Poker lesson learned

I mean having a higher level player to help you with situations is great. But they can't play your hands for you! I've talked to tons of NL1000+ guys and they all have been helpful in trying to explain hands, but in the end you're the one who has to hit that raise/fold/call button.

i fully agree with one thing you said...
that the top players have "tilt control".
There are more variables however, than controlling your emotions. For example, you have to control how you play, and how you handle yourself compared to how you're opponets play. The best of the best in any activity are the one's that can change their gameplan on a dime once they get a read on their opponet. Using baseball as an example, if you are a fastball pitcher, w/ a decent curve and changeup, and you're playing a team that is a fastball hitting team, you're going to get pounded for an inning or two until you figure it out, change you're plan and dominate the opponet. In poker, this might be noticing a player at your table is 3-betting every time the flop comes with 3 of the same suit. Or maybe you notice a guy is reading you're tell, so when you get the nuts you do it on purpose to persuade a call, etc etc.

On September 23 2008 17:00 Fox wrote: I remember posting in a thread about high stakes.. we are talking NL5000+ and i remember Myth saying that the top top players are usually better then everyone else because they have supreme tilt control and bankroll management.

I disagree. Playing nosebleed stakes by definition means you're liberal with your bankroll. The most successful players almost always were very aggressive at moving up limits/taking shots. sbrugby moved up the moment he had 20bi for the next level. Phil Galfond played 300/600 when he had 300k (1 buy-in and he moves down). durrrr doesn't have a problem with losing 20% of his bankroll on a shot if he thinks it's +EV. I haven't heard of any player reaching the top using a very conservative bankroll management.

I don't think these guys are exceptional when it comes to handling tilt either. Antonius looks like a statue when he gets a beat, but he admitted to breaking mice at home. Ivey can get visibly frustrated. Ziiigmund tilts like a monkey from what I hear.

every time I play HU it looks like I'm on tilt even tho I'm not

it's good that youve figured a way to crush them fuckers,only thing that seems to work for me like a charm is to avoid them

i have super nitty bankroll management, 30k br playing 100nl, im gunna move to 200nl soon
my tilt control has been a bit bad this month and i prolly spewed over 20 buyins at 100nl

On September 23 2008 17:49 tomson wrote: Show nested quote + On September 23 2008 17:00 Fox wrote: I remember posting in a thread about high stakes.. we are talking NL5000+ and i remember Myth saying that the top top players are usually better then everyone else because they have supreme tilt control and bankroll management. I disagree. Playing nosebleed stakes by definition means you're liberal with your bankroll. The most successful players almost always were very aggressive at moving up limits/taking shots. sbrugby moved up the moment he had 20bi for the next level. Phil Galfond played 300/600 when he had 300k (1 buy-in and he moves down). durrrr doesn't have a problem with losing 20% of his bankroll on a shot if he thinks it's +EV. I haven't heard of any player reaching the top using a very conservative bankroll management. I don't think these guys are exceptional when it comes to handling tilt either. Antonius looks like a statue when he gets a beat, but he admitted to breaking mice at home. Ivey can get visibly frustrated. Ziiigmund tilts like a monkey from what I hear.

Well Tomson i think that the lesson i came away from this was taking shots and being liberal is fine, but i mean if you go busto that's it..... I mean omgclayaiken/durrrr/aba all haven't gone busto and we've both seen posts about aba dropping down in limits. I mean how many posts of people at NL100+ have you seen of people who like "2k left" then 2 weeks later "i'm busto" wtf are they doing?...

I mean yeah Durrrr takes 20% of his bankroll if it's +EV but he's not going broke, he knows when it's a good idea to do something different. I think that makes their management even more important. Bankroll management doesn't really mean that you are a bankroll nit. I just means you understand what you have and what you're willing to do. yeah a super high stakes player will take larger shots but he's one of the best because he's not spewing his entire bankroll into dust and always makes sure he has reserves to build it back up. At least that's how i understand it and that's the lesson i took from what myth said. I mean we had a guy who made a million from almost nothing... he's not a top player well cuz he decided to keep playing omaha 300/600 even though he lost 80% of it... I doubt a top player would do that.

Also in terms of tilt control, the lesson i learned from that was if i can control myself and spew 0 buyins. Then I will always be ahead of my opponent who will spew a few buyins against me. We have people here who go on massive tilt and lose like 10 buyins. If you're a good player you take advantage of those situations when your opponents are tilting buyins to you, and on the other end you have to make sure you aren't giving it back to them when you tilt.

While you may be right that top players dont' follow these lessons, the lesson was recieved by me and it's helped me very much!

On September 23 2008 19:50 Exhilarate wrote: i have super nitty bankroll management, 30k br playing 100nl, im gunna move to 200nl soon my tilt control has been a bit bad this month and i prolly spewed over 20 buyins at 100nl

how in gods name aren't you playing NL400 yet =[