Amateur & Professional: what is the difference in Poker?

[BigJer]

On WPT (and WSOP) they make a big deal about someone being Amateur versus being Professional. What is the difference in poker? In golf, for example, it means something very significant, but in poker it is not at all obvious to me.

Some "amateurs" are introduced as retired garage owners, stockbrokers etc, which would suggest that poker is now their main source on income . Whereas some "professionals" also seem to be active in other occupations.

If its a designation with no real substance then why do the announcers make such a big deal?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I'd say a professional poker player is a person whose primary source of income is poker.

[TomCollins]

It is probably just a questionaire they give the players before hand. Also, the amateurs on TV are most likely long time losers at poker, if not very small winners up to that point. I have never seen an annoucer make a big deal out of it other than mentioning it.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
I have never seen an annoucer make a big deal out of it other than mentioning it.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what you're trying to say is that you've never seen an episode of the WPT or many of the more recent WSOP events on ESPN.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have never seen an annoucer make a big deal out of it other than mentioning it.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what you're trying to say is that you've never seen an episode of the WPT or many of the more recent WSOP events on ESPN.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or heard Vince Van Patten endlessly refer to players as the hair-dresser or the car salesman or...

Also, sometimes the distinction is a technical one under the rules of a specific tournament. One WPT game had a pro prelim and an amateur prelim, with the best from each at the final table. Many of the amateurs were well known pros, but an amateur in this tournament was someone who won a seat online.

[fsuplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the amateurs on TV are most likely long time losers at poker, if not very small winners up to that point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that?

Just bc its not their sole source of income, doesnt mean they havent won a lot of money playing.

[fsuplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Or heard Vince Van Patten endlessly refer to players as the hair-dresser or the car salesman or...


[/ QUOTE ]

That is so misleading. Mel Judah "the hairdresser", has been playing in the WSOP since the late 80's I believe and Dewey Tomko "the kindagarden teacher" owns (or runs) a freakin vegas casino...

The WPT broadcast try to make the players seem more like MM than they really are.

[RPatterson]

The amateurs at the final table of the WPT are likely long term losers? This is the stupidest post I've ever read.

[TomCollins]

Please explain. I would think that 80% of all players are long term losers. So roughly half of the final table players would be long term losers (maybe not much), and I doubt most have won more than 10k lifetime.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
Please explain. I would think that 80% of all players are long term losers. So roughly half of the final table players would be long term losers (maybe not much), and I doubt most have won more than 10k lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]


this logic is poor. they GOT to the final table, so they're more likely winning players i'd say.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
Please explain. I would think that 80% of all players are long term losers. So roughly half of the final table players would be long term losers (maybe not much), and I doubt most have won more than 10k lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

my head just exploded as i determined whether this was sarcasm or not.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or heard Vince Van Patten endlessly refer to players as the hair-dresser or the car salesman or...


[/ QUOTE ]

That is so misleading. Mel Judah "the hairdresser", has been playing in the WSOP since the late 80's I believe and Dewey Tomko "the kindagarden teacher" owns (or runs) a freakin vegas casino...

The WPT broadcast try to make the players seem more like MM than they really are.

[/ QUOTE ]

he also owns a golf course in Florida and has like 2-3 WSOP bracelets.

*Dewey*

[Desdia72]

amatuers are losers in the long run. some of these so-called
"amatuers" are actually good poker players who just happened to get noticed because they made a final table of a big event that just happened to get shown on TV.

take Greg Raymer, for example. the guy is a patent lawyer who's been playing poker a long time. although i don't know the guy to say he is a fulltime "PROFESSIONAL", the first time i heard of him was in these forums and when he won the WSOP Main Event. with that being said, that does'nt mean because i had never heard of him up until this point, that he's part of some 80% of players who lose in the long run. i've heard the guy CAN PLAY, amatuer or otherwise.

likewise, there are alot of other "amatuers" who have been playing successfully for a long time unnoticed until they made that one BIG FINAL TABLE. now he's all of a sudden some inexperienced novice under the bright lights.

[daryn]

an amateur is NOT a loser in the long run. an amateur is just someone who plays part time, in other words someone who does not derive most of their income playing poker.

a professional is one who DOES derive most of his income from playing poker.

they are 2 words with clear definitions, yet you'll always find people who want to mess it up.

[FrankLu99]

[ QUOTE ]
an amateur is NOT a loser in the long run. an amateur is just someone who plays part time, in other words someone who does not derive most of their income playing poker.


a professional is one who DOES derive most of his income from playing poker.

they are 2 words with clear definitions, yet you'll always find people who want to mess it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. there are tons of long term winners that are amatuers.

[BigJer]

[ QUOTE ]

they are 2 words with clear definitions, yet you'll always find people who want to mess it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the point of the original post. In most cases it IS very clear cut. In some competitive fields it is extremly clear. I cited golf as a perfect example. The distinction is that pros are barred from amateur competitions, and amateurs may play in some pro events but are not permitted to accept a prize. To regain amateur status after accepting cash as a prize or as a reward for professional services, such as lessons, is not easy.

My point is that I can see no such clear definition in poker. And the time-spent-playing doesn't hold up: who measures it, and what's the point of maintaining it if there are (apparently) no restrictions on entry?

Does anyone actually know the answer to the question? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
My point is that I can see no such clear definition in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]


oops, wrong again. must be tough to go through life with such an inability to think properly. oh well.


easy:

do you play poker as your main source of income?

if yes, then you are a professional

else

you are an amateur.

ty, come again.

[LargeCents]

The term "Professional" is definitely subjective when it comes to poker. In Golf you have to go through Q-school, in the other major sports you basically have to ink a contract. Then you always have the semi-pro spin-offs, where players make a negligible amount of money. I guess these guys aren't really "pro's", but just fringe with a hope and a dream. Like Kurt Warner who is bagging groceries one day, then NFL MVP a couple years later. He is the NFL's Moneymaker.

"Professional" is used as a romantic term by TV announcers to add color and spice. They love to talk about a player like Tommy Maddox who was out of football and selling real estate, or whatever. Next thing you know, he is one of the hottest players in the game. It is a "feel good" story, which maybe makes the action seem a little more accessible to the viewer. The point is to draw you in. It works. Now any sucker who can stack chips thinks he can play poker and beat the pros.

So, the answer is that there is no answer. "Professional" is just a gimmick to advertise the wonder of poker. Moneymaker is a story that sells. Same with every other rags to riches story you have ever heard. People eat it up. So, they'll keep selling it, as long as people keep buying it.

--Cents

[daryn]

sigh.


www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)

[LargeCents]

uh, what's a dictionary?

--Cents

[brassnuts]

[ QUOTE ]
easy:
do you play poker as your main source of income?
if yes, then you are a professional

[/ QUOTE ]

I think these standards hold true 99% of the time, but can't be used as the absolute criteria for this subject. I believe the distinction should be left up to the individual in question. If someone considers himself a professional, then that should be the proper classification. Examples of this are many of the quite wealthy business men who would probably consider themselves professionals, but whose poker winnings are nearly insignificant to their fortunes. Also, holding the converse true, if a person considers himself an amature poker player and a professional accountant, he should still be considered an amature even though he may have derived the vast majority of his income by winnning the 2003 WSOP main event.

[ QUOTE ]
sigh.


www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)


[/ QUOTE ]

I actually prefer www.m-w.com (http://www.m-w.com), regardless:

Main Entry: 2professional
Function: noun
: one that is professional; especially : one that engages in a pursuit or activity professionally

This is exactly what I meant, though Merriam-Webster has way with brevity that I will never come close to.

[daryn]

supersigh.




/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[brassnuts]

Also, by classifying people as a professional by how they make the majority of their income would also mean that someone can only be a professional at one thing. Why the hell are people even debating this? What comes after a supersigh? I think I need to go take a shower or something.

[dogmeat]

Good Decisions - Pro

Bad Decisions - Dogmeat