Im getting more and more interested in the larger tournaments. You dont make the money too often but when you do its a nice payday. The thing that you have to get used to is the fact that you're going to get knocked out before the money the majority of the time. Many times you work for several hours to see it all go down the drain on one hand. You have to accept the fact that you will be a loser the majority of the time. This is the opposite of a ring game where you expect to be a winner the majority of the time. There are so many opportunities now to get into large tournaments through satellites for a nominal fee. Maybe I'll be on tv one day.
Started tracking on March 19, so far so good (even tho today was horrible). Total Cost Revenue Games $105,299.00 $113,500.00 492 Avg Cost Avg Gross Avg Profit 214.0223577 230.6910569 16.66869919 Profit First Place $8,201.00 67 Rakeback Est. $1,189.88 Total Profit $9,390.88
Hey dud Nice results. It's sobering to see your average profit per game, since I was having delusions of grandeur after placing first in a few $20 sng's in a row, thinking that I could make my nut this summer by playing poker. But if your average profit/table is 16 at the $200 tables, I have a ways to go yet. Have I read your table correctly - you are playing the $200 tables? I presume that your average cost per game isn't round because you are playing multiple sites. 492 games in 21 days means about 23 games per day, so you are obviously playing .... 3 or 4 simultaneously? I'll have to try this one day. A lot of the better players seem to do it. Did you have extensive Hold-Em experience before this online try?
nice job. i play the NL $100 cash games on party and am up 15.3k, but that's in just over 5 months. i play a lot though, and these results really should be double what they are, but not too bad for my first year. i hope to get better and move to the higher spread games on ultimate bet at some point. i've been playing a little under a year. wish i could play limit well, as there is prolly more money in it, but i'm a breakeven player there. just can't force people off of draws and second pairs and such. someone mentioned being partial to the multis. the best deal on party poker is playing the single table qualifiers to get into their $150-$200 multis. if you have a respectable sit n go game, you can usually qualify in 3 buy ins, for $60 ($72) or so, instead of paying the $150 ($200) buy in. been working on my tournament game, and i've cashed a few times in those big multis out of the handful i've played, but have never been deep in the money in a big buy in (25th of 1500 or so was my best in a big buy in). still looking for that big score. first is like $60k in these big buy ins on the weekends, and $30k on the weekdays. there is a HUGE tournament this saturday. $600+$40 buy in. there are already 1600 people signed up. first is going to be WELL over $200k. it will be the biggest online tournament to date. i need to get to qualifying for it. there are $64+$6 single table qualifiers, but you can even play $7+$1 qualifying sit n goes, with a win giving you a spot in the $64+$6 qualifying sit n go. what % of the time do you cash in the sit n goes? you can get poker tracker if you are plugging these numbers by hand. http://www.pokertracker.com. it lets you replay hands, shows you how profitable you are with each hand from each position. most importantly, it keeps track of every player you've played and how they've played all of their hands.
In the Pokerstars 2003 WCOOP, first prize was $222,750.00 Honestly, I'd hate to see a Partypoker tournament break that record. Partypoker ALLOWS ALL-IN DISCONNECT CHEATING. This is a bit damaging in single table tournaments (I still do play those at party) ...but completely devestating for multi-table tounaments. I absoluely refuse to play Party Multi's until they finally end their ridiculous all-in 'protection' policy.
Here's a list I compiled comparing a trade to a hand of poker. It is far from exhaustive and no conclusions are drawn. Hopefully others will contribute. Similarities between a trade and a hand of poker (1) The outcome of each is uncertain. (2) Both are zero sum games, ignoring commissions, rake etc. (Assume futures) (3) At any time, a trader may elect to stay out of the market, and a player may elect to stay out of a hand, at no cost. (Blinds, antes, like software and DSL costs, are assumed to be running expenses. Or alternatively, the player may elect to leave the table.) (4) It is possible for both trader and player to benefit from information gleaned about his opponents. Differences between a trade and a hand of poker (1) In a trade, the opponents and their numbers are unknown. In a hand of poker, the opponents and their numbers are known. (2) Once a trade is initiated, a trader can do nothing more to influence the outcome of that particular trade, unlike a player who, because of the betting structure, may influence the actions of other players and hence the outcome of the hand. (3) A trade, once initiated, may be closed out at any time only by the trader. A hand of poker, once initiated, may be prematurely completed by the action of the player eg. he folds, or by the action of others eg. everyone else folds. (4) Unlike a trade, a hand of poker has a fixed, predefined length. (5) A trade may be "prematurely" closed for either a profit or loss by the trader. A player can only prematurely complete a hand for a loss. (6) At all times during a trade, the P&L is uniquely and unambiguously defined. At all times during a hand, the player's equity in the pot can only be subjectively estimated using incomplete information (in most instances). (7) As a corollary to (6) above, the intra-trade equity curve is generally smooth and continuous, while the intra-hand equity curve is jumpy and discrete. (8) As a corollary to (7) above, a player will encounter many "bad beats" with their accompanying psychological pain. A trader will rarely see profits snatched away from him so suddenly; his pain is of a more gradually built-up nature. (9) A trader may predefine profit target and stop loss. A player will have different losses and profits depending on the particular hand. In fact optimal play negates the notion of a stop loss.
Good post, my only disagreement is that you can occasionally influence the outcome of some trades in lower liquidity stocks. Enter a 4k bid .05 under market and you will get a little lift if you need it.
And if the 250 pound, unshaven thug sitting opposite me growls and gives me the "slit throat" signal when I'm playing in some local game in parts unknown, I'll definitely fold my winning hand. But your point is well taken.
Hi Mr. S. Good points. Re: #3 above...it is true that a poker hand may be completed by either the actions of the player or by the actions of others; for example, if you are HU and you decide - 'If he re-raises my raise, I will fold''. But can we not see the same thing happening in the markets, when a stop loss is hit? In this case, the traders decision making process does not come in to it - the markets (the rest of the players) have behaved in such a way as to take you out of the hand (the trade). You might argue that the stop loss itself is a decision made by the trader, and I wouldn't disagree - I just see this poker situation as being somewhat analogous to a trading situation in which your actions are determined by the rest of the players in the game. Your point #9 is that 'Optimal play (in Hold-Em) negates the idea of a stop loss' . I can see this for ring games, but is it any different in tournaments? I assume you mean that if you are getting correct odds for calling, then you must call every time - the decision is taken out of your hands, and the potential loss is disregarded because the ratio of calling amount/potential gain is less than the ratio of winning outcomes/losing outcomes. In tournaments and ring games, however, there may be situations in which you do not act in an optimal manner (semantics again - perhaps you could argue that when you are at a SNG table in 4th place with 4 players left and the maniac 3rd place player re-raises all in against the chip leader, the optimal play is to fold your AA since you may see 3rd place busted out, thereby securing an ITM finish; I assume you mean optimal in the textbook sense). There are other times in an SNG, especially very early, at which I tend to act 'non-optimally', just because I can't be sure that maniacs behind me are not going to wreck my odds. I may be nitpicking here...Please let me know if I have misinterpreted either of these points 3 or 9. I would only add that the real benefit of the analogy accrues to beginning traders, who can find in Hold-Em a trading-type environment, not so much in terms of the technical procedures, but in the rule-following behaviour that must be developed in order to trade successfully.
I see your point. However a stop for me is not "premature", and that is what I meant by "any time". I may have to rethink my wording though. I believe you have understood my point well. Of course decisions have to be made on the fly, and these will depend on a host of factors. My point is referring to an ordinary ring game - no thugs, no game theory. It would be foolish to limit oneself to, say, 3 small bets (stop loss) before seeing the flop, or the hand for that matter. Nicely put, traderNik.