Do I have what it takes?

It's a subject I return to because I don't yet have the answer. Do I have what it takes to be good at poker? I could well ask, do I have what it takes to be good at anything? I know that I can write -- I mean I am confident that I can, which is not quite the same thing, but feels the same. But I do not know whether I can write novels, my form of choice. I feel I can, but what I've written has not been quite good enough, or, truth to tell, anywhere close to good enough. The few people that have read what I've written have given it a mixed press: mostly good, I'd say, but some have had criticisms that have been quite painful to think about (although, in some cases, almost certainly not accurate). So far as writing goes, I need a break, and have never had even the least sniff of one. I know that I should, could work at it, make my own openings, and so on. But saying that one should do that is a lot easier than doing it. So, poker. I have days when I feel I'm understanding it but other days when I just don't know anything. It's difficult to extract information from noise. When I have a good day, did I have good cards or did I make good decisions? Sometimes, when I run badly, I know that it's down to poor play, and sometimes I feel it's just an outcome of luck. Not even luck. When I read people on the site whining about their aces' getting cracked allin against trash, I remind myself that even a 90% chance is going to lose one out of ten. And you do tend to forget the nine! A couple of months ago, I think it was, I wrote a post about how I didn't feel I was progressing. This was because I have mostly given up limit and I felt I was struggling to get any better at no limit. I gave up limit because PokerRoom has become very tight and my game definitely is not good enough to guarantee winning against very tight tables. I know I could adjust, but I don't have the time to concentrate. The mechanical play needed for a loose table is a lot easier to do while you're working or reading. But suddenly I came to a realisation -- two realisations -- about my play, which I think will please boots (who is probably the only person reading this anyway!). I realised that I was afraid to take risks, and that I could never hope to gain rewards if I stayed that way. I say "was" but of course I still am. I'm trying not to be. I realised above all that a smallball, chiseller's game suits cash but does not work in tourneys, particularly not in SNGs. So I switched my game to a better strategy. Don't get me wrong. I was doing okay in SNGs, but now I do better. Or at least I think I do. The core of my strategy is trusting myself to be able to read the game. (Which is not entirely easy when you're not paying all that much attention, but I do not mean that I particularly look for reads on players: I assume they are all idiots and play accordingly, and that works!) The other part of my realisation was that I have been playing the wrong type of game for SNGs. Opinions differ on how you should play them, and I'm glad they do, because if everyone played correctly, I'd never win a cent. Some believe you should try to get into pots cheaply and chip up; others believe you should avoid action early and keep your chips for the shorter table. I had, like most novices who are better than the average fish and are keen to use their knowledge of the game, been playing the former game. Switching to the second has made me a better player, not least because my judgement in shorthanded poker is much better than my average opponent. I make mistakes but nothing like as many as most opponents. Hilariously, some whine at me for playing correctly. They'll say "you only want to push or nothing". Which is true. The key to my game is looking for opportunities to get all my chips in. Why husband my stack through the early rounds just to piss it away small bet by small bet? That's what I wasn't understanding: tightweak takes you from A to B, but you need fearless, even sometimes reckless, aggro to get to C. I know that I have room for improvement, tons of it, not least because I don't use an ICM model and should (this is a means of working out when it's profitable to shove your chips in and when it isn't; I go by feel but you can use maths to make your decisions stronger). Those players who think they are good at the game but cry because I won't play poker with them are missing the point. Which is that my way is actually better, the right way to play that particular form of poker. But does that mean I've improved? Is it getting better to shift to a new approach? Well, I suppose that it is. I feel that I haven't just had better results but have changed my understanding. I do need to return to doing more analysis of play, instead of just playing for the hell of it. It's such a drawback being on PokerRoom, for two major reasons: one, that it doesn't d/l tourney hand histories, so I can't easily analyse them, and getting them from the website will be very timeconsuming (but it's something I have to do), and two, it doesn't have enough games, so getting the experience takes a long, long time. I'm yet to figure out how best to get my money from PR to Stars or Full Tilt, which are much better sites these days. Experience is the big thing for me. I need to play many, many more games to be sure that I'm a winning player and haven't just been lucky. I need to do much more analysis of games to figure out why I win, so that I can do more of the good things and fewer of the bad. I need to get back into working at it. Because I do want to be good at it. I read about online players who are making tons of money and I think, well, I only want to make the same hourly money I make from editing, is that so much to ask? I dunno. I suppose I've become a little better, but I still can't answer the question whether I will be able to grind my way up to pro level. I won't give up just yet though.