Episode 134: Julie Anna Cornelius

14 thoughts on “Episode 134: Julie Anna Cornelius”

1. Can you stop having on all these high achievers whose adult success is built upon highly committed, driven childhood activities, please. You’re undermining my low intensity, no pressure parenting style. 😉

   Regarding the discussion of winrates and the quantity and size of decisions, Nate, it sounded like you were thinking yourself towards a conclusion that lots of players are deluding themselves about their ROIs, is that right? A counter argument might be that a large contribution to your ROI comes not from cashing twice as often as Jane P Grinder, but from making the big money much more often – from rare but big payoffs, and thus your real edge is less about making the right decision when it doesn’t matter much, but from being able to continue doing that even as the significance of those decisions gets much greater.

   • Most of all, I think this made it very clear how limited the ROIs are for players who merely play ABC poker or who do a couple things very well on top of an ABC game. In something like the WSOP ME, I do think there’s enough play deep in the tournament that differences in frequencies of making the big money can create big contributions to ROI.

     I do also think that a lot of players overestimate their ROIs just by being unrealistic about how often they’ll be able to create reciprocal money against standard grinder types (and these days there are *lots* of those). Viewing ROI as (a function of) the sum of one’s edges in every decision one makes has been, for me, a way to make that conclusion vivid.

2. Enjoyed that conversation, thanks guys.

   I always enjoy stories where other competitive endeavors blend into, or lead to, poker. Or ones that poker is complementary to.

   There has always been an awareness in my poker experience that hard work will translate into better results. It is interesting however to find more and more discussions in the community dismissing the value of that hard work. Of course games become more difficult, but to many it sounds like an excuse not to play poker at all.

   Anyway, I think people like Julie who value hard work and dedication in whatever they do will almost always succeed.

3. Very interesting story.

   I relate to her passion for tournaments over cash games. It’s just the time commitment that makes me play cash over tournaments. I think anyone who comes from a gaming background or other competitive endeavor gravitates towards tournaments. When I first started playing I got that computer program that was mentioned in Positively 5th Street and had fun playing that (but those robots were pretty bad).

   With Nate going to more tournaments and Andrew planning on coming back East for a visit at some point, you guys should try to do an east coast meetup some time in the next year.

   • “I relate to her passion for tournaments over cash games. It’s just the time commitment that makes me play cash over tournaments.”

     Dana, this sounds like my dilemma with live poker. Maybe this article will be helpful to you. I hope Andrew doesn’t mind me posting it. http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/issue127/carlos-welch-2015-WSOP-trip-report-part1.php

     Can anybody get into Macau games? If their 10-20 games really play like 1-2 games, then a small stakes guy could probably print money in their 2-5 game. Do they even play that small?

     Hopefully, Julie has done some research on the differences between live and online games, especially of she plans to play cash. They are completely different monsters. Good luck to her. Online is the way to go.

     • Hi Carlos – thanks for posting that. I haven’t been checking two plus two magazine the last few months so I had missed that. I used to play single table tournaments when I first played live poker but got away from them, primarily because the rake was high and structure was bad. So I like your idea of doing a last longer. (side question: If you can’t get the whole table to do it, does that still reduce your rake the same?) As for structure, I think this was partly due to the fact that I didn’t like to fold/fold/fold then be forced to play when the blinds got higher and potentially lose on the first hand I played. But I understand, and appreciate, short stacked poker much better now then when I played them 10 years ago.

       • Dana – I find that even without last longers, the rake is very good. Also the structure is not too bad in the higher buy in ones. For example, a $525 STS has 2.5% taken out for rake. You start with 80bbs and you have 20 minute levels, but you never have to pay antes. That would seem fast if it was all I planned on playing that day. It’s not too bad if you plan on running them back to back for a few hours while taking intermittent breaks whenever you want unlike MTTs.

         Yes if you dont get a full table last longer, it still reduces your rake. You only pay the house $13, so any extra money you can get into the prize pool reduces your percentage of rake paid incrementally.

         I like the fold, fold, fold, shove, shove, shove game which is what you get when you play a $175 STS because you only start with 40bbs. If you play a bit higher like $275+, you can into some post flop spots because you start with more chips. Mostly, I just like winning and I find it much easier to do in STSs as opposed to MTTs.

         Sean – Thanks for clearing that up. I was ready to book a flight. j/k.

         • Thanks Carlos – you’ve convinced me to give it a try if I go out to Vegas for the series again.
           I looked up the structures for Mohegan Sun and Foxwood’s SNG’s and the $100+$20 is one that sticks in my head that I’ve seen running and have immediately nixed due to the high rake. But the next one up, $220+$30 isn’t so bad and start w 100BB’s/20 minute levels, so I’ll try that next time I’m there if it runs. The only thing is that the $120 might be the only one that runs normally due to the type of people they get to play them (and they might be the types who wouldn’t do a last longer).
           They also have a $100/$20/$50 bounty / 40 BB – the bounty puts an interesting spin on the SNG.

           • Damn, that rake is high. I probably wouldnt play the 120 without a hefty last longer. Maybe just play the WSOP ones when the circuit comes around.

     • Carlos –

       I could be wrong, but I believe Julie Anna was saying that 10-20 is roughly equal to our 1-2 game, not because of a skill factor, but literally because of currency exchange. From what I gather, Macau has its own currency, the Macanese Pataca or MOP$. It’s worth at this moment .13 USD according to google.

       That said, she also quite clearly said that the games are also playing at an easier skill level, so all of those parts of what you said hold true.

       Anyway, I was a little confused by this, but that was the conclusion I drew and I thought I’d share. Hope you’re well!

       Sean

4. I see a lot of comments allude to similarities between poker and ballet(competitiveness,work,etc).
   I do not see so many similarities.
   Competitiveness?.Really?
   Do not delude yourself.
   When you are ballerina you don’t compete against recreational dancer,belly dancer or drunk ballerina.
   You compete against a sophisticated “product” of long term and top notch education and selection.

5. Very good episode guys. I enjoyed hearing about the private jets, Julie’s poker career, and the discussion about variance in tournament poker. As a sidenote, I’ve read the first four volumes of Andrew’s Thinking Poker Diaries and think they are entertaining, especially since I’ve only played the Rio deepstacks and have always wondered what the bracelet tournaments are like.

6. Very interesting episode.

   Fascinating discussion on edges and ROIs in tournaments. My first thought when Nate went down the “only have a small number of hands to exercise your edge so it can’t be that big” was addressed by Andrew pointing out that hands you fold (correctly) increase your edge relative to players lacking either the discipline or knowledge to fold those hands. My other thought is that not all decisions are created equal. In my experience players from a primarily cash background fail to factor in that the deeper you go in a tournament the bigger even marginal cEv decisions become in $Ev terms. I’ve had discussions with cash players bemoaning their lack of success in tournaments saying they can’t understand it as anything other than negative variance because they see people make “huge” mistakes when it’s deepstacked (in the early stages) and then it becomes a crapshoot in the later stages anyway. When I probe deeper, I find that what tends to underlie this is a tendency to measure “mistakes” in big blinds, and a lack of detailed knowledge of basic endgame concepts such as ICM and correct push/fold ranges. Yes, if a tournament donk makes a bad play early on, that might cost, say, 10 big blinds, but in level one of a tournament where everyone starts with 300 big blinds, a ten big blind mistake is over 0.03 of a buyin in dollar terms. If someone makes a marginal push/fold error late on, the mistake might be “only” for quarter of a big blind, but at this point, if the big blind is ten starting stacks, that’s 2.5 buyin mistake in cEv terms (not even taking ICM into account which makes it more in $Ev). So while it’s nice to play 300 bigs well, the reality of tournaments is that how you play 20 bigs and less will have a monumentally greater effect on your ROI long term.

   Another point is temperament. There are players I used to swap or buy pieces of that I would never do so again having seen them in action late on in tournaments. Some people always seem to bring their A game when it really matters: others seem to always just blow up. There’s no point skilfully and methodically building a stack if you are always going to punt it off 3 tables out.

   Julie Anna’s point about the conflict between balance and the kind of drive most really successful people seem to have is well made. My experience is that the most successful people in their chosen field (not just poker) do tend to be the most driven and less conventionally balanced. I think Jason Koon once said at the very least you need periods where you devote all your time and effort to whatever it is you are trying to achieve. Different people have different capacities though and it’s very personal: one guy’s path to mastery is another guys road to burnout.

7. Interesting guest with some good stories. A nitcast meetup in Macau would be great if Julie is paying for it.

Comments are closed.