Kind of a weird twist to be speaking from your point of view and then switching to what most people do in your opinion...

No assuming- there was a study in the us showing how many people over the age of 35? (If I recall correctly) that had any life savings. They found that number to be shockingly tiny.

I am so confused now...

Might be this: http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/10/pf/emergency_fund/

The exact numbers change, but the same study conclusions come up all the time. It's a weird question to read as a poker player since 3-4 days a week I probably have $1k in my pocket.

Ya, so why wouldn't you try to make more money even if you and your SO have good paying jobs?

Without ability to quote, it can be kind of confusing.

Discussion started like this:

The problem isn't that people don't make enough- it's that they just spend too much on overpriced products / things they don't actually need.

There's quite a few books and even some TED talks on the subject. It's pretty fascinating.

More or less they say people catch the consumerism bug and overspend on just about everything you can think of: Homes, food, cars, vacations, clothing, phones, hair cuts etc etc.

Keeping up with the joneses. They do it because they've been told to. An empty promise so to speak, they buy these overpriced things because they think it will make them happy but it ultimately stresses them out even more. It's a viscous cycle.

I'm not doing it any justice though. Check out the TED videos for starters.

/end derail

You totally lost me.

I thought the discussion was:

How did we get to people buy things they don't need and TED videos?

You can have great paying jobs and play poker to make even more money WITHOUT buying things you don't need...

So you can save money and not be 35 and have no real savings...

I play solely for money nowadays
I don't actually enjoy poker as much anymore, mainly because I had to rely on it as my only source of income for too long.

Casino giving away money to players who play the most hours every week.

Do I count that in my win rate? Sure this has been discussed before. I mean, I have to play the hours to get the bonus. Not like a high hand or bad beat that is based on luck.

My gut says this counts and HH and BB do not.

It's essentially rakeback. Online players count that I believe

I don't count it inly online winrate but I think I could probably set it up to do it.


I don't see why you can't keep two totals. One WR without to k ow how you're actually doing in the game itself and one with it to see how you're doing with your time commitment.

Does it really even matter?

well I think we should prolly have everyone weigh in...and debate this issue for multiple pages as it is paramount in determining blah blah blah blah wall of text no i am smarter no u I was testing to see just how stoopid u are...etc etc

For rec players, the only reason to keep track of our winrate is to *try* to get a handle on how we stack up regarding our poker playing abilities. Sorta like keeping track of wins/losses/goals/points/GAA/etc. in a rec sports league.

So I definitely wouldn't include any bonuses / BBJs / etc. in my winrate calculation.

ETA: @Chippy, why do you keep track of your winrate? Is it partly to attempt to figure out your expected income in the future? If so, including random lottery-like winning (especially big once-in-a-lifetime ones like BBJs) will totally distort your future expectation.

Gotherwise,whocaresG

right but if you are winning at say 5bb/hr without including it...now you add in this rakeback and you are winning 5.5bb/hr or w/e it works out to be. Who gives a ****?

It's all just mental masturbation

that's the point. If your goal is to see how well you compete, then don't include it. If $/hr is your main goal then include.

Oh I see what you mean: the difference between ex. 5bb/hr and 5.5bb/hr is pretty much worthless? I get that. But sometimes the difference can be huge (ex. I'm either a 0.48 BB/hr winner at 2/4 Limit or a 6.26 BB/hr winner).

Ginthisthread,slimknocksmasturbationG

Super easy to use common sense here lol. Non-promo WR is for future expectation and WR w/ promo is for past results. If you want to tell yourself you make more in-game than you actually do, have at it. It's not like it's super difficult to calculate both and analyze the difference.

WR is like how much you can bench in high school...

If it's a regular promo like HH or Aces cracked or a SF/royal bonus, etc. then it should be included to reflect future expectation. It is part of your EV from playing poker.

Except my WR much higher than my bench press

Most apps have a place to make bankroll entries with a note or catagory. It goes there with "promo" IMO. Alternatively create a special game or location that can be filtered out. But otherwise.... Whatever makes you feel good.

Ok, now I see words that make me buzz!

If future expectation is what you are after, then it makes far more sense not to add any of the promos for few obvious reasons:

1. Most promos aren't forever, so if you add promo winning now and the same promo is gone tomorrow, then your future expectation is skewed.

2. Actual promo winning does not account for the odds in which you get it. Say the promo is HH for $200/hr, and you hit one and added it to your WR, does that mean your future expectation should always include hitting a $200 HH? If so, at what frequency?

3. Most players vary their plays because of promotions and that affects EV of the hand. Some players begin to chase HH when there are few minutes left and the qualifier is low. Some people walk into certain rooms only to chase promo. Some players even play lowest stake limit game to try to hit HH...smh. If you are one of these "some" players, then your future expectation is skewed because you actually play differently depending on the promo.

Bottom line, when you start to factoring promo in your WR, your future expectation will be skewed.

You can't bench 20 beanie babies back in high school? God, why do I even talk to a wimp?