Reaching Enough [Long]

(Also posted here)

In my years of playing poker - let's face it, they're not that many - I've flirted with the idea of getting rich from this game. Going pro. Making it big. High roller. Living the dream. My romance with this idea is a lot more passionate when I'm running hot than when I'm in a downswing.

Fortunately for me, I run into downswings now and again which make me rethink my stance of leaving a well paid job that I enjoy in favor of sitting alone at home in front of my computer screen for hours every day. I say fortunately, because barring the natural high that comes from running hotter than the sun, I rationally realize that being an online poker pro isn't for me. I crave company, and diversity and coffee breaks with coworkers.

So what do I do with poker? I'm pretty good at it. Not astonishingly so, in any way, but I do okay. I beat limit hold 'em up to $2/$4 online pretty comfortably, and I do okay at $3/$6. I ran into problems at $5/$10 last year and, as much as it hurts to say it, I'm probably not good enough to beat those games at this time. Playing no-limit, I've so far not reached stakes where I didn't feel like I could easily beat it, but then again, no-limit is an easier game to beat. How high will I go?

It's at this point in my train of thought that my mind typically starts racing with the idea of making it big. I mean, I'm beating $100NL today. In a couple of months, I'll move up to $200NL. Practise playing regulars, study some more... Then $400NL, and perhaps in a year I'll play $5/$10 NL, and...

Where does it stop? Does it stop? I've been thinking about that a lot.

Someone else has thought about it, too, and put it in terms of the Peter Principle:

The Peter Principle stipulates that in a sufficiently hierarchial organization, an employee will be promoted to his level of incompetence. The idea being that if you're good at your job, you will be promoted. Sooner or later, you'll be promoted to a job that you're not good at, at which point you will no longer be promoted and simply stay put in a position where you're not useful. My buddy Irexes has reworked the Peter Principle somewhat into what he calls the Irexes Principle, and states that poker players will move up in stakes until they start losing money. Some of these players will see that they're not good enough to beat the stakes they're at and move down again and try to work their way back up. Some other players will stubbornly refuse to move down because they're "a $400NL player" so it eats at their pride to step down to $200NL or $100NL. Some players yet again will lose a large chunk of their bankroll and then do the absolute worst: Move up in order to quickly win it back.

I knew what Irexes posted to be true before I read it, but his thread brought it to the frontlines of my conscious thinking. Shortly after reading his post on the matter, I accidentally stumbled upon a thread on 2+2 (I say accidentally, because I very rarely read those forums and this just happened to be on the front page) that is connected. To save you the time of having to click the link, I'll give you the cliffnotes:

1. First poster asks the general 2+2 population (at micro stakes no-limit) what changed them into a winning player.
2. After a little while, someone makes a response that on the surface seems kind of dickish, "Just fwiw most people here are not winning players."
3. Someone else asks why he thinks there aren't many winning players there.

... and the reply is worthwhile. From the post:

I would say that somewhere around 3-4% of all people who post on this board are winning players, if by "winning" I mean able to sustain a winrate of 5ptbb/100 over a sample of more than 100k hands at any given limit. Actually its probably less than that.

Its does seem otherwise, but think about it - why would someone who is crushing 50nl need to post hands at all? Obviously there are those who come back to help out which is great, and there are the semi-ok regulars who post decent advice. But as far as people who are actually good players, most have long since moved up (and most who do subsequently hit the wall at 100/200nl).

This is the Peter (or Irexes) principle in different cloaking; "People don't play for very long at limits they beat."

And it strikes me as a damn shame. A lot of poker talent is wasted because of an urge to win more with the ironic effect of winning less. The idea of wasting my own poker talent has occupied my mind a lot, as I said, and now I'm approaching what can perhaps be called a conclusion - or at least a formula of sorts.

Some stipulations:

• I do not want to go pro or make my primary living off of poker.
• I have a limited amount of time to spend on this hobby.
• I want to win money.
• I want to have fun.

The order of priority in this list is not really important, because they're all mandatory. I look at these four items, and then consider this (obvious?) fact: Playing winning poker is a skill that requires constant honing and practise. The lower the stakes, the lesser the need for study. For the sake of argument, let's make up some numbers.

With the current levels of difficulty in beating the online games as compared to my own current skill level, it will take me...

... 1 hour a week of playing to maintain a decent win-rate at $10NL.

... 2 hours a week of playing and 1 hour of studying a week to maintain a decent win-rate at $25NL.

... 4 hours a week of playing and 2 hours of studying a week at $50NL.

... etc.

The investment of time needed per level I move up is not necessarily linearly proportional to the stakes I play; it's quite possible that the investment of time needed to double the stakes is much less than a factor of two. But regardless of what the factor is, it's higher than 1. So higher stakes means more time.

This idea has been bouncing around in my mind for a few weeks now. It means that there's an answer to where my "enough" lies. Where I belong. I have a place in the poker hierarchy based on how much time I'm willing to invest and how smart I am and how much I already know. I may not be able to perfectly calculate this place, but just because I can't calculate it doesn't mean that it's not there.

And I can make some estimation or guess as to where this place might be. I can guess that it's pretty close to where I am now; I only have a precious few hours per week to spend on poker. I might be able to eventually move up comfortably to $200NL but I doubt I'll go much higher than that without being able to put in 15+ hours a week.

Will I feel good about reaching enough? Will I experience inner peace and be content? Or will I feel stuck and rooted and start to think of poker as just a grind? I really don't know.

What I do know is that I'll never reach the upper echelons. It hurts my pride a bit to admit this, because I want to be cool and tough and play big stakes and post about it so people can go "oooh, he's the man." I want to make thousand dollar soulread calls with king high and make a million dollars at heads-up poker. But it's not going to happen. Pride be damned.

So instead of putting in the huge amounts of time required to (maybe) become a poker millionaire, I choose to spend my time differently. The awesome part of it is that by posting about it here, I'm essentially saying "hey, it's not for a lack of skill that I'm not crushing $1k/$2k, it's because I'm busy." And so my pride and ego is preserved after all.

Ahhh, bliss.

I always read all of your posts/threads. This one is very good and I can relate to it so well on a much smaller scale. I know that I will never put the time and study in needed to beat higher levels so I will probably never get past $25NL myself. Like you - it gets down to how I want to spend my time.

Of course I may have to re-think it all when my job ends.

As always FP, Top Quality Thread IMO! Congrats.

Really nice post, FP. I love to read well thought out posts like this. It makes me think about the game in a way that is on a different level from where I am. Rex makes similar posts that do this too.

It also really, really makes me think that when we all meet up again in London or wherever, we've got to get a small game organized.....

It's not that I fancy my chances against you guys, but I really, really want to be there to watch you and Irexes go head-to-head a few times!

Ah, bliss!

You're awesome FP, always putting things in a realistic perspective. I'm glad you've swallowed your pride and defined your limits.

Always look forward to your [long] posts and am never dissatisfied

AS a novice,and sometimes in my own head a lot less experienced than I would like to admit or think. I appreciate very much your food for thought,especially when someone puts it so eloquently as you have.thank you.

Great post FP, thanks.

Excellant post. Really made me step back and consider where im at with my poker, and where (and how far) i want to take this. Puts things in prospective.

Thanks for sharing

Great post! I can relate as im busy with work, and play besides poker. I also am having trouble deciding how much time i will spend playing poker and on what game to play, FR, 6 max, SNG's. I hope to find an awnser soon!

this really has me thinking about where my limits are now.

Just an awesome post FP!

Very nice post freddy, puts things in line,, your stuff is always interesting to read,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, buck

As always, quality post Fredrik.

What about accumulated hours as a factor? If someone always has 15 hours/week to play, starts at $10NL, moves to $25NL for a longer time, then after a longer time moves to $50NL, do you think the same player, after accumulating say twice as many hours at the next level up is still going to reach a level of incompetence? Would they not, even after 10 years, be eventually able to continue to push their ceiling up?


This reminds me of a thread TB did last year some time asking what players thought they might one day achieve, and about he had already gotten to a point where his bankroll that he had at the tables was already more than a day's salary for him or something like that. At the time that seemed to me to be more than I would ever be comfortable with, but not so much anymore. But then you and TB have a lot more playing time under your belts that do I.

This post is great and should be stickied and referred to often imo.

FP, do you find that the general standard online is improving over time ? How (if at all) does that affect your thinking ?

Wow (and that's just cause you referred to me as your buddy )

I've been thinking along similar lines about my own position in things.

For some reason although I've had a good win rate at $22-55 MTTs for a long while now I've never really considered moving up. Perhaps it's the thought of giving away $100+ at the start of every tourney in the hope of getting it back. At least in ring games your cash sits in front of you until someone takes it from you. I think unless something ridiculous happens I'll stick at that level and only play the occassional "big" tourney when sats and fpps allow.

Ring is far more seductive and I've laid in bed at night running hourly rates and variance calculations at different levels, adding tables and bonuses to see at what point I would be "foolish" not to quit work and do it full-time. Like you of course the idea doesn't really appeal, I sit here enough as it is.

Great stuff buddy, great stuff.

And Joe, I reckon we'd all think ourselves into a frenzy of inaction if that game ever happens

Based on the replies to this post, maybe big game success is not needed for someone to say the above.

Really good post FP.

excellent post FP, great read. I, like most here I think, could not really see myself playing full time. And it is tempting on upswings where you think you are god and cannot be beat to think about doing it as a living. I dont think I would be able to handle the stress of playing for a living personally, but I love the game and dont see myself quitting anytime soon.

Great read as usual. One think I thought about also is once reaching a level that we are content playing, instead of fucusing on hitting that next bankroll limit and continue the dream, we start cashing out and gaining an extra benefit(one we always know is there, but at least for me havent reached since becomming more serious about my game). Making money is a key for everyone and many of us beleive(correctly or not) that the biggest ev+ move is to keep our money in the BR to reach a higher limit that we can beat for more gains. But really where does this end? When do we reach a level where we are playing for some extra spending money instead of moving up. I feel its a hard stage to hit, and I certainly have not, because like your post it will be a hit to my ego to admit I cant beat this limit, either due to skill potential or just not having the time to learn. I would like to think when I hit that level I will move on down, and start cashing out and reading this has really put that into my head and has helped a lot, thank you.

I'd like to say thanks for the great post as well.

You've got me thinking about trying to formalize my poker education so that I might be good enough to make money when I retire. I can retire at 56, and that is only 5 years away, hopefully enough time to train well.

The general online standard has improved over time, but I can't say that it always will. The net effect of the standard improving is roughly this: If I need X amount of hours of playing/studying a week to stay at level L, then the fact that my opponents are getting better just means that X needs to be bigger. In fact, if everything else is equal, I just need my X to be bigger than my opponents' X.

Of course, weird things could happen. Weird things like $100NL being harder to beat than $600NL because you end up with tight regulars at $100NL and rich spewy lags at $600NL. Perhaps the a different way to look at it is to try to find the level you're comfortable playing at and accumulate bankroll, and eventually reach enough of a bankroll to table select higher stakes tables when there's juicy action going on.

Really, there are $600NL tables that are easier than some of the $100NL tables I'm currently playing. I can't join them because my bankroll isn't enough for it. But if I had $30K in my bankroll, there's nothing stopping me from sitting in when I notice poor players.

I don't think anyone misunderstood the post, but I still feel that I want to stress that this - the opening post - is a theoretical that disregards so many variables that in effect, it may be worthless. It doesn't take into account the games getting tougher or easier, or game selection, or the possibility that even if I only have four hours a week to spend on poker this could theoretically be enough to make me good enough to beat $10/$20 NL if I use the time wisely and efficiently, etc. But I do think it's an interesting way to think about poker, because in practise, we WILL hit a plateau. And when that happens, it's good to be prepared for it and not move up just because we think we can afford it.

Be happy with what you got, and all that.

Oh, and Rex is likely right about thinking ourselves into inaction. This is why beer is imperative.

archiiiiive