Why Do Sharks Eat Other Sharks?

opr

Semi interesting article by DN.

http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/16963

Thread started by David Sklansky on 2+2 about it with some good discussion from him , DN and others.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=11812356&page=0&fpart=all&vc=1

Opr

Samba

I really wish i had joined 2+2 five years ago, my ignore list would have watered down the thread to a few pages. Admittedly i didn't get past the first page.

Van Dice

Very interesting reads. As DN said, I think a lot of what he wrote was misconstrued.
Posts worth reading on either side of the line
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=gossip&Number=11821347&Searchpage=1&Main=11812356&Words=+MrMore&topic=&Search=true#Post11821347
(except the paragraph about Raymer!)
and
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=gossip&Number=11843988&Searchpage=1&Main=11812356&Words=+ProfessorBen&topic=&Search=true#Post11843988
both A+ imo

I don't think there is a definitive 'answer' to this though, as so much depends on individual circumstances. Obviously a middle-aged pro with a family has to be a lot more risk-averse than a 21 year old college graduate. Which is the crux of the 'taking a shot' and playing under-rolled issues, imo the most relevant factor is what there is to fall back on. And the 21 year old has a hell of a lot more options

opr

Samba wrote:

I really wish i had joined 2+2 five years ago, my ignore list would have watered down the thread to a few pages. Admittedly i didn't get past the first page.

I know its freakin horrible the only reason i found DN's reply was cause i was looking for the article.

David Sklansky wrote:

In defense of Daniel, I remind you that his article starts out by talking about the super big game. A game that is both tougher and at least five times bigger than the next largest game. To take the plunge into that game you pretty much really do have to be a "Johnny" willing to do it underfinanced and with the expectation that you won't start out with the best of it.

Since Daniel relates to that Johnny he didn't realize that the same philosophy need not apply to those who go up the ladder in smaller games.

Daniel Negreanu wrote:

What has happened here is that your "jist of it" description misses the mark as to what was actually written. For example, NOWHERE in the article do I say that there are only two types of poker players. The article deals with two types of mindsets held by many professional players. It doesn't even address various other types of players. I also NEVER stated in the column that you are forced to either extreme category, obviously the example I used dealt with two extremes, but never in the column do I even imply that it's either "all or nothing" or "be a nit." In fact, I mention the importance of knowing your own level of competence and how that's difficult for most players to do. Realizing that the level they've reached is as far as their talent level will take them is a poker skill in itself.

You are also wrong about their being any professional playing risk avoiders above the 80-160 limit. You say nonsense, yet you are 100%, completely, and utterly dead wrong. Your definition of a risk-taker, I suppose, could make you right, but I'm definitely not wrong.

David, can you name even one professional poker player who started his poker career above the 80-160 level? I doubt it. With that being true, every single player that moved up in limits from lower limits, regardless of how they approached it, took risks to increase their bankroll and hourly earn. Some do it safely, some do it recklessly, but none of these players, by definition, could ever be a Larry.

The second "nonsense" comment I got from you was way off also. Twisting what I wrote isn't going to change the fact that I didn't actually write what you say I did. If your bankroll gets to the point where you are excessively comfortable at any given limit, testing your skills at the next limit IS a good idea, even if you are uncertain as to whether or not you are +EV in the game. Again, I never said you should do that until you go broke as you say I did, what I said was that taking a shot can be beneficial to your long term earning power and skill level as a poker player.

For example, if you could play 500 hours on a free roll with the big boys versus actually earning money in, say, a 10-20 NL game, you should absolutely do it, even if you think you are a huge underdog to win. In the long run, those hours will make you a better player and your learning curve will be escalated.

Of course, in the real world that's not going to happen, so you need to be careful with your "excess" bankroll when taking these shots and don't gamble with the comfortable bankroll for your bread and butter game.

If you re-read the article I wrote I think you'd find that you are actually agreeing with me completely, but your defensive goggles are blurring your vision a little bit.


Every high limit professional player is more of a Johnny than a Larry. Even you, you big ol romantic wild west, guns a blazing gambler you...

---

John Juanda: Video Poker and Craps lover
Chip Reese, Doyle Brunson, Phil Ivey, Bobby Baldwin, Chau Giang, David Benyamine, Patrick Antonius, Gus Hansen: All gameble huge, on anything, best of it or not, for sick amounts of money.
David Grey!!!: This one is really good, lol.

Doyle Brunson once said something on television I thought was pretty funny, but also accurately describes him and most of the big game players, he said, "We are all degenerate gamblers, we just got lucky enough to find something we could win at."

This may be impossible to beleive, but the likes of Doyle, Ivey, and Benyamine make me look an absolute conservate gambling tight wad.

When a football game comes on the television when we play, you know how they bet it? Seriously? One guy says, "what's the line? You pick a side." The other guy picks the side and an amount, and voila, you have blind action. Flipping coins for ridiculous amounts.


I guess I should also add that there are obviously varying degrees of Larry and Johnny. Some are at the etreme, but most fit somewhere around the middle. We'll call it the Larry scale, the lower the number (1-10) the more of a
Larry:

Roy Cooke: 2
Brian Townsend: 10
Phil Ivey: 10
John Juanda: 6
David Sklansky: 4
Myself: 10
Jennifer Harman: 5
Barry Greenstien: 8
Ming Ly: 10
Chau Giang: 10
Allen Cunningham: 8

you get the point...

David Sklansky wrote:

Obviously, I wasn't twisting your words on purpose. Since anyone could read them themselves. But it sure seemed to me that you were extolling the virtues of those who move up the ladder in a less than methodical way compared to those who approach it more like blackjack players.

And it should be noted that the more methodical strategy is actually the one that will most likely have you playing at the highest game your talents indicate you should be at, in the shortest possible time. This is especially true if you are a notch below world class. The Johnny strategy is a big favorite to keep knocking you down and wasting time in your quest to reach your potential.

The point is though that there is no reason to risk going broke as you move up the ladder. And there are plenty of players above the 80-160 level who follow that precept.

opr

Van Dice wrote:

Very interesting reads. As DN said, I think a lot of what he wrote was misconstrued.
Posts worth reading on either side of the line
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=gossip&Number=11821347&Searchpage=1&Main=11812356&Words=+MrMore&topic=&Search=true#Post11821347
(except the paragraph about Raymer!)
and
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=gossip&Number=11843988&Searchpage=1&Main=11812356&Words=+ProfessorBen&topic=&Search=true#Post11843988
both A+ imo

Thanks i missed these posts in the other rubbish the first one is an excellent explanation on why sometimes the Larrys have no choice.

Van Dice wrote:

I don't think there is a definitive 'answer' to this though, as so much depends on individual circumstances. Obviously a middle-aged pro with a family has to be a lot more risk-averse than a 21 year old college graduate. Which is the crux of the 'taking a shot' and playing under-rolled issues, imo the most relevant factor is what there is to fall back on. And the 21 year old has a hell of a lot more options

Ok but lets say for arguments sake that we are both 21 year old college kids playing roughly at the same level of 10/20 online. We are both making more money that we know what to do with.
Do you not think that some people will be happy to stay at the this level but others will want to take shots even higher ?

This is something i have often wondered whats the incentive is to move up at that point. Lets say for the theory of the argument that the next Jump is 25/50 but the game are much tougher than 10/20. Surely it takes a certain type of person to move up.
I do find it funny and telling that all the players that have got to the big game seem to huge Gamblers by nature. Quote from Doyle
"We are all degenerate gamblers, we just got lucky enough to find something we could win at."

Also does it not get to point like in the Big game in Vegas or the 200/400 games on FT when players are so good that the people winning and losing depends mainly on who is running hot and cold and if so whats the point ?

I wanted to write more but i kinda lost my train of thought towards the end

Optr

Jesus Wept

interesting topic, nothing in DM's article I haven't thought about before.

Van Dice

opr wrote:

Ok but lets say for arguments sake that we are both 21 year old college kids playing roughly at the same level of 10/20 online. We are both making more money that we know what to do with.
Do you not think that some people will be happy to stay at the this level but others will want to take shots even higher ?


This is something i have often wondered whats the incentive is to move up at that point. Lets say for the theory of the argument that the next Jump is 25/50 but the game are much tougher than 10/20. Surely it takes a certain type of person to move up.

I suppose, I don't think that very many would actually stay at 10/20 without taking a shot or two. I think when you have a chance at a huge sum of money (ie beating 25/50 or 50/100) at that age, you have to take it. It may not work out, but the reward>>>>>>>>>>>>the risk. It would take someone incredibly risk-averse not to try. The Taylor Cabys, Brian Townsends, Phil Galfonds, Krantz's of the world are set for life. Whereas the downside of finding out you can't beat the next level up (say 25/50) is not that big. It'll take a big monetary loss for you to realise you can't beat it, but when you're beating 10/20 regularly, you'll get it back. Also at that age, you should have very good job prospects anyway, as I imagine that pretty much everyone who can win at high stakes online is well above average intelligence (apart from Chad Batista - http://www.pocketfives.com/9D99AF17-3F7F-417B-AACC-D168A72FF0E7.aspx)

Once you don't do something stupid like playing significantly underrolled, and going busto, taking shots is fine. Win at 10/20, play 25/50, if lose, back to 10/20. It's a natural progression that should see you end up playing the biggest game that you can beat, while still playing within your bankroll.

Sure the 25/50 game is tougher than 10/20, but if you're beating 10/20 what's to say that you're not good enough to beat 25/50? It also has the significant side benefit of improving your play, which increases your 10/20 winrate if nothing else!

I haven't played more than 5k hands of 10/20 in my life though, maybe I'm Larry?!

opr wrote:

I do find it funny and telling that all the players that have got to the big game seem to huge Gamblers by nature. Quote from Doyle
"We are all degenerate gamblers, we just got lucky enough to find something we could win at."

lol

opr wrote:

Also does it not get to point like in the Big game in Vegas or the 200/400 games on FT when players are so good that the people winning and losing depends mainly on who is running hot and cold and if so whats the point ?

I wanted to write more but i kinda lost my train of thought towards the end

Optr

Yeah I've wondered that myself. I would imagine that a significant number of big name live players would be better off playing lower. If the Big Game was running with just 'name' players, obviously a few of them are -EV. I would imagine the game runs on whales who dump a few hundred K in every weekend.
Kinda the same online, basically the money at a .50c/1$ game ends up in Townsends pocket. Because as I said earlier people move up until they find a level they cant beat, where they lose money. A winning .50c/1$ player might lose at 2/4 to a guy who takes a shot at 5/10 and loses to a guy who takes a shot at 10/20 and loses etc etc.
But I totally agree that ego is a problem for most players, some tables have all good players where as you said, variance is going to be the only real winner. Obviously someone will be slightly better than someone else, but a lot of players just don't bother with game selection at all!
Anyway, enough writing, I'm off to play some excellent players HU again lol

AmarilloFats

Could some punter post the original DN article plz... blocked in work..TY

ianmc38

Me = Larry

El Stuntman

ianmc38 wrote:

Me = Larry

it payz de billz, no?

I'm a Johnny, just without skills or bankroll

DeVore

Jesus those 2+2er's make me angry sometimes... what a bunch of ****in' idiots some of them are.

Firstly, playing as a journeyman pro is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING to playing for sh*ts and giggles, so the attitude of "if you dont move up you are a nit" is classic assh*le daddys-trustfund-kiddie mentality.

If I had a dollar for everyone who came to me and said "I moved up levels and I lost it all", I wouldnt have to play poker any more.

I dont disagree with moving up levels when the time is right and financially you can afford it but suppose you are Larry and you make a good living off the 5/10 game. You build up enough money to take a run at the 10/20 game and STILL have a br for your 5/10 game and it seems like a nice idea to "take a shot". Ok, that's fine. But suppose instead of spewing that money into a higher game (at presumeably -EV), looking for "tuition" or whatever.... suppose you took that money and invested it in a property fund or angel-financed a mates non-poker plan, or or or...

Diversification is vital for any business and if you are a pro poker player then YOU are your own business, you are your own factory and you need to protect that factory from having only a single product because if that product ever falters in sales, you are broke. From poker I have been able to invest in a couple of companies, take time out from poker to briefly work for a medical company traveling the world, have shares in it too and hope to retire at the end of next year. All this from playing 1/2 live and .50/1 online.
I've been lucky, its true. I've been lucky in a lot of things in my life, but if all you do is keep moving up and moving up and dont stop at some point, you are either going to be in Bobby's room playing Doyle etc, or flat broke. You do the math.

The smartest poker players I know have all creamed off the top of their BR's and invested in other things...property, companies, shares, lifestyle luxuries (like houses in nice places for themselves) etc etc.
These are not without risk, but its a DIFFERENT risk, so its much harder to go busto

My final point in this meandering post, is the fanboys of 2+2 and their seeming hatred of anyone who grinders along turning a profit etc. There is a FANTASTIC post made by MrMore on the first page of the 2+2 thread that everyone who thinks about poker should read.

It seems that anyone who remains a big fish in their local pond is considered a "nit" and seemingly something lower then a rapist simply because they dont want to immediately stick their entire bankroll down in Bobby's Room. That sort of "I'm more of a risk-taker (degenerate gambler) then you" attitude is very stupid and dangerous to you and everyone around you.

There are arguments to be made for moving up. I'm not saying you need to always play in the first game you sit down in. But I am saying
1. Think about diversification rather then stake-increase
2. Dont feel that just because you play solid at low limits you have anything to be ashamed of.

The 100 game in the Fitz is almost exactly the same make up as it was 3 years ago when I looked at it first. I've never played it, but I've seen people get up from 50 PLH and take their hard won 3-400 euros and feed that game with it. They arent "learning against tougher opponents", they are feeding the game. They are the worker ants who farm the 50e games those big players couldnt be arsed harvesting. Once one worker ant has collected enough he brings it to the next level up who happily relieve him of it.
It doesnt HAVE to be this way, the new player *might* win.... but mostly he doesnt.


DeV.

"Stones? You little punk. I'm not playing for the thrill of ****ing victory, here. I owe rent. Alimony. Child support. I play for money. My kids eat. I got stones enough not to chase cards, action or ****ing pipe dreams of winning the world series on ESPN." Joey Kinish, Rounders.

Van Dice

DeVore wrote:

I dont disagree with moving up levels when the time is right and financially you can afford it but suppose you are Larry and you make a good living off the 5/10 game. You build up enough money to take a run at the 10/20 game and STILL have a br for your 5/10 game and it seems like a nice idea to "take a shot". Ok, that's fine. But suppose instead of spewing that money into a higher game (at presumeably -EV), looking for "tuition" or whatever.... suppose you took that money and invested it in a property fund or angel-financed a mates non-poker plan, or or or...

Ok I actually agree with most of what you wrote. But just take a specific case, like Larry making a good income from the 5/10 game. Why is Larry presumably -EV for the 10/20 game? Anyway, I would contend that even if Larry is odds-on to be -EV in the 10/20 game, it is +EV to take shots at the game, given that he has the bankroll, which you say he does.

DeVore wrote:

The smartest poker players I know have all creamed off the top of their BR's and invested in other things...property, companies, shares, lifestyle luxuries (like houses in nice places for themselves) etc etc.

I'm sure these poker players have moved up through the limits? I just don't see why people stop at any limit when they are winning. The way to maximize your long-term profits from poker is to play at the limit where (BB)*(winrate) is maximized. By arbitrarily stopping at a limit, you can easily be costing yourself a huge amount of money.

ianmc38

Good post Tom.

El Stuntman

DeVore wrote:

There is a FANTASTIC post made by MrMore on the first page of the 2+2 thread that everyone who thinks about poker should read.

and here 'tis:

I am probably the classic "Larry," and have to say I'm not the least bet offended by DN's characterization.

But I'm not a nit. A "nit" is a nitpicker. It's someone who's petty about the rules, without appreciation for what's good for the game in the long run. It's someone looking for little edges, like not risking taking the last blind before a game breaks up. It's someone who annoys live ones, rather than indulging them. Very, very few true winning players are nits. Just like very few are really tight. Most of the time, "nit" is now only used as a pejorative description of a solid player who annoys you by not losing to you, poor you. Oddly enough, it's now a term used mostly by...nits. The kind of nits who whine about opponents who play better than them. DN himself probably wrote the best article on nits ever, in CP many years ago. Maybe someone can find it.

But, as to DN's points about risk, I think he's right. I'd add a few things.

First, DN, like most of you, is single (or if he isn't, that just changed). You aren't in the same spot as a man with a wife, kids and mortage payment, like me. Going broke isn't an option for me. Period. It would be childish of me to take significant risks with my BR. It isn't nittiness. It isn't fear of risk. I play poker for a living. Hard to be more risk-embracing than that. But I'm not stupid. I don't have an ego that needs for strangers to know my name or respect my play. Especially considering that most of the fame anyone gets from poker is from people who don't know what the games' even about, and only admire players for having been on TV or having big stacks. You have to be good at poker to know who's good at poker, and the vast majority, even of poker players, much less lay people, aren't good at poker.

Second, at some point in that article he says there are many "Larrys." He's wrong. There are very, very few of us. There are many, many Johnnys. Tons. They're a dime a dozen, really. But guys earning a middle-class living without ever suffering the degradations and stresses of going broke are rare birds.

Third, of the Johnnys who make it big, most are just lucky. Most, really, hit a tourney streak at some point, got pumped up and maybe famous enough to freeroll from endorsements and stakes. But they aren't inherently better or different than the thousands and thousands of Johnnys who tried but failed.

Consider this approx. breakdown of live NL steps:
5/10
10/20
20/40, 25/50
50/100
100/200
200/400
500/1000
1000/2000

In truth, it's hard to find smooth delineations at a high level, or constant games, or have game selection, etc, but assume that you could find such a breakdown. Assume that you move up a level every time you double up. Assume that once at the highest level you have to double up 2 more times to really have made it.

That means that if you have the skills to average a 50/50 chance of doubling up before going broke at each level, there'll be about one Johnny making it big for every 1000 or so who fail. On luck alone.

And there are TENS of thousands of Johnnys trying this progression.

DN looks back at the climb as one of the Johnnys who made it, and thinks "What a good decision I made trying." Fanboys look at his climb and think, "See, I'm not crazy trying to do it, too."

The guys who've make it, that I've talked to, have respect for the Larrys, actually. BG, Todd B., Ted Forrest, and DN, too, I think, recognize that it's a choice, and further recognize that they aren't even necessarily better players than the Larrys. In return, most of us Larrys have respect for the Johnnys who've made it, and don't wish them poorly, don't gloat about the big-time bustos, and don't hate them.

But, unlike many of you, who are young, I've seen the lives of Johnny as they usually play out. I've seen the collateral (family and friends) damage. Consider at least Moneymaker, who had to borrow from family to afford the travel expenses, or Jerry Yang, who couldn't even afford a decent hotel room, or Raymer, who had to hustle up stakehorses online. The WSOP is full of stories like that WITHOUT the happy endings. Just, borrowed money never paid back, or spent at a kid's expense. That's life, and I don't blame poker for its human scale, but to glorify the mountain climbers as "risk takers," without seeing also that they're "risk-takers" and not "degenerates" only because of a spade on the river or a 4 on the turn or whatever, is to be childish.

Sometimes it takes courage to move up in stakes and risk your BR. But sometimes it takes courage not to.

Ste05

ianmc38 wrote:

Me = Larry

Yup, me too...

RoundTower

DeVore wrote:

The 100 game in the Fitz is almost exactly the same make up as it was 3 years ago when I looked at it first. I've never played it, but I've seen people get up from 50 PLH and take their hard won 3-400 euros and feed that game with it.

What are you talking about, there are about 4 players who are beating that game who have been regulars in it for 3 years. That game lives off the regular donators about 4 times as much as people taking a shot.

Ste05

Also nice post Tom, I completely agree with your diversification thoughts too, a completely better decision IMO to do then to try and get into the game in Bobby's Room. But as I said above I could change my name to Larry, i'm such a BR nit, with some mental drunken Johnny shots thrown in, that my Larry side has to pay for in the coming weeks :rolleyes:...

DeVore

RoundTower wrote:

What are you talking about, there are about 4 players who are beating that game who have been regulars in it for 3 years. That game lives off the regular donators about 4 times as much as people taking a shot.

I said nothing about regular donators to that game. What I said in essence is that there are very few players who move up to that game from the 50 game and dont end up busto.

DeV.

RoundTower

OK well maybe I'm biased because I did, and I can think of a few others, and now I have lots of money which I probably wouldn't have if I stayed playing the 50 game.

Samba

Speaking as Jonny literally....

In the past my online BR management was atrocious, to the extent that back in the day on Tribeca i found myself with 8k in my a/c playing fischman HU for 2k..

The fact of the matter is, I went broke on many occasions to the point that i decided to give up internet poker for a very long time, I took a year off and only played live where bankroll management was never an issue for me.

When I came back i thought i could control my urges to want to make more money but no...i thought it a bright idea to try my luck at rigged ipoker blackjack, from a 300 buck deposit i churned 5k in 2 weeks and blew it (Mike/Tom drinks are on you next time)

Convinced that i simply did not have it in me to control myself playing online poker again I decided that was that, I would only play live.

Just to point out I play for a living as things stand.

Live things have always gone well for me (bar the sick beats) but after 3/4 months of continual live play I was sick of the all the travelling I was doing and the late nights, when you go card dead live, well.... you might aswell take up knitting because that's how boring it can be.

I evalued myself and my lack of self control in relation to online play and the more I thought about it the more pissed off with myself I was.

Why could i not just cop myself on and earn a living like I do playing live and be content with it???!!!!

It was because in the back of my mind the only thought I ever had was to move up and up and that was my downfall.

Im currently playing online and i've ousted the Jonny of online poker within myself. I've given up on shot taking (and blackjack ) and i've come to terms with the fact that taking shots is not how you make money it's how you go broke 99.9% of the time.

I think everyone should attempt to move up levels but not in dramatic leaps, take it easy, time is your friend.

2 months ago I made a $200 deposit and started at 5c/10c PLO (with a view to learn discipline in online play) I stayed within my limits and i'm currently playing some 50/1 and 1/2.

I don't think i ever could have moved up as far as 1/2 in such a short space of time had I never taken shots in the past and I have to agree with the point DN raises.

I still have a bit of Jonny left in me, i found a nice fish playing 200 HU PLO games the other night, after cleaning him out 4 games straight i saw him sitting at 500, with 5k in my account I could not resist as this guy was terrible, he beat me three times straight with the most horrid suckouts.


In the past, I would have continued at the 500 level to re-coup (regardless of the opponent I was playing fish or shark i just wanted the money back) the loss and that would have led to further loss. Nowadays it's shurg, back down to 100 we go until were up to 4 to play 200 again.


You live you learn... C'est la vie the important thing is that you do learn.

I think DN presents a very valid point but as one 2+2 poster mentioned from a very childish perspective.


Here's a thought....

Why not have a boards.ie collective Jonny... we pony up 100 people $400 a blind each and we stick RT on to the 200/400 FT PLO game?

DeVore

Samba: I think its called "blind shove omaha" and used to be played here!

RT: I've no idea what your point in this thread is. I dont doubt that its *possible* to beat the 100 game in the Fitz. Perhaps you did and good luck to you. None of that negates the points in my post.


Van Dice: Sorry, I didnt intend to give the impression that noone should move up, ever. Thats patently false. If you are consistently beating 1/2 and you are multitabling it, then you might dip your toe into 2/4 if your bankroll allows it and you dont want to diversify.
There is nothing wrong with seeing how high up your skills can take you or we'd all still be playing .1/.2

In fact in my original post I said "I dont disagree with moving up levels when the time is right and financially you can afford it "

But dont do so because you dont want to be called a "nit" or for pride reasons or because you want to "spin it up". Do so because you genuinely believe you are +EV in the game.

the majority of my post was just ire at the 2+2 fanboys who bounce like pinballs from rich to broke to rich to broke. Ultimately of course DN wants them to "go for it". He's sitting at the top of the food chain.


DeV.

Van Dice

DeVore wrote:

Van Dice: Sorry, I didnt intend to give the impression that noone should move up, ever. Thats patently false. If you are consistently beating 1/2 and you are multitabling it, then you might dip your toe into 2/4 if your bankroll allows it and you dont want to diversify.
There is nothing wrong with seeing how high up your skills can take you or we'd all still be playing .1/.2

In fact in my original post I said "I dont disagree with moving up levels when the time is right and financially you can afford it "

But dont do so because you dont want to be called a "nit" or for pride reasons or because you want to "spin it up". Do so because you genuinely believe you are +EV in the game.

the majority of my post was just ire at the 2+2 fanboys who bounce like pinballs from rich to broke to rich to broke. Ultimately of course DN wants them to "go for it". He's sitting at the top of the food chain.

DeV.

Yeah I kinda thought that I was just misinterpreting your first post. I agree with almost all of this, especially that most people play underrolled. The part I differ on is that you don't necessarily need to think you are plus EV at a higher level to take some shots at it. As I said before, if Larry is playing 5/10 and winning comfortably, and even if he believes he is an underdog to be a winner at 10/20, it is still +EV for him to take some shots at it.

opr

I think that while money is obviously what success in poker is measured in other factors also influence people.

I am sure part of the reason players continue to play in really high games where they have a small edge compared to smaller games where they might have a much greater edge with a bigger winrate rate is purely and simply they enjoy it !!

They enjoy what playing at the highest level your capable of means ........ being challenged everyday, having to play outside of your comfortzone , constantly having to evolve your game , learning from the better players around you etc.

We don't just move up for monetary reasons.

Opr