-heeled contributors.
There are a lot of millionaires who love action - you would likely recognize some of their names. They are often good players and might do well at lower levels, but prefer to play with the very best. Without these folks, the top players would just move money around and around the table.
SUMMARY
A common guesstimate is that only about 5% of all regular players are long-term winners. This is probably correct, but you need to appreciate that these players are distributed unevenly throughout the levels at which poker is played.
I won steady for 8 months then got all tilty because I fell to exactly break-even for 3 months, Feb to April. I've lost track a while ago about the exact amount won including bonuses,cashouts, etc but I'm guessing it's 1.2k-1.5k? I blew a few hundred on roulette though, 
And I spent 4 months basically being a losing player until I signed up for the free $50 here. During those 4 months I lost around $300-350, not sure again. 
Edit: The 1.2k to 1.5k estimate includes roulette the roulette loss. 
One theory I have is that the ones who are fairly successful and post a lot here are the ones lucky enough to begin their poker "career" on an upswing. The ones who get unlucky from the beginning despite learning the strategies here likely just drop out or give up on learning better strategy. It's pretty common to see players here start off well then get hit later on, making the winrate more realistic, like the 1.5-2BB/100 for FL after 50k hands.
My teacher told me to read the first sentences and the end after I write an essay, to see if I didn't go off track and therefore, knew what I was writing about. Hmm, let's see:
Originally posted by andyb43
LOW STAKESI am quite certain that, among the legions of regulars, there are no long-term winners. None, ningunos, net, keine. This game essentially cannot be beaten on anything like a long-term basis.
<..>
SUMMARY
A common guesstimate is that only about 5% of all regular players are long-term winners. This is probably correct, but you need to appreciate that these players are distributed unevenly throughout the levels at which poker is played.
This psychologist seems like a smart chap.. NOT ♠_grin:
Originally posted by suvalgysiu
My teacher told me to read the first sentences and the end after I write an essay, to see if I didn't go off track and therefore, knew what I was writing about. Hmm, let's see:Originally posted by andyb43
LOW STAKESI am quite certain that, among the legions of regulars, there are no long-term winners. None, ningunos, net, keine. This game essentially cannot be beaten on anything like a long-term basis.
<..>
SUMMARY
A common guesstimate is that only about 5% of all regular players are long-term winners. This is probably correct, but you need to appreciate that these players are distributed unevenly throughout the levels at which poker is played.This psychologist seems like a smart chap.. NOT ♠_grin:
My fault.......i cut and fucking paste like a two year old with Tourets syndrome. I was going to post a link but Uncle SOY would slap my wrist for that.
The point is only high stakes players make nice $$$$$$ 
What breaks many players that could be winning in the long run at micros is thinking that they are gods gift to poker and staying to play when tables TAGs up. Imo obv.
This psychologist is fucking retarded to say the least. I'll bet him $500k that I can easily beat NL50 over a decent sample.
I hope he's poker player turned psychologist, not psychologist turned poker player...
Originally posted by Yoghi
This psychologist is fucking retarded to say the least. I'll bet him $500k that I can easily beat NL50 over a decent sample.I hope he's poker player turned psychologist, not psychologist turned poker player...
It's amazing that I try to post something constructive but some people -Yoghi - have to insult and resort swearing on every opion you disagree with. He never claimed to be a better player than anybody, he is a poker pyschologist.
You should read his articles they are damn good.
Below is Reber's Bio, no where as accomplished as Yoghi.......who is Diamond status................
Arthur S. Reber - Short Bio
Arthur Reber has been a poker player and serious handicapper of thoroughbred horses for four decades.
He is the author of The New Gambler's Bible and coauthor of Gambling for Dummies. Formerly a regular columnist for Poker Pro Magazine and Fun 'N' Games magazine, he has also contributed to Card Player (with Lou Krieger), Poker Digest, Casino Player, Strictly Slots and Titan Poker.
He outlined a new framework for evaluating the ethical and moral issues that emerge in gambling for an invited address to the International Conference of Gaming and Risk Taking.
Until recently he was the Broeklundian Professor of Psychology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York.
Among his various visiting professorships was a Fulbright fellowship at the University of Innsbruck, Austria.
Now semiretired, Reber is a visiting scholar at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.
