Poker and the Beginning Trader

dud711 · Mar 25, 2004

By the way, doing pretty good in couple tourneys now, Party and Paradise 9PM's. Handles are dudeman711 and lowrider711, respectively, if anyone wants to check it out.....

Peace.

easyrider · Mar 25, 2004

Quote from dud711:

You are smarter than me, 1 of my leaks is that I don't stop while running bad (like today), need to work on it. Better luck tomorrow.]

A lot of people think that you should keep on playing regardless because the odds are the same but after 50 odd years of playing both sides of this argument I have to disagree. I play primarily nolimit and to keep playing when the cards are cold can get you killed.

dud711 · Mar 25, 2004

I think it depends on the individual. When running really bad it affects my play, become less patient. THe key is detecting this happening to myself in real time, and either correcting the mistake or stop playing. If didn't affect play then if the game is good, keep playin (for me, not the case).

easyrider · Mar 25, 2004

Exactly. The odds may be the same but your mindset changes. Its the same with trading for me. If I have two or three losing trades in a row the best thing I can do is quit for the day. Theres always tommorrow.

PetaDollar · Mar 26, 2004

Quote from traderNik:

Hi Peter

I believe Malmuth and others suggest about 300 big bets to ride out the swings

How about money management for single table tourneys?
Seems like you can have some really wild equity swings here. Not in "play chips", I mean in actual $$$: tournament cost and winnings.

FanOfFridays · Mar 26, 2004

Quote from peterfigliozzi:

How about money management for single table tourneys?
Seems like you can have some really wild equity swings here. Not in "play chips", I mean in actual $$$: tournament cost and winnings.

Part of the reason I decided to play single table tourneys only is that I found my variance to be somewhat more manageable. Others have pointed out that here, you can usually be guaranteed that at least one or two players are going to blow out spectacularly, and that you need to finish in the top three out of 7 players (at Stars, with 9 players/table). This is true of the 5,10 and 20 tables - I am not sure when things get significantly tighter. I am developing a strategy for finishing in the money at these tables and it involves some decisions that may not seem right to a ring game player. Basically I play really really tight for the first while, just to see who will do what and to make sure that I don't raise all-in preflop with i.e. QQ just to have 3 people call me. That avoids some of the wild swings you mentioned, which are definitely possible if you play a lot in the first 20-30 hands. I feel that you should be able to sit down with 10 - 15 buy-ins and build your bankroll from there. I have rarely lost more than 3 in a row, although my equity has taken some swings. I tend to cash out as I go along.

I would be interested to know if others find their variance less at the sng tables than at the standard ring game.

easyrider · Mar 26, 2004

Quote from traderNik:

Part of the reason I decided to play single table tourneys only is that I found my variance to be somewhat more manageable. Others have pointed out that here, you can usually be guaranteed that at least one or two players are going to blow out spectacularly, and that you need to finish in the top three out of 7 players (at Stars, with 9 players/table). This is true of the 5,10 and 20 tables - I am not sure when things get significantly tighter. I am developing a strategy for finishing in the money at these tables and it involves some decisions that may not seem right to a ring game player. Basically I play really really tight for the first while, just to see who will do what and to make sure that I don't raise all-in preflop with i.e. QQ just to have 3 people call me. That avoids some of the wild swings you mentioned, which are definitely possible if you play a lot in the first 20-30 hands. I feel that you should be able to sit down with 10 - 15 buy-ins and build your bankroll from there. I have rarely lost more than 3 in a row, although my equity has taken some swings. I tend to cash out as I go along.

I would be interested to know if others find their variance less at the sng tables than at the standard ring game.

Im beginning to drift away from the sng's as I seem to win more money at ring games. Whats really fun is to place high in the multibables. Excellent r/r ratio but time consuming. Sound like youve got your head screwed on straight nik.

PetaDollar · Mar 31, 2004

Quote from traderNik:

Part of the reason I decided to play single table tourneys only is that I found my variance to be somewhat more manageable. I would be interested to know if others find their variance less at the sng tables than at the standard ring game.

Hey Nik, well I just finished my 10th SNG (Hold'em, Limit) at the scrub tables ($5 + $1 buy in), Paradise Poker, 10 per game. My placements were (in order):

7,5,2,1,7,2,3,8,5,1

placing 5x in the money, no more than two times in a row out of the money.

This equity variance is a little more than what I get at the .05/.10 table but a lot less than what I see at the 0.25/0.50 table.

p.s. When can I move up from the scrub table? A question of skill not $$. Hell, 1k / 15 entries = $66, so I could play the $50 SNGs, but I'd probably get my ass whipped at this point.

FanOfFridays · Apr 1, 2004

Quote from peterfigliozzi:

My placements were (in order):

7,5,2,1,7,2,3,8,5,1

p.s. When can I move up from the scrub table?

Hey Peter

Nice job. Yeah, if you have 1K to stake, then I see no problem with trying the $50 games. It will be interesting to me how you find the skill levels up there. As I said, I am playing mostly $10 right now but I wander up to $20 and even $30 once and to tell the truth.... the $30 was significantly better in the sense that players were making some good laydowns, but overall, there are still a lot of weak players.

I had a profit target for moving up a level - i.e. multiplying my stake X 3.

Please keep us informed of your progress.

The PS Tourney Server was down last night so I was forced (lol) to play a ring game for a while, and it went allright.... so I have been playing them most of the day today. Things are going right so it's cool but I clearly remember what it's like when you get hammered for two consecutive buy-ins (i.e. $50) on bad beats. I read posts at 2+2 where guys just say you have to shrug it off and simply buy in again if the table is nice and loose. I have yet to develop that kind of objectivitiy... Maybe when I am up 5k from playing poker ... that's about 4 K in the future. By the way, for those who care, it essentially took me 1 year to get up just under 1K, after being down for about 7-8 months. I guess I am just a little slower than some of those who were winners right away. Another lesson for newbie traders?

easyrider · Apr 3, 2004

Been on a hot streak this last couple of weeks. One lesson keeps coming back to me and I wonder how you guys feel about this. I believe it hurts more to lose than it feels good to win. This has some very important consequences in poker but especially in trading. I feel pretty good when I have a good day trading or even a great day but a bad day tears me up. The same with poker. Im used to winning so I dont feel too upbeat when I win but a bad beat still makes my heart beat fast and brings the blood to my head. I have learned to deal with it but since this is the psychology forum I wish someone would explain to me why this is the case or am I the only one that this happens too.