Thinking of taking the plunge into Professional Poker

On Jun 1, 12:25 pm, A Man Beaten by Jacks <nob... DeleteThis @fool.foo> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 01:58:37 -0700 (PDT), Preston
>
> <prestonpoul... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Hey Everyone,
> >Here's the May update. In May I played 145 hours and earned $5903.
> >That's roughly $40 per hour which is right in line with my longer term
> >average of 1.3 big bets per hours at $15-30 Hold 'em. In total, that's
> >424 big bets won over the last 335 hours of playing. I'm not sure how
> >this isn't fulfilling the goals that I set out to do as Irish Mike
> >suggests, given that they are my goals and I'm the one that set them
> >and I seem to have fulfilled them all, but I'm sure that Irish Mike
> >and all the other usenet haters are, of course, correct.
> >At any rate, I've now statistically proven that I'm better than break
> >even and can continue to post updates here about my progress as I've
> >moved up limits and won more money, but, as Irish Mike points out, who
> >on Earth would want to hear that on a forum like rec.gambling.poker ?
> >So this will probably be my last post here.
>
> The fact that you think you've proven that shows that you have little
> understanding of statistics.  The very phrase "statistically proven"
> in conjunction with 335 hours shows a severe lack of understanding. At
> most, you've shown it is more likely than not that you are better than
> break even.
>
> Anyway don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

Opps, sorry, had to come back because "Man beaten by Jacks" has been
quit this whole time and he only responds now.
Just so you know "Man" I got an A in a college level course on
statistics. I've started breaking up my play into 100 hour groups and
comparing the variance between the hourly rates of a hundred hour
block. Right now, that's only there data points. But you can do
statistics on three data points, you just have to use the "Student t
Distribution" to generate a confidence interval. Because the data set
is so small the CI will be large, but it will come down over time as
more and more data is put into it.

Here's the data so you can follow along at home.
Average Big Bet per hour win for 100 hours played
.94
1.68
1.12

The variance of this sample is .14894, the standard deviation is .
38593

The Confidence interval can be figured using the Student t charts
choosing 95% confident with 2 degrees of freedom (degrees of freedom =
number of data points -1). According to the chart I have, the value is
4.303

So we are 95% confident that the true average for my big bet per hour
winnings should be somewhere between the range given by:

1.245 (my current average) plus or minus 4.303 x the standard
deviation of .38593 divided by the square root of the number of data
points

Crunch the numbers and you get 1.245 plus or minus .9587

Therefore, as I said, I have statistically proven with 95% confidence
to be at least better than break even. So, Man Beaten by Jacks, you
are once again wrong. Furthermore, you have once again proven that you
haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

As for Irish Mike, you seem to have forgotten that I'm talking about
live games and not internet games. I'm sure it doesn't matter to you,
you are, after all, nothing but a hater and the specific details don't
matter as much as the hatin.

You two are both invited to suck a cock.

Cya.
 >> Stay informed about: Thinking of taking the plunge into Professional Poker 

"Preston" <prestonpoulter DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e564ac0f-0582-4cd7-ac4f-5818bf067eb5@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Hey Everyone,
>
> Here's the May update. In May I played 145 hours and earned $5903.
> That's roughly $40 per hour which is right in line with my longer term
> average of 1.3 big bets per hours at $15-30 Hold 'em. In total, that's
> 424 big bets won over the last 335 hours of playing. I'm not sure how
> this isn't fulfilling the goals that I set out to do as Irish Mike
> suggests, given that they are my goals and I'm the one that set them
> and I seem to have fulfilled them all, but I'm sure that Irish Mike
> and all the other usenet haters are, of course, correct.

I have no idea what you're talking about but you sound like a whiney little
ass wipe. You keep bragging about all the money you're winning on line.
Well if you're so happy with your results why do you give a shit what any
one else thinks? You've been pissing and moaning on here for six months
about your big plan to become a professional poker player. Do it. Don't do
it. I don't give a flying fuck one way or the other. And if that harsh
language makes you stop posting on RGP then it's no big loss.

Irish Mike
 >> Stay informed about: Thinking of taking the plunge into Professional Poker 

On Jun 1 2008 1:58 AM, Preston wrote:

> Hey Everyone,
>
> Here's the May update. In May I played 145 hours and earned $5903.
> That's roughly $40 per hour which is right in line with my longer term
> average of 1.3 big bets per hours at $15-30 Hold 'em. In total, that's
> 424 big bets won over the last 335 hours of playing. I'm not sure how
> this isn't fulfilling the goals that I set out to do as Irish Mike
> suggests, given that they are my goals and I'm the one that set them
> and I seem to have fulfilled them all, but I'm sure that Irish Mike
> and all the other usenet haters are, of course, correct.
>
> At any rate, I've now statistically proven that I'm better than break
> even and can continue to post updates here about my progress as I've
> moved up limits and won more money, but, as Irish Mike points out, who
> on Earth would want to hear that on a forum like rec.gambling.poker ?
> So this will probably be my last post here.
>
> Sincerely,
> Preston

That's grate!! Kin I get a steak?

----- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
 >> Stay informed about: Thinking of taking the plunge into Professional Poker 

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 01:58:37 -0700 (PDT), Preston
<prestonpoulter.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hey Everyone,

>Here's the May update. In May I played 145 hours and earned $5903.
>That's roughly $40 per hour which is right in line with my longer term
>average of 1.3 big bets per hours at $15-30 Hold 'em. In total, that's
>424 big bets won over the last 335 hours of playing. I'm not sure how
>this isn't fulfilling the goals that I set out to do as Irish Mike
>suggests, given that they are my goals and I'm the one that set them
>and I seem to have fulfilled them all, but I'm sure that Irish Mike
>and all the other usenet haters are, of course, correct.

>At any rate, I've now statistically proven that I'm better than break
>even and can continue to post updates here about my progress as I've
>moved up limits and won more money, but, as Irish Mike points out, who
>on Earth would want to hear that on a forum like rec.gambling.poker ?
>So this will probably be my last post here.

The fact that you think you've proven that shows that you have little
understanding of statistics. The very phrase "statistically proven"
in conjunction with 335 hours shows a severe lack of understanding. At
most, you've shown it is more likely than not that you are better than
break even.

Anyway don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.
 >> Stay informed about: Thinking of taking the plunge into Professional Poker 

On Jun 1, 3:59 pm, Preston <prestonpoul....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 12:25 pm, A Man Beaten by Jacks <nob....RemoveThis@fool.foo> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 01:58:37 -0700 (PDT), Preston
>
> > <prestonpoul....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >Hey Everyone,
> > >Here's the May update. In May I played 145 hours and earned $5903.
> > >That's roughly $40 per hour which is right in line with my longer term
> > >average of 1.3 big bets per hours at $15-30 Hold 'em. In total, that's
> > >424 big bets won over the last 335 hours of playing. I'm not sure how
> > >this isn't fulfilling the goals that I set out to do as Irish Mike
> > >suggests, given that they are my goals and I'm the one that set them
> > >and I seem to have fulfilled them all, but I'm sure that Irish Mike
> > >and all the other usenet haters are, of course, correct.
> > >At any rate, I've now statistically proven that I'm better than break
> > >even and can continue to post updates here about my progress as I've
> > >moved up limits and won more money, but, as Irish Mike points out, who
> > >on Earth would want to hear that on a forum like rec.gambling.poker ?
> > >So this will probably be my last post here.
>
> > The fact that you think you've proven that shows that you have little
> > understanding of statistics.  The very phrase "statistically proven"
> > in conjunction with 335 hours shows a severe lack of understanding. At
> > most, you've shown it is more likely than not that you are better than
> > break even.
>
> > Anyway don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.
>
> Opps, sorry, had to come back because "Man beaten by Jacks" has been
> quit this whole time and he only responds now.
> Just so you know "Man" I got an A in a college level course on
> statistics. I've started breaking up my play into 100 hour groups and
> comparing the variance between the hourly rates of a hundred hour
> block. Right now, that's only there data points. But you can do
> statistics on three data points, you just have to use the "Student t
> Distribution" to generate a confidence interval. Because the data set
> is so small the CI will be large, but it will come down over time as
> more and more data is put into it.
>
> Here's the data so you can follow along at home.
> Average Big Bet per hour win for 100 hours played
> .94
> 1.68
> 1.12
>
> The variance of this sample is .14894, the standard deviation is .
> 38593
>
> The Confidence interval can be figured using the Student t charts
> choosing 95% confident with 2 degrees of freedom (degrees of freedom =
> number of data points -1). According to the chart I have, the value is
> 4.303
>
> So we are 95% confident that the true average for my big bet per hour
> winnings should be somewhere between the range given by:
>
> 1.245 (my current average) plus or minus 4.303 x the standard
> deviation of .38593 divided by the square root of the number of data
> points
>
> Crunch the numbers and you get 1.245 plus or minus .9587
>
> Therefore, as I said, I have statistically proven with 95% confidence
> to be at least better than break even. So, Man Beaten by Jacks, you
> are once again wrong. Furthermore, you have once again proven that you
> haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
>
> As for Irish Mike, you seem to have forgotten that I'm talking about
> live games and not internet games. I'm sure it doesn't matter to you,
> you are, after all, nothing but a hater and the specific details don't
> matter as much as the hatin.
>
> You two are both invited to suck a cock.
>
> Cya.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I haven't read this whole threat because....well, I don't want to.

What I have read, however, makes a couple of things crystal clear:

First, you came hear asking for advice on playing, got some, and then
went all apeshit because you didn't like it, whether in the begining
or later on when people starting saying that you were drawing
conclusions from limited play.

Second, It's fairly obvious you had made your mind up that you were
going to give this a shot, regardless of what anyone said. (Frankly,
not a bad thing. The fact that one or two people here made a go of it
or didn't make a go of it, when they tried, is really irrelvant.)

Third, why the hell does it matter? Honestly, if you're going to live
the life of a poker pro (or anyone who works for themselves) you have
to do it notwithstanding any advice you ger one way or the other -
certainly not because of it. Anyone whose mind was made up one way or
the other because of whatever replies they would have gotten here, or
did get here, wasn't going to make it anyway.

So in the end, the whole thread is meaningless. Do you own research,
read books about it, go and try it. That way you'll know what you
know - you won't just know what someone else said. It's something to
consider, not something to base your decisions on. Basically,
"Thinking about going pro" threads should be banned. They should
instead be "I tried going pro and this is what happened" threads.

THEN maybe they would have some (marginal) utility.

Best of luck in the future (not that it matters).
 >> Stay informed about: Thinking of taking the plunge into Professional Poker 

"Preston"

Please keep us informed over the next few months when you have six data
points.

We can all learn from your example.

Good luck.
 >> Stay informed about: Thinking of taking the plunge into Professional Poker 

On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 12:59:21 -0700 (PDT), Preston
<prestonpoulter RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Jun 1, 12:25 pm, A Man Beaten by Jacks <nob... RemoveThis @fool.foo> wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 01:58:37 -0700 (PDT), Preston

>Therefore, as I said, I have statistically proven with 95% confidence

Again, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "proven."

I thought you were leaving anyway. I guess I'll help you leave *my*
Internet experience, since clearly you're a liar who can't say
something and then do it.

*plonk*
 >> Stay informed about: Thinking of taking the plunge into Professional Poker 

On Jun 1 2008 3:59 PM, Preston wrote:

> On Jun 1, 12:25 pm, A Man Beaten by Jacks <nob....TakeThisOut@fool.foo> wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 01:58:37 -0700 (PDT), Preston
> >
> > <prestonpoul....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >Hey Everyone,
> > >Here's the May update. In May I played 145 hours and earned $5903.
> > >That's roughly $40 per hour which is right in line with my longer term
> > >average of 1.3 big bets per hours at $15-30 Hold 'em. In total, that's
> > >424 big bets won over the last 335 hours of playing. I'm not sure how
> > >this isn't fulfilling the goals that I set out to do as Irish Mike
> > >suggests, given that they are my goals and I'm the one that set them
> > >and I seem to have fulfilled them all, but I'm sure that Irish Mike
> > >and all the other usenet haters are, of course, correct.
> > >At any rate, I've now statistically proven that I'm better than break
> > >even and can continue to post updates here about my progress as I've
> > >moved up limits and won more money, but, as Irish Mike points out, who
> > >on Earth would want to hear that on a forum like rec.gambling.poker ?
> > >So this will probably be my last post here.
> >
> > The fact that you think you've proven that shows that you have little
> > understanding of statistics.  The very phrase "statistically proven"
> > in conjunction with 335 hours shows a severe lack of understanding. At
> > most, you've shown it is more likely than not that you are better than
> > break even.
> >
> > Anyway don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.
>
> Opps, sorry, had to come back because "Man beaten by Jacks" has been
> quit this whole time and he only responds now.
> Just so you know "Man" I got an A in a college level course on
> statistics. I've started breaking up my play into 100 hour groups and
> comparing the variance between the hourly rates of a hundred hour
> block. Right now, that's only there data points. But you can do
> statistics on three data points, you just have to use the "Student t
> Distribution" to generate a confidence interval. Because the data set
> is so small the CI will be large, but it will come down over time as
> more and more data is put into it.

Sigh.

I took more than one college level courses in statistical methods and more
than one college level course in math stat. In both cases at both
undergraduate and graduate levels. I've also taught that college level
course you're talking about.

So, slow down cowboy.

The t-distribution describes the sampling distribution for a normally
distributed random variable with unknown variance. You're estimating two
parameters from the data -- mean and variance. Making that estimate from
3 data points doesn't leave you with a lot of degrees of freedom. You
were probably taught that you have 2 degrees of freedom, that's for the
sampling distribution used to estimate the mean. You're trying to make a
whole bunch of inferences past that -- which burns up those 2 degrees of
freedom pretty fast.

But, then again, I don't know what the hell you're talking about with the
"blocks of 100". Is 3 blocks of 100 a sample of 300 or a sample of 3?


>
> Here's the data so you can follow along at home.
> Average Big Bet per hour win for 100 hours played
> .94
> 1.68
> 1.12
>
> The variance of this sample is .14894, the standard deviation is .
> 38593

This is awful. You got an A? What was it, a stat methods course in a
sociology department?

You're throwing away all the variance when you do those group means.

>
> The Confidence interval can be figured using the Student t charts
> choosing 95% confident with 2 degrees of freedom (degrees of freedom =
> number of data points -1). According to the chart I have, the value is
> 4.303
>
> So we are 95% confident that the true average for my big bet per hour
> winnings should be somewhere between the range given by:
>
> 1.245 (my current average) plus or minus 4.303 x the standard
> deviation of .38593 divided by the square root of the number of data
> points
>
> Crunch the numbers and you get 1.245 plus or minus .9587

You don't know what you're doing.


>
> Therefore, as I said, I have statistically proven with 95% confidence
> to be at least better than break even. So, Man Beaten by Jacks, you
> are once again wrong. Furthermore, you have once again proven that you
> haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

What you've demonstrated is that if you ignore most of the variance (i.e.,
use 3 group means instead of a single mean from 300 observations) that you
can make it look like there's not much variance in poker results.

You would not have gotten an A when I taught the course.

-------- 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
 >> Stay informed about: Thinking of taking the plunge into Professional Poker 

johnnycoconutsftp.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Jun 1, 3:59 pm, Preston <prestonpoul....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
....
>> Therefore, as I said, I have statistically proven with 95% confidence
>> to be at least better than break even. So, Man Beaten by Jacks, you
>> are once again wrong. Furthermore, you have once again proven that you
>> haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

I do not think your analysis means what you think it means.

>> As for Irish Mike, you seem to have forgotten that I'm talking about
>> live games and not internet games. I'm sure it doesn't matter to you,
>> you are, after all, nothing but a hater and the specific details don't
>> matter as much as the hatin.
>>
>> You two are both invited to suck a cock.
....
> I haven't read this whole threat because....well, I don't want to.

Likewise.

> What I have read, however, makes a couple of things crystal clear:
>
> First, you came hear asking for advice on playing, got some, and then
> went all apeshit because you didn't like it, whether in the begining
> or later on when people starting saying that you were drawing
> conclusions from limited play.

This is actually rather common. People purport to ask a question when
what they really want is validation. Then they can't stand it when
anyone points out flaws that bursts their balloon.

The only thing I have to say to him is, get back to us after you've been
playing full-time for a year.


--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range
 >> Stay informed about: Thinking of taking the plunge into Professional Poker 

> I suppose I'm really trying to understand the negative perception
> based on those who take part in the lifestyle itself?

My guess would be that they are really pissed at themselves for taking in
such a lifestyle. I play at casinos (B&M) on average 2-3 times a month
and cannot imagine doing it EVERY day! You just meet unsavory people in
the casino and IMO being around this type of person will deteriorate
anyone who succumbs to their presence for a long period of time.

You handle chips that are disgustingly dirty. You eat food (for the most
part a quick hot dog etc) that is not healthy for you. You are in and
around smoking (for those casinos that have not banned it yet). If you
are a regular you have to deal with people asking to borrow money all the
time. The swings of winning big then losing your ass (sometimes your
fault for missing an obvious tell and sometimes you cannot find ONE thing
you did wrong with the hands that were played) can lead to emotional
swings. Having to deal with the commute (which is no different than a
regular job I guess, but you have to factor CA commute) Taking money from
the guy you CAN TELL 100% just lost his rent or food for his family (and
the worst part is when you get to this point and DONOT FUCKING care)

My comment above about the people who have tried it and are mad at
themselves for doing it was not meant to include everyone, but I would bet
a SHIT LOAD OF MONEY describes more than 50% that have done it.

I also believe there are some nice people on here and while they may be
pissed at themselves because it didn't work or for whatever reason they
may honestly be trying to convey to you that it is NOT a great idea to
become a 'professional poker player'.

I am guessing you enjoy playing the game. The times I have gone to the
casino to make a little extra to do something special the next day or the
next week and LOST was a bummer. I cannot imagine going there everyday
knowing that if I had hit a bad streak that I may have to change my
lifestyle because of it. This is probably nothing new to some people, but
I have been living on a salaried job for the better part of my life and
know EXACTLY how much money I am bringing home every week so for me not
knowing how much I will clear the next week would be too much for me.

'Realistically'

'You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means'

Either way you can count on an honest good luck wish from me because no
matter who you are I am pretty much up for you doing well.

BOOM byae
John

------ 
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
 >> Stay informed about: Thinking of taking the plunge into Professional Poker 

On Jun 2, 12:34 pm, "Irish Mike" <mjos....TakeThisOut@ameritech.net> wrote:
 And spending the last five or ten years, as a failed poker pro,
> really doesn't look all that impressive on your resume.
>
> Irish Mike- Hide quoted text -

Depends on how you write it. With a little stretching and a
thesaurus, you could make it sound decent.


Previous Experience: CEO of own company, determined investment
objectives on stand-alone and ongoing investment opportunites,
primarily involved in basic commodities (clay, paper, plastic),
following significant review of statistical situations, strategies and
inter-personal relationships of competing investors. Set up profit
sharing program with third-party supplied mediators. Frequent
expeditions to group investments in mutiple risk/reward opportunities,
commonly acheiving a top 10% return.

(Note: Not available to work end-May to mid-July, and then possibly
one day in November.)
 >> Stay informed about: Thinking of taking the plunge into Professional Poker 

> Previous Experience: CEO of own company, determined investment
> objectives on stand-alone and ongoing investment opportunites,
> primarily involved in basic commodities (clay, paper, plastic),
> following significant review of statistical situations, strategies and
> inter-personal relationships of competing investors. Set up profit
> sharing program with third-party supplied mediators. Frequent
> expeditions to group investments in mutiple risk/reward opportunities,
> commonly acheiving a top 10% return.
>
> (Note: Not available to work end-May to mid-July, and then possibly
> one day in November.)

And then they ask WHERE you got this 'experience' and you
say................? lol

Maybe, "various 'investment' houses throughout the Nevada region."? lol

BOOM byae
John

_______________________________________________________________________ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
 >> Stay informed about: Thinking of taking the plunge into Professional Poker 

"John_Brian_K" <John_Brian_Kent_1677 DeleteThis @Yahoo.Com> wrote in message
news:g7idh5xbun.ln2@recgroups.com...
>> I suppose I'm really trying to understand the negative perception
>> based on those who take part in the lifestyle itself?
>
> My guess would be that they are really pissed at themselves for taking in
> such a lifestyle. I play at casinos (B&M) on average 2-3 times a month
> and cannot imagine doing it EVERY day! You just meet unsavory people in
> the casino and IMO being around this type of person will deteriorate
> anyone who succumbs to their presence for a long period of time.
>
> You handle chips that are disgustingly dirty. You eat food (for the most
> part a quick hot dog etc) that is not healthy for you. You are in and
> around smoking (for those casinos that have not banned it yet). If you
> are a regular you have to deal with people asking to borrow money all the
> time. The swings of winning big then losing your ass (sometimes your
> fault for missing an obvious tell and sometimes you cannot find ONE thing
> you did wrong with the hands that were played) can lead to emotional
> swings. Having to deal with the commute (which is no different than a
> regular job I guess, but you have to factor CA commute) Taking money from
> the guy you CAN TELL 100% just lost his rent or food for his family (and
> the worst part is when you get to this point and DONOT FUCKING care)
>
> My comment above about the people who have tried it and are mad at
> themselves for doing it was not meant to include everyone, but I would bet
> a SHIT LOAD OF MONEY describes more than 50% that have done it.
>
> I also believe there are some nice people on here and while they may be
> pissed at themselves because it didn't work or for whatever reason they
> may honestly be trying to convey to you that it is NOT a great idea to
> become a 'professional poker player'.
>
> I am guessing you enjoy playing the game. The times I have gone to the
> casino to make a little extra to do something special the next day or the
> next week and LOST was a bummer. I cannot imagine going there everyday
> knowing that if I had hit a bad streak that I may have to change my
> lifestyle because of it. This is probably nothing new to some people, but
> I have been living on a salaried job for the better part of my life and
> know EXACTLY how much money I am bringing home every week so for me not
> knowing how much I will clear the next week would be too much for me.
>
> 'Realistically'
>
> 'You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
> means'
>
> Either way you can count on an honest good luck wish from me because no
> matter who you are I am pretty much up for you doing well.
>
> BOOM byae
> John

Good points, all. Here are a couple more. The first is the sheer number of
hours you spend sitting indoors on your ass when it's absolutely beautiful
out side, and that includes week ends and holidays. Don't want to "go all
spiritual on yo' ass" but some times I look at these beautiful sunny days
almost as gifts from God, and you've got to wonder if sitting in some stuffy
poker room is the best way to use that gift. The second is that you are
missing your peak earning years in the business world. The years when you
could be layng the foundation for your career, building a 401K, with a
percentage of matching funds by a company or corporation, stock options,
profit sharing, building retirement, accruing health care benefits, etc.
Yeah, if you try being a poker pro for five or ten yeas and it doesn't work
out you can always try to go get a job in a corporation and start building a
career. But you are going to be way, way behind in that very competitive
race. And spending the last five or ten years, as a failed poker pro,
really doesn't look all that impressive on your resume.

Irish Mike
 >> Stay informed about: Thinking of taking the plunge into Professional Poker