Work Ethic -- Starting by Using a Lukie Quote

Originally Posted by Lukie

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Just to give you an idea...

I played 37.53 hours this week of 100nl FR on PokerStars. I 14-table.

I paid $1728.19 in rake.

If I played the same amount for 52 weeks/year, I'd make PokerStars $89,865.88/year.

this is actually something that really jumped out at me-- playing 37+ hours in a week.

How do you do that? One of the things I'm trying to do in '08 is put in a LOT more hours. I usually 12 table 6max and I usually get bored and quit after about 2 hours or so. After about 4 hours I'm completely beat and have to quit. I'm not sure how I can maintain focus and play a ton of tables WELL without burning out, and without splitting my time into 2 sessions (i.e. morning sesh and night sesh). Just curious... those are like redargoe hours.

I took this quote from a thread about the rake that was made in like January or so of this year but I'd like to draw attention to something here and maybe get some discussion going. I decided to make this thread since I've learned a lot since then about performance psychology and other fun stuff that has influence on this topic. To get things going, I'm going to take a similar situation that Lukie outlined above and give my take on it.

Suppose you can play poker for 2 hours before you start getting bored or tired or just uninterested, you typically play one session a day, and you want to figure out how you can start playing more hours without wanting to kill yourself and without losing EV by playing when you don't want to/don't feel like it. After tons of reading new stuff and applying old stuff I already knew from other competitive endeavors, I think that your best bet would be to play ~90 minute to 2 hour sessions with breaks in between of anywhere from 30 minutes to a full hour. Now I'm going to break down why I think this.

If you look at the life of the typical session Lukie outlined above, we get the idea that he has little problem playing well for the first 2 hours of the session but identifies the 4-hour mark as being when he, for our purposes, should no longer be playing. It's easy to see then that the first 2 hours of a 4-hour session are easily worth more to him than the last 2 hours, and we want to use this to our advantage. Lukie is more than likely smart enough to realize this too, regardless of whether or not he changes his playing schedule to reflect this.

So let's consider what happens to a five-hour block of time that Lukie plays in, assuming he sets aside a single five-hour block of time to play in each day (which may not be a correct assumption, but you'll see why I make it). We'll call the value of his first hour x, and I'll approximate the value of his second hour as being 0.95x since he probably doesn't lose much focus. His third hour is probably closer to 0.8x, his fourth and fifth hour could be around 0.75x. So for this five-hour session, x + 0.95x + 0.8x + 0.75x + 0.75x = 4.25x. This comes to 3.95/5 = 0.85 x/hour.

Look at what happens if instead he played for two hours, took a one hour break, then came back fresh and played for another two hours. We'll assume each session gives 1.95x of value, so he would be getting 3.90x of value in just 4 hours of play, coming to 0.975 x/hour.

Now the exact values might be a little off, but it's not a bad estimate if he says he feels exhausted after four hours of play to think that he's at about 75% (and might even be an over-estimation).

This is an example of how we should be working smart instead of hard. In that hour of break in our example above, Lukie would only be losing 5% of the value of his first hour of play, or about 3 minutes of playing time, in exchange for an hour of his own time.

I'll come back with more later, this post is long enough as it is.

I play 1.5 hour sessions. One early morning, one mid day, one night. Shift these around as need be. Early to bed early to rise really works for poker too. My play time has doubled since I started going to bed at midnight and getting up at 9ish. I try to play an extra session on weekends to capitalize on the weekend warriors.

I used to play two or three sessions of about 3-4 hours length each five days a week, then one session of similar length on the other two days a week. However, I was studying the game very, very little, and might have even been slowly regressing as a player overtime. Around the same time I moved earlier this year, I started managing my playing time a bit differently. Now I usually play two or three sessions at around 2 hours each, and spend another couple of hours each day going over hands that I played earlier in the day. I also spend a nominal amount of time working on a second game (pot-limit omaha).

The result is that I've improved quite a bit as a player, I have more quality sessions as opposed to quantity, and my win-rate increased by somewhere between 33-50%. Most importantly, I now have time to do other things for myself, like cook somewhat decent food and take care of myself physically.

Most folks know I'm a hobbyist who's lucky to get 5 - 8 hours of poker in per week. Poker is relegated to nighttime (I'm a morning person) after job, yard work and family time. My sessions are 30 to 90 minutes. Some thoughts:

1. I'm getting better at just not playing on nights I'm mentally gone.
2. I typically playat anywhere between 60 - 80% of my best mentally. On weekends, I often get in 2 - 3 hours of 90% + , so maybe half my poker hours happen when my brain is working.
3. When I'm competent to play, but not at the top of my game, I play fewer table (from 12 tabling 6 max, I'll cut back to 8 or 9 tables, or even fewer).
4. Because I'm already tired, and bed is next after poker, I have learned to just quit during cold streaks and coolers and only play more than 30 minutes when good cards or good table conditions exist. If I'm having to FIGHT for decent tables to sit at and can't hit a flop to save my life, I just quit.

You might be reading this in horror, thinking ZOMG why's he playing if he's not awake and alert? That's spew!! LoL. This is the improvement. I used to play on nights when I was at 30% or 40% mentally, and THAT I assure you, was monster spew.

One thing I'm working on is the discipline to play one limit lower when I'm not at my mental best. Problem is, I have less discipline 'cuz I'm tired, and I have less poker adrenaline pumping 'cuz all the bets and pots are smaller.

Here's the thing. If Lukie was still playing at 75% after hours, he was still playing with better mental alertness than me on some nights when I START. So if Lukie and Spoon can gain a significant edge by adjusting their playing hours and staying alert, think how huge an edge we hobbyist players can gain by avoiding playing when we're stressed, fatigued, and sick.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

I used to play two or three sessions of about 3-4 hours length each five days a week, then one session of similar length on the other two days a week. However, I was studying the game very, very little, and might have even been slowly regressing as a player overtime. Around the same time I moved earlier this year, I started managing my playing time a bit differently. Now I usually play two or three sessions at around 2 hours each, and spend another couple of hours each day going over hands that I played earlier in the day. I also spend a nominal amount of time working on a second game (pot-limit omaha).

The result is that I've improved quite a bit as a player, I have more quality sessions as opposed to quantity, and my win-rate increased by somewhere between 33-50%. Most importantly, I now have time to do other things for myself, like cook somewhat decent food and take care of myself physically.

There is some real advice in this thread. This is something that has kept me and I am sure many others from progressing to where we would like to be. I do not spend enough time on my progression as a player. It's always about the hands. I need to learn that getting better and beating the games for 10PTBB would be better than getting 3 times as many hands at 3PTBB. My sessions are too long and my game suffers from lack of other disciplines in poker.

Originally Posted by Er Cheng Yishu, 11th century

One has to investigate the principle in one thing or one event exhaustively . . . Things and the self are governed by the same principle. If you understand one, you understand the other, for the truth within and the truth without are identical.

When you work at something, anything, it improves you in other facets of life, regardless of if you ever actually get to see the impact it has. The discipline required to be somewhat successful at managing a bankroll is the same discipline that is required in all other money-management situations you'll ever encounter in your life. It's practice.

When you suffer a bad beat, and you have been focusing on not letting bad cards coming affect you emotionally, then you're practicing for the next time your girlfriend (or boyfriend) pisses you off and you don't fly off the handle at them. You're practicing for the next time a car cuts you off in traffic and you just dodge them without reacting emotionally. You're practicing for the next time you have to keep a cool head in a rough situation.

The opposite is true. When you're reading a book about ponies or whatever your other hobbies are, and you're trying to stay focused on the book and think about what's going on and you're concentrating hard even though you're getting tired and sleepy, you're practicing for the next time you need to pull things together and focus at the poker table.

If you really sit down and think about it, almost everything in life prepares us in some way for something we will encounter at the poker table or in some other endeavor. Similarly, these other endeavors will ultimately teach us about life and make us a better person if we let it.

So what does this have to do with work ethic?

work ethic
–noun
a belief in the moral benefit and importance of work and its inherent ability to strengthen character.
[Origin: 1950–55]
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/work%20ethic

I am very lucky in comparison to a number of people in that I was taught the value of work at a very young age. I've had to work hard and bust my ass for basically everything I've ever had. As a result, I'm able to carry that respect for hard work over from "real life" to other disciplines, whether it's poker or chess or school work or whatever.

For those who weren't so lucky, poker is an absolutely wonderful vehicle to learn this lesson and to cultivate a work ethic that will build and stay with you through the rest of your life. I say that it's a great place to build a work ethic because your results are directly related to how much effort and progress you've made in learning the game you play, and because the opportunity for making a lot of money is there for the people who work for it.

In short, having a solid work ethic is the driving force behind learning all of these lessons since you will be spending more and more time in the proverbial driver's seat, and that's the fastest way to learn and improve both as a person and as a competitor.

So evidently FTR is full of a bunch of lazy bastards since this thread has had 5 replies (some of which were me) and over 150 views.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

So evidently FTR is full of a bunch of lazy bastards since this thread has had 5 replies (some of which were me) and over 150 views.

I lol'd.

It's a great post Spoon and one which I'll take a lot away from.

Originally Posted by kevster

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

So evidently FTR is full of a bunch of lazy bastards since this thread has had 5 replies (some of which were me) and over 150 views.

I lol'd.

It's a great post Spoon and one which I'll take a lot away from.

I'll tie in the same thing with another thread of mine at http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...de-t72181.html

People have already asked me why I recommend such a "conservative" bankroll management approach and why I recommend that people only move up from say 10nl to 25nl after beating 10nl for 3 ptbb/100 over 50k hands. The source of these complaints are laziness and a lack of patience, both of which are tell-tell signs that a person isn't ready for the long road that poker requires to have anything resembling success.

Coincidentally, all three people who seriously complained to me yesterday over one or both of these points are players who have had trouble beating a game at 25nl or lower over what could be considered "too long" of a period of time to be stuck in micro stakes.

I agree with the premise of this post - that working hard is the only way to be successful, regardless of innate talent.

I do sometimes disagree with some specific points you make. For instance the 50k hand comment. It's a great rule of thumb, and it is very applicable if a player multitables and tends to auto-pilot without too much thought to his own skill growth. It is also doubtless true that most poker players find an easy, simple formula to use and then just start grinding at whatever stakes they are playing and develop their bankroll without necessarily developing their poker skills. It is very true that bankroll alone does not qualify a player for being successful at a higher stake.

Conversely I would suggest that if a player plays only very few tables and spends as much time studying the game and improving his game as he spends playing it a 50k statistic is not necessary and imo not that telling. If a player works a lot on his game the way he played at the beginning of the 50k can be very different from how he played at the end of the 50k. For a 50k hand statistic to be meaningful the player will have to have played a relatively consistent game plan. Also, the player that spends a lot of time and effort (also work ethic) improving may become ready for a higher stake before his bankroll catches up. While I fully believe this can ONLY be true in micros and will NOT be true at even small stakes - I think it IS true at micros.

Routine is hugely important, but so is thinking play. I think a lot of players fall into the trap of thinking they are building routine at a time when they are grinding and playing mechanically without growing as players.

And while at it - thanks for all the thoughts and thought provoking material you do post Spoon. You are without a doubt one of my favourite FTR posters, and I think you are helping a lot of people get better (or less bad as the case is with me.)

Just a note on that particular choice for an arbitrary number of hands: 50k hands at 3 ptbb/100 amounts to 30 buy-ins in winnings over the sample, setting us up for being sure that we're ready for the next level in terms of bankroll and skill level.

As soon as I start to consider poker 'work', I'll probably quit.

That being said, spoon raises some valid points about the 'work ethic' required to be a successful player, and the implications that has on other aspects of your life. If you're the kind of person to put your roll on one table, you're probably the kind of person who'll drop your savings on a risky stock investment.

I still have twinges of 'impatient bastard' in me though cause I don't subscribe to uber-BR-nit rules. Though the higher I get, the nittier I get.

Originally Posted by d0zer

As soon as I start to consider poker 'work', I'll probably quit.

I used to think so too, and then I realized how much I like having money.

[quote="spoonitnow"]

Originally Posted by kevster

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

So evidently FTR is full of a bunch of lazy bastards since this thread has had 5 replies (some of which were me) and over 150 views.

People have already asked me why I recommend such a "conservative" bankroll management approach and why I recommend that people only move up from say 10nl to 25nl after beating 10nl for 3 ptbb/100 over 50k hands.

HAHAHA I lol'ed when I read this. Not moving up for 50k hands at those stakes is burning money if you can beat 50nl.

[quote="guitarizt"]

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by kevster

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

So evidently FTR is full of a bunch of lazy bastards since this thread has had 5 replies (some of which were me) and over 150 views.

People have already asked me why I recommend such a "conservative" bankroll management approach and why I recommend that people only move up from say 10nl to 25nl after beating 10nl for 3 ptbb/100 over 50k hands.

HAHAHA I lol'ed when I read this. Not moving up for 50k hands at those stakes is burning money if you can beat 50nl.

This is not necessarily true for a long number of reasons, though a simple example would be if your 25nl win-rate is 2.5 ptbb/100, and your 50nl win-rate is only 1 ptbb/100.

People seem to really under-estimate the amount of time it will take to build a bankroll worth doing something with. The old standard was 20 buy-ins, but that was in a time of higher win-rates. Statistics tells us that as our win-rates go down, our bankroll requirements should go up, although this is beyond the scope of this thread.

Touching on a similar point, to suggest that developing a good work ethic at micro-stakes is somehow inferior to developing one at low- or mid-stakes is simply untrue. The earlier you learn to put a lot of effort into your study and play, and to be able to hold the same level of focus for hours upon hours at a time, the better off you will be in the long run. There is much to be said for cultivating such a work ethic early on, and it will pay massive dividends in the time you save over the life of your poker career, not to mention where it will pay off in time saved in other aspects of life.