Quote Originally Posted by arcturus View Post
Jason,
Phil Galfond says that, at least at some point, you need to "rungood" to make it as a pro. Do you necessarily believe that? According to your charts you have been making sustained progress. I know you have a theory of spots with low-variance plays. So, do you think you have been able to diminish the role of variance in your career so that you don't have to rely on lucky streaks to "stay in the game"?

Thanks
Seems only appropriate to conclude the AMA with an answer on a quote from one of my poker idols. I think it's very true - imagine if you laid out the timeline of almost every pro's career and at some point could apply a reasonably normal 6-9 month horrific downswing. Many people would either want to quit or be forced to do something else if you pressured them at the right points of their poker life. I actually think I'm an exception to this (and likely so is Phil). As my good friend Leo Wolpert said, "I used to think I was a college student with a gambling problem until I one day realized I was a gambler with a college problem". I am inherently a poker player and gambler at heart and I don't think losing would've shrugged me off my path.

Thanks so much everyone for your questions, sorry I didn't get to everyone! This was a blast, thanks so much to FlopTurnRiver for hosting this, and if you guys would like to see more from me I do a show every day on Youtube and I'm very active on Twitter as well. Thanks again, everyone, we'll have to do it again sometime peace!