Forward by Sklanksy of SSH

[PokerHorse]

In the forward for SSH David Sklansky writes that making 50,000 at 3-6 holdem is almost routine with the internet since you can play multiple games.
I would simply like to say that this statement is untrue and intends to get newer players exscited aboutpossibly making large money ,... all they have to do is read this book.
Mr Sklansky, I have played Texas Holdem since 1986, and although I'm sure you might find a player or two who are currently having a good run,(because in all types of gambling this phenomenon exists), but I would just love too see some documented proof of players who frequent this site that are killing the internet games by playing multiple games . especially these 3-6 players playing 3 games at a time making 50000. i have read posts here of players claiming to be making big big money. I'm sorry, i just dont believe it since internet poker is more difficult , not less than in person ring games. poker is a people game. I KNOW I DONT NEED TO ELABORATE. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[curtains]

I agree with you. Making 50k is NOT routine playing 3-6. I have never met anyone who plays taht low limits who wins that much. I've heard many of them say it, but I simply don't believe it. I can't imagine anything more absurd than killing a 3-6 game that badly and not moving up. I know and have known many players who have won a lot of money playing limit, and they always move up very quickly and continue to succeed.
Anyone who claims they kill 3-6 that badly, I simply have a very hard time believing that they are not playing 5-10 or even 10-20.

[SnakeRat]

He doesn't say routine, he says "no big deal."
I take this to mean that its not especially difficult to win 50k in a year playing 3-6 online.


Its no big deal to smash an oreo with a hammer.

Is it absurd to smash oreos with hammers?
Yes.

Must there be documented cases of people smashing oreos with hammers for the original statement to be clearly true?
No.

Online 3-6 holdem is not a people game, it is primarily a math game.

Some gigantic factors that make online play easier:

Online hands are dealt much faster, and the rake is smaller.
You do not have to drive to the casino or even put on clothes to play.
Think of all the savings on clothing, and clothing maintenence.

I KNOW I DONT NEED TO ELABORATE MORE /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Franchise (TTT)]

Local legend davidross supported his family playing multiple tables of 3/6 originally.

[MicroBob]

is 2BB/100 killing the game??

i still kind of suck so i am not making quite $1k/wk at 2/4 and 3/6....but i see it as EXTREMELY realistic.
just do the math.


1600 hds a day (4 tables X 50 hds/hr X 8 hrs)


2BB/100hds = $12/100hds
= $196/day

round up to $200/day (if you win 2.05 instead of 2BB...or you play 8.2 hours instead of 8...or whatever).


$200 day X 5 days = $1k/wk
$1k/wk X 50 wks = $50k/yr


you may notice that i was very conservative on the hds/day (50hds/hr per table) so you can include all the meal and bathroom breaks you need and still realistically play 1600 hds in 8 hours.


add in some bonus-whoring (if that's your speed) and/or a rake-rebate and that eases the load further.


obviously there are issues of burn-out playing 4-tables for 40 hours a week....but that's a different issue entirely.
i usually vary my hours. 10 hours on a day when i feel good ....2 hours if i have other plans...etc.
some weeks only 30 hours, other weeks 50 hours. etc.


back to the point though....
it is very realistic for a comptent multi-tabler to make $1k/wk playing 3/6.

obviously making this much at low-stakes was impossible before internet-poker.

[Beach-Whale]

What's a forward?

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Is it anything like a foreword?

[Ed Miller]

PokerHorse,

I know this won't satisfy you because I can't "name names" and provide "documented proof," but I know a number of people who support themselves entirely on poker income and play online almost solely. Some of these players play as low as $2-$4.

You can make enough to provide a living online as low as $2-$4. It's as simple as that. You can't do it if you don't play well, though.

[warlockjd]

The roommate supported himself playing only $.50/1 for almost 2 yrs. 6 tables at a time and he didn't make 50k, but he lived ok.......its not that hard.....

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you. Making 50k is NOT routine playing 3-6. I have never met anyone who plays taht low limits who wins that much. I've heard many of them say it, but I simply don't believe it.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the land of multi-tabling 50K isn't terribly difficult, although most players will move up, some prefer the lower varience at 3/6 and are comfortable with what they make there.

Think about it, 50K/year is about 1K/week or for a 5-day work week, $200/day. $30/hour is pretty easy at this limit so if you are willing to put in the 6-8 hours/day you need than $50k is certainly a reasonable figure.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

2.5BB/100 is not unreasonable at 2/4 (I suck, and I've done it over 30K+ hands). Given that you can easily play 200 hands an hour multitabling, that's $20/hour. Granted this means a 50 hour workweek, but that also can be done. Don't know that a lot of people are doing this, but it certainly can be done.

[PokerHorse]

just show me one , not making a living but making the equivilent to 3 big bets per hour and i will profusly apologize. i'm really not trying to start a fight here, but please , it's a little much.

[PokerHorse]

so lets he was making 2 an hour at each table which is a gross exaggeration thats about 2000 a month, iowa is a nice place to live but i think hes with dorothy over the rainbow. come on 50-1.00 !

[PokerHorse]

nice math are you doing this/ if so lets see your documented results. by the way poker isnt linear.

[MicroBob]

i make more than 3BB per hour.
of course, i am usually playing 4 tables at a time so that is less than 1BB/hr for each table which isn't that hard.

[PokerHorse]

i misssssspellled a word so i must be wrong. you are lost my friend

[JTG51]

so lets he was making 2 an hour at each table which is a gross exaggeration...

Why is that a gross exaggeration? A good player can definitely, without a doubt, make more than $2 per table per hour playing .50/1 online. In fact, I'm confident that $3+ per table per hour is possible.

[MicroBob]

sorry....i don't understand your statement 'btw..poker is not linear'.
are you referring to the fact that i can't count on the same amount of income each week??
if i am good enough to average 2BB/100 then it will average out in the long-run. and based on 4 tables and 40 hours, a $1k/wk average is not unrealistic at all for a mediocre player like yours truly.


no....i am not making $1k/wk.
around $700/wk playing mostly 2/4 and 3/6 (full-table, short-table and heads-up with the right fishy) as well as bonus-chasing and rake-back. also some SNG's (UB-SNG promo). occasionally some $.25/$.50 or $.5/1 NL but not much.

the fact that i am less than $1k/wk is due partly to lack of discipline and not putting in the number of hours that i can/should.
it is not indicative of how realistic it is to make $1k/wk playing 3/6.

anyway, i have never stepped foot in a 5/10 game. i will try that if/when my bankroll is large enough and if/when i feel more confident in my game.
just because i'm semi-consistently beating 2/4 and 3/6 doesn't mean i feel i'm ready to move up.
i've had a couple of losing streaks in there that i think indicate some inferior play as well as some bad luck and i want to iron out my wrinkles (via SSHE and the SS forum) before i make the jump.


my poker-tracker and stat-king got erased entirely when i took my computer in for a clean-up a couple weeks ago. my records are gone...sorry.


i can tell you that my monthly-nut is somewhere in the neighborhood of $1500....and i make significantly more than that each month. i have been playing online-poker as my sole source of income for 4 months and it has gone well so far.
i have more money now then when i started this little venture and i haven't had to go back to my old job yet so i'm happy with this venture.


i'm in an internet-coffee place right now...kicking back and putting in some hours.
it rocks.
i'm off to get another latte.

[PokerHorse]

Out of the several that you know, couldnt you just get one to come on line and tell how he or her does it? Because of the short term fluctuations involved in this game they are amplified on both the up and downside online.if it was this lucrative authors like your self who have played little but theorized much, would be in there playing. The excuse is that it bores you, or its not your goal in life to play cards when the truth is that it's brutally hard, and you give players false hope all well knowing that your profit motive for moving to vegas was not to play cards but to write about it.
Not one response to my post is by someone who has a documented record of 2plus years substantially beating low limit games online. one post talked about a local legend, well who used to play, or the math breakdown of how its possible. I know you can make a profit playing poker, I'm not questioning that, but please lets get real here.Everyone knows somebody who does it...........

[PokerHorse]

well i guess anything is possible gee .... how are you doing ? Are you making 3 big bets per hour somewhere? if so, i'd like to see it especially with the rake that is taken out. Since it's very realistice you must be doing it right/ or are you doing better/ Just show me the proof.

[JTG51]

How do I prove it? Are you going to send an accountant to my house?

How many people have to tell you that it's definitely possible before you believe that maybe we're not just guessing?

It would also help if you define exactly what you mean by 3 big bets per hour. That terminology isn't very clear when talking about playing multiple tables. For example, if we're talking about 2/4 do you mean making a total of $12 per hour, or do you mean $12 per hour at each table?

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Because of the short term fluctuations involved in this game they are amplified on both the up and downside online.

[/ QUOTE ]



actually...the fact that you are able to realistically play up to 10k hands per week online compared with 1.5k or so in a B&M means that you get to the long-run faster and the short-term ups and downs are much easier to overcome.
i would NEVER want to try to do this in a B&M unless i had the skill and bankroll to consistently beat the 15/30 game...and even then, i think it might be a tougher grind then playing 4-tables of 3/6. just my personal preference.


[ QUOTE ]
if it was this lucrative authors like your self who have played little but theorized much, would be in there playing.

[/ QUOTE ]


i don't know Ed personally...but i would submit that he has probably played more than you are assuming.
regardless, i don't think you should be making unjustified assumptions about how much he has or has not played unless you know something that we don't.



[ QUOTE ]
The excuse is that it bores you, or its not your goal in life to play cards when the truth is that it's brutally hard, and you give players false hope all well knowing that your profit motive for moving to vegas was not to play cards but to write about it.


[/ QUOTE ]


again...i think that some of these observations and criticisms are a bit irresponsible.
based on ed's passion for the game as exemplified in his posts and now his book i find it unlikely that it truly bores him. maybe he doesn't want to play poker 24/7....but i don't think that you or i are in a position to make judgements on how excited he is about the game or how much he actually plays.


[ QUOTE ]
or the math breakdown of how its possible.

[/ QUOTE ]


the math doesn't just show that it's possible.
it shows that it is reasonably easy and extremely realistic for someone who applies themselves just a little bit.


2BB/100 while playing 4 tables is not that hard for many people. so just put in the necessary number of hours per week and BANG...you've got your $1k/wk average right there.

also notice that i'm talking about just 4-tabling.
not everyone can play 6-8 tables....but i sometimes do at 2/4 and 3/6....
slightly lower win-rate per table...but higher win-rate combined per hour.

or i'll play 3-4 short-tables so that's usually going to be more than 200 hds hr. probably closer to 300 hds hour.
2BB/100 at 3/6 X 300 hds = $36/hr

sklansky said that making $50k per year playing 3/6 is now 'no big deal'. this is in fact quite true.

[PokerHorse]

"dont know alot of people that are doing it, but it certainly can be done"

Again poker isnt linear,you DON"T make steady upward profits playing poker.The flucuations dont change because you see more hands.
This is the answer i get , well I'm not doing it, but a friend of a friend i hear is really kicking butt.
by the way there probably is a small percentage of players who are having a great run at the game right now, and they possibly could run well for a while. To put this in perspective, there is probably someone having a great run at CRAPS right now and hasnt had a losing month for 3-6 months. Guess What? thats the nature of the probablities involved and they will get crushed.
Poker is a great game but dont count on providing for your family by making substantial profits online. it's not going to happen

[JTG51]

Not one response to my post is by someone who has a documented record of 2plus years substantially beating low limit games online.

Of course I, and many others here, have documented records of us killing low limit games for an extended time. Do you think we're just making up these numbers?

What good would posting my results do though? If you're determined not to believe it, you can just claim that I made them up.

[PokerHorse]

Great just document that you have been doing this for 18 months or so and this argument is over. if you will post your payout receipts for the last 9 months, that would be enough to convince me. if you would like to take me up on this and let me actually verify your results i will pay you a fee for your time and trouble.
does that sound fair or is there a better way to show me?

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is a great game but dont count on providing for your family by making substantial profits online. it's not going to happen

[/ QUOTE ]


you should read the posts by David Ross titled 'playing poker for a living'...weeks 1 through 52.
not only is it a great story that he shared with the forums while it was in progress....but it's decent evidence that what you are claiming to be unrealistic is anything but.


he did abandon the 3/6 game after only a few weeks to move to the 5/10 and then eventually the 15/30. but his income at 3/6 during those weeks was reasonable.


i have been making my full income at this for 4 months.
prior to leaving my job i was making more money playing poker at home then i was making in hourly-salary at work for 3-4 months (it was a pretty low-paying job).

i left for a semi-temporary poker-vacation with every intention of going back if/when i needed to.
i haven't needed to yet....i am bonush-chasing and getting rake-back and winning around 1-1.5BB/100 (which means i am really not THAT good of a player) and i am doing just fine and dandy income-wise.

i feel comfortable when i make around $100/day.
when i make $200/day or more then i know i am making the cut for $1k/wk.


in short - i suck...yet i'm still good enough to pay the bills via 2/4 and 3/6.

[PokerHorse]

Ah, excuse me but Mr Millers own profile states his history to a relative degree, and please ,,, i will pay you
to document your statements , since in fact they are quite remarkable.

let me get this straight, you make 24.00 an hour right?
You play 50 hours a week so that's twelve hundred a week,
and you have been doing this for well over a year I'm sure.

So show me receipts for aprox 29k for the last 6 months along with your hand record from the site you play at so i can verify you are playing 3-6.

i will pay you $ 500.00 for your trouble. If you agree, then private message me and i will give you an email address and i will create a website for these remarkable results to be posted at. is this fair?

[PokerHorse]

that's the point show me 50k at 36 and show mr ross's documented record.
Knowing in advance that your going to post an on going saga of your on line performance makes the results more suspect , not less. did anyone ask him to document himself?
And again, I'm sure there are people that are having great short term luck online right now. i have no doubt, that's not my point.

[MicroBob]

to address your previous response....i said i was making around $700/wk online...not $1200.
this is because i am not a very good player.
i suck and can see how reasonably easy it is to make $1k/wk.

i do not accept your challenge as i feel i have nothing to prove and i am not making as much as you think i claimed to be making anyway.



with regard to your 2nd response....are you actually insinuating that david's results might not be accurate??
he is an extremely well-respected poster on these forums and i truly doubt you will find many to agree with you.


you are digging a bigger hole for your ideas by suggesting that david is not genuine.
i also find it truly bizarre that you would make this suggestion...but that's just me.


i may or may not choose to respond to future posts in this thread....i feel this discussion is getting awfully ridiculous.

[PokerHorse]

Please forgive me but 4months just isn't long enough a time. i'm happy that right now you are beating the game. i would try to save as much money as possible. good luck

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
Please forgive me but 4months just isn't long enough a time. i'm happy that right now you are beating the game. i would try to save as much money as possible. good luck

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you so condescending? These win rates are possible, period. I don't care if you believe me or not.

-- Homer

[JTG51]

These win rates are possible, period. I don't care if you believe me or not.

I wish I had either said that, or never gotten involved in this thread.

[MicroBob]

10k hds a week was my initial goal but i'm probably closer to 7k hands per week. it's hard to judge because i'm playing different levels, some SNG's, limit and NL, etc.
but i'll say 7k hds/wk which is 1k/day.

this is about 160k hands over 4 months. this does not include my success before taking this on full-time.
for a couple months before leaving my regular 'job' i would work 20-25 hours a week at the job and play 20-25 hours wk online (with successful results).

anyway...just the past 4 months of full-time at 160k hands i have been a winner....and this doesn't even include the extra cash from bonuses and rake-back....just the poker playing itself.


it is indeed possible that i have been pretty darn lucky over these 160k hands....but i'm not terribly worried about that possibility.
if i start losing money then i make whatever necessary adjustments i need to...including the possibility of having to return to my previous job if it comes to that (which wouldn't be the worst tragedy in the world).


indeed...i am hanging onto my money.
spending my cash instead of building my bankroll would be extremely unwise at this juncture.

bankroll discipline and knowing one's limits are perhaps almost as important as actual poker-skill in this type of endeavor.

[PokerHorse]

Yes i know it is theoretically possible, It is a big deal to make ONE big bet per hour at one table for an extended length of time. Especially by simply playing by predetermined strategy, not based on the players you are up against. regardless of how well you handle pot odds etc. the advantage comes down to saving bets here and gaining bets there based on your read of opponents.
I submit that it is probably possible playing one table on line to get a handle on opponents and keep track of players buton multiple tables,... there is no way.
You can"t "cookie- cutter" poker, and play simple predefined strategy and be a winner, period....if you dont know this yet, guess what?, you are in for a very very rude awakening when things start going against you, please remember these posts. I'm trying to look out for you guys, not give you a hard time. good luck

[JTG51]

nm

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I wish I had either said that, or never gotten involved in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]


(sigh)...me too. i'm too damn argumentative for my own good.
why do i take the freaking bait so frequently??


that said...i have received several PM's from folks asking if this was REALLY possible based on similar posts on this topic that i have made in the past few months.


obviously it's not quite so easy as showing up and the money will come. but if you are a decent and disciplined player then it is very obviously possible. 2 big-bets per 100 hands is 2 big bets per 100 hands and there is no getting around that.
7k hands per week or more isn't THAT hard if you can play 4-tables at once. if multi-tabling X 4 is similar to staring at time-lapse video on an indoor strobe-lit roller-coaster while on acid then 3/6 full-time online probably isn't for you.
then again, the aforementioned scenario sounds like a most intriguing trip if you ask me.

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes i know it is theoretically possible, It is a big deal to make ONE big bet per hour at one table for an extended length of time. Especially by simply playing by predetermined strategy, not based on the players you are up against. regardless of how well you handle pot odds etc. the advantage comes down to saving bets here and gaining bets there based on your read of opponents.
I submit that it is probably possible playing one table on line to get a handle on opponents and keep track of players buton multiple tables,... there is no way.
You can"t "cookie- cutter" poker, and play simple predefined strategy and be a winner, period....if you dont know this yet, guess what?, you are in for a very very rude awakening when things start going against you, please remember these posts. I'm trying to look out for you guys, not give you a hard time. good luck

[/ QUOTE ]

1) It is not a big deal to make 1 BB/hr/table in *online* 2-4 and 3-6 games. Remember, you are getting almost twice as many hands/hr, the rake is lower, you don't have to tip, etc.

2) A player who has done a fair amount of studying, has spent time on these forums and has played a large number of hands can play 4 tables at a time, and can make 3 BB/100 in doing so, simply by playing on auto-pilot.

I suspect that you either haven't played in these easy Party Poker games or are unable to beat them at the rates stated by posters here and therefore believe they must be lying.

-- Homer

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes i know it is theoretically possible, It is a big deal to make ONE big bet per hour at one table for an extended length of time. Especially by simply playing by predetermined strategy, not based on the players you are up against. regardless of how well you handle pot odds etc. the advantage comes down to saving bets here and gaining bets there based on your read of opponents.
I submit that it is probably possible playing one table on line to get a handle on opponents and keep track of players buton multiple tables,... there is no way.
You can"t "cookie- cutter" poker, and play simple predefined strategy and be a winner, period....if you dont know this yet, guess what?, you are in for a very very rude awakening when things start going against you, please remember these posts. I'm trying to look out for you guys, not give you a hard time. good luck

[/ QUOTE ]

I am intrigued by your thoughts and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[GuyOnTilt]

Hey PokerHorse,

I actually do play online poker as my primary source of income, and it is more than profitable enough for a solid player to support a family off of. I don't like posting my own poker earnings in terms of $$$ in these public forums because some people see it as arrogant or whatever, but since you absolutely refuse to listen unless someone shows you their numbers, I'll give you a quick overview of mine.

In 2004, I've played 6 months of poker. I took a whole month off to have some fun and do my own thing. In those 6 months, I've logged 410 hours of play online playing between 2 and 3 tables of 15/30 and have earned just over 2400 BB's from those games. That averages out to about 68 hours/month or 16 hours/wk (Geez, I suck) and 400 BB/month or 88 BB/wk. Now understand that I'm playing an average of 2.5 tables at a time over those 6 months and have logged about half as many hours as as full-time player should be. Also, the 15/30 tables are going to be much tougher than a 3/6 online game. But even if we ignore that aspect and just assume my BB/tbl/hr rate would not increase, I would be making 60% more by 4-tabling and another 100% more by playing just 32 hrs/wk. So instead of 88 BB/wk, I would be making 280 BB/wk. Translate that into 3/6 terms and that's $1680/wk x 50 weeks/yr is $84,000/yr. And remember that's not including the extra hourly earn I'd be making because of the 3/6 game being softer than the 15/30, which would be very considerable.

And no, I'm not going to fax you my records. You'll just have to take my word for it.

GoT

[Ed Miller]

The excuse is that it bores you, or its not your goal in life to play cards when the truth is that it's brutally hard, and you give players false hope all well knowing that your profit motive for moving to vegas was not to play cards but to write about it.

And I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
The excuse is that it bores you, or its not your goal in life to play cards when the truth is that it's brutally hard, and you give players false hope all well knowing that your profit motive for moving to vegas was not to play cards but to write about it.

And I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha ha, what the hell is wrong with 2bb/hr per table?

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like posting my own poker earnings in terms of $$$ in these public forums because some people see it as arrogant or whatever

[/ QUOTE ]

i also am reluctant to post my numbers.

although i am more okay with saying things like 'i win around 1.5BB/100 at 3/6 and usually play 4 tables.
if the reader wants to figure it out and do the math they will quickly figure out what my income is.

i also hope that i added enough 'hey guys....it's not like i'm good or anything' type of lines in there to remain humble.
i rate my bankroll management skills very high and my poker skills as mediocre (especially compared with the poker-skills of many of the players around here).






'can i make 2BB/100 when playing 4 tables of 3/6??
vs.
'can i make $1k/wk playing 4 tables of 3/6??'

for some reason there are some people who just don't seem to understand that these two statements are virtually the same.
many many players will say '2BB/100 against those idiots on party?? if you can't do that then you just aren't that good'
but then will turn around and say
'$50k a year playing 3/6?? not even possible unless you can play 90 hours a week with a win-rate of 15BB/hr'

$50k/yr (or $1k/wk or $200/day) sounds like a lot for a few little old 3/6 games...but it just isn't that freaking hard.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Ha ha, what the hell is wrong with 2bb/hr per table?

[/ QUOTE ]

2BB/hr is starting to push 4BB/100 (or 3.5BB/100).
if you are making 3.5BB/100 (assuming you have enough hands, say 50k or more, to have at least a little confidence in your results) then you should probably be playing at a higher limit...unless the games are so much tougher at the higher limit that it is worth staying low.

of course, on party this isn't really the case too much. the games do get tougher as you move up....but not so much that a 3.5BB/100 player at 3/6 would be a losing player at 5/10 or 15/30.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
poker is a people game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Last I checked most online players are people.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
just show me one , not making a living but making the equivilent to 3 big bets per hour and i will profusly apologize. i'm really not trying to start a fight here, but please , it's a little much.

[/ QUOTE ]

I make well over 3BB/hour playing 4-tables. If you can't make that at 4-tables your game needs some serious work.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
2BB/hr is starting to push 4BB/100 (or 3.5BB/100).
if you are making 3.5BB/100 (assuming you have enough hands, say 50k or more, to have at least a little confidence in your results) then you should probably be playing at a higher limit...unless the games are so much tougher at the higher limit that it is worth staying low.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that this isn't necessarily true. I make over 3BB/100 at 3/6 but have been reluctant to move up to 5/10 becasue A) The full games look awful B) the Variance in the SH games requires a huge jump in BR.

Since I need to routinely withdraw money, I pay myself twice a month win or lose (and don't have the discipline needed to put in all the hours I need all the time), my BR growth is quite small. I have finally decided to take the plunge into 5/10 with a BR smaller than I would like but big enough to withstand a 300BB drop and still be able to comfortably play 3/6.

[Franchise (TTT)]

I thought you were the nice one.

[PokerHorse]

Yes i have read some of the posts of brianross and others. Of the others I have read, there have been some posts of players that have been making money for 1-2 years multi tabling and now are having very long 2-3 month losing streaks. brianross talks about having regular 200 big bet losing streaks which are probably very normal given the amount of hands he is playing and the style of play. i believe that he will have an extended downward episode that will cause him to either just play tourneys, or some other major change.Don't get me wrong, i'm not hoping for this.
It appears that he has put alot of time and effort into his game. But we have drifted away from why i made my original post. I believe someone like brianross is the exception. And by the way, he plays the 6max games right/ very different game. but anyway the point of my original post was that the idea that making 50k at 3-6 was now "No big deal" is irresponsible and misleading.It is a big deal
Yes, there are a FEW who apparently are taking a purely statistical approach, and trying to play as many hands as possible to get to the long run, but even these few are experiencing good sized fluctuations.
detour- is this really poker? why not program a bot to play your style and run it for you. it is very possible. this could play for you 20 hours a day. good luck

[MicroBob]

did david change his name?


[ QUOTE ]
And by the way, he plays the 6max games right/ very different game.

[/ QUOTE ]


he played 3/6 full for the first few weeks. then i believe he swtiched to the 5/10 6-max for a few months....and has been playing 15/30 full for the past 3 mths or so i think.

in the last 15 mths he has probably played as many hands as a full-time B&M pro could play in 10 years. and he is still winning.


[ QUOTE ]
is this really poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

i thought it was parchesi.

[nothumb]

Ed, I feel so... violated.

/sarcasm

One of the other things Sklansky says in this 'forward' - perhaps you've read it? - is that Ed gave up a career w/ Microsoft to play Hold'Em for a living. He started out as a 2/4 player and worked his way up to 30/60.

I'm willing to bet you're either some kid who read a Ken Warren book or some 'pro' at a B&M cardroom who can't grind out the big bet per hour that most small stakes posters make in their sleep.

Everyone else is trying to be halfway civil for some reason. If you were right in front of me I'd cockslap you.

NT

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
You can make enough to provide a living online as low as $2-$4. It's as simple as that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, it is. Its that simple.

Im a 34 year old from Sweden and its about 99.99% sure I will never meet any of you on this forum. Why would I or anyonelse here lie when we say lowlimit is easy beatable? If you cant play 3 tables 2/4 or 3/6 winning 2-3BB/hour you are either playing at the wrong site or you havent been studying the game enough. Instad of whining about "ITS NOT POSSIBLE" start to study the game.

But sitting 8hours/day at lowlimit would be suicide for most normal brains. Good thing is that when you beat 2/4 for +3BB/hour you will soon find you can win more moving up in limits, and then you maybe only have to play 2-3hours/day, making a decent living.

[Blarg]

I do think, to be fair, some people are exaggerating their win rates HIGHLY if they include rakebacks and bonus whoring.

It's legit income, and rakebacks especially can be extremely lucrative for some people, providing a sizeable boost to their weekly take. But not everyone can get in on that action. And anyway, it's just not fair to speak of that kind of earn as if it were identical to what you actually win in pots at the table.

I also think the "ease" is exaggerated when people say that 4-tabling is the way you do it, and sometimes that you have to win multiple BB/hr on each table to boot. And do it for 40 or 50 hours a week.

Doing it for 40 or 50 hours per week is a factor that cuts down even further, perhaps drastically, the number of people who do it or can do it. 4-tabling is difficult for most people to do for exended stretches, from what I read here and elsewhere, and from my own experience. That's whether you're doing it for 1 BB/hr per table, less, or more. Directing your attention in many directions at once is an entirely different capability than being able to concentrate for long periods of time. Doing both at once is a double whammy that further whittles down the number of players capable of sustaining a winning game.

Anyway, there are plenty of good poker players out there, and winning ones, but it's not realistic to either think or proclaim that it's necessarily easy.

The obviously very solid skills needed to win multiple bets per hour, the ability to direct attention to four tables at a time, and to do that for 40 or more hours a week, is probably not something most players can do or are doing, or will be doing anytime soon. For most people, if they want to make $50k a year or more, they're probably going to be moving up in limits.

For many people, probably for most of them, moving up in limits would actually be much easier than 4-tabling for 40 hours a week or more.

But not as many people can play 5/10, 10/20, or higher poker compared to the number that can dream about making $50k per year playing 2/4 and 3/6. It's easier to have big dreams than have or develop big skills, whatever "big" might mean to any particular individual.

So I do think people might be a little misled by the poker hype. The question should be less, "CAN it be done," and much more, "Can the average person who can beat the low limits do it?" And beating a game is usually taken to mean beating it for 1 BB/hr, perhaps 1.5.

That would change the answer from a secure "Yes, obviously." to something more in the area of "No."

As Ed says, he doesn't want you beat the low limit games; he wants you to CRUSH them. If you can crush them, then that's one thing. That's where the $50k/yr figure is coming from.

Most people are not crushing the games they are in, whatever the limit. Most people are probably even short-bankrolled for the limits they play, because anyone crushing a game tends to move up. And at low limits, you're doing well just to beat the rake.

It's probably extremely safe to say that very, very few poker players are making $50k/yr "easily" at the 2/4 and 3/6 level.

For most of us, it's just a goal to shoot for, or one to bypass if we just get good enough to move to higher levels. Since most people are hardly willing to quit their jobs, no matter how miserable, to play poker 40 or more hours per week, probably far fewer will really try to make money like $50k a year by playing low limits than will try to get to that level of profitability by just getting good enough to play higher limits in the first place. Trying to do it at the low limits is a fairly odd and difficult way to go, probably isn't done very often at all, and likely is not the first or most favored choice of most poker players as to how they would go about it.

[David Sklansky]

I maybe should have used the words "is now easy to do" rather than "no big deal". Reason being that most people who can make 50K a year, (meaning average fifty dollars a day per game), playing three online 3-6 games, is probably playing higher or doing something else.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
"Can the average person who can beat the low limits do it?" And beating a game is usually taken to mean beating it for 1 BB/hr, perhaps 1.5.


[/ QUOTE ]


1.5BB/hr per table is a really good win-rate.
better than the 2BB/100hds figure that i was using earlier.


i don't know why you are insisting it is so freaking hard.

1BB/hr of 3/6 X 4-tables = $24/hr
this is $192/day.
40 hours a week that's slightly under $1k/wk.


it is not necessary to 'crush' the games while playing 4 tables at once....and i don't know why you insist that it is when the math is obvious.

all you have to do is show up and be good enough to just beat them for 1BB/hr....maybe in the 1.5-1.75BB/100 range. this is hardly crushing the games.

btw...i am playing on 4-tables as i write this post....it really isn't that tough once you have a vague idea of what you are doing.

i also don't think david needs to change or regret his language at all.
it truly is 'no big deal' and is relatively easy if you are a competent and disciplined player.


i am a mediocre player and am close to being able to do this.


now....does it mean that anyone can do this? no.
first, you have to know that you can beat the games for 1.5BB/100 or so.
and to KNOW this it would help to have 80k or 100k hands or so under you belt to give you SOME confidence in your results. and you need to be properly bankrolled and not have any major psychological obstacles like fear of failure. i wasn't afraid to fail (and still am not) because i can always go back to my old job if i need/want to.


anyway...i just wanted to address the notion that you need 'to crush' the games to do this....because you really don't.

[1800GAMBLER]

edit: It's easy to do. You are just retarded. Period.

[1800GAMBLER]

After reading your reply to Ed i felt the need to make another reply.

You are ignorant.

I'd love to end it there, but i don't think it hits home. So i'll go on. Ed Miller has made 5000 posts on this site. He's writen a book which will become the biggest selling book about. He's logged many hours at many games.

That's not the point that annoyes me. The part that annoyes me is you are too ignorant to analyse this and auto assume becuase you learnt a little about variance you know better. I think it's utterly offence for you to consider you know better than Ed/Sklansky. Seriously though, do you honestly think you know more about poker than Sklansky? And when you answer no. Didn't you think '[censored], this guy has writen about/poker poker for 30 years, maybe i should give this so more thought?' No you didn't, which is just, well, dumb.

[ohgeetee]

LOL.

I thought the "I can't do it so it must be impossible" approach to arguing was unbeatable, but you beat him.

Besides, EVERYONE knows the real reason no one can make 50k/yr playing even 8 tables at once is because ONLINE POKER IS RIGGED!

So glad I didn't join this thread earlier and waste the time that so many others did trying to convince punchy of something he refuses to accept.

[Rudbaeck]

There is a very, very simple reason for this. Online, as a fulltime player you are going to be paying 4-5% rake. In a brick&mortar you are paying 10% rake AND toking the dealer. This means a break even b&m player is going to show a significant win rate online, if he can adapt to the online environment.

That you have to observe more players is more than alleviated by you being free to keep extensive notes on their play. I know pretty few people with perfect recall, so b&m reads on people are going to get blurry.

In Poker Essays by Mason Malmuth, in the chapter What You Can Make Playing Poker he claims a great 3/6 player can win $12 per hour of 3/6 IN A CASINO. His listed win doesn't reach 1BB/hour for a great player until 30/60. (Which is consistent with other writers, the claim of 1BB/Hour is for the middle limits. 3/6 isn't middle limit by any stretch.)

Online you aren't forced to move up limits in the same way as you are in a real casino. And adding another table of people who can't play poker very well is probably better than doubling your limit, if you got decent multitasking skills.

[Jim Easton]

I quit my "real" job in June of 2002 and have been playing full time online since then. Now PokerHorse has told me it isn't possible to make significant money playing multiple 3/6 tables. Should I take the pay cut and go back to my old job?

[astroglide]

i've been playing online for a long time, and i've been playing mid limits for a long time. i used to 2-table the 20/40 at paradise regularly (back when 2 tables was the limit). last fall i decided to experiment with 6-tabling, so i played 100,000 hands of 3/6 at partypoker/intertopspoker before switching to 15/30. over $60/hr at 3/6 was very easy to pull off, and that's accounting for a long period where i was naturally misapplying midlimit concepts.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't know why you are insisting it is so freaking hard.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i am playing on 4-tables as i write this post....it really isn't that tough

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyway...i just wanted to address the notion that you need 'to crush' the games to do this....because you really don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Microbob, I think you're not taking my post the way I meant it. What I'm saying is not that playing 4 tables at once and managing to get the kind of return you're talking about while doing it, and doing it for 40 hours a week, is hard for lots of people, or hard for you. Frankly, I don't think it is out of my range either, eventually. At least I hope it isn't.

But it takes a certain something to do it, commitment not least. I think intelligence and maybe even talent play a part, too.

I'd guess the percentage of people able to play 40 hours a week of 4-tabling and get good results doing it is far less than the number of people who might want to do it and try to do it. A lot of people are just not comfortable playing more than one, or two, or three tables. If they try, their earn rate goes down. If they try, they find they have trouble playing more than two or three hours, and then need a good chunk of time off to wind down. I see some people talking about how much money you can make online trotting out the figures obtainable by playing EIGHT tables. For eight hours a day. Holy mother of God! Sometimes arguments can get too theoretical for their own good. I'm not talking about what's possible, but what's probable, for most people. Not the exceptional people.

I can type over 120 words per minute. It's easy for me. Just because I can, I don't think everyone can; not even if they tried practicing for quite a while. Even if they could, it would be a great strain on them and unsustainable for long. They'd have to make a ton of errors to get that fast, or the errors would set in sooner or later, their speed would drop to compensate for their errors, or just because they got tired or frazzled, whatever. I think 4-tabling, and doing well at it, is a lot like that. If you've got a knack for it, it's a cinch and you might wonder what's wrong with everyone who doesn't. But you can't necessarily take yourself as the standard of all things.

For the average person, I wouldn't be surprised if he would have to be good enough to "crush" the limit he plays at to be able to play four tables at once, sustaining good profitabilty at each table, and do it for 40 hours a week.

I would bet 4-tablers are by far the exception rather than the rule no matter what skill level people have. And people doing it for 40 hours a week or capable of doing it for 40 hours a week at a solid level of success are far rarer still, and will remain that way.

Give yourself credit where credit is due if you can do it. It's well deserved.

When it comes to the percentage of people, even good players, who can do it, I don't think the numbers are on your side.

[PokerHorse]

No, i'm saying making 50k a year at 3-6 is a big deal . I believe you could be possibly making a reasonable profit. are you making 50k or over? If so why not post your cashier history statement so we can document your statements. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[PokerHorse]

well I know dave that you know many people in the poker world. But that statement, well.... let me say that I have asked for just one of the many posters who are claiming they are making significant money at 3-6 to private mail me in order to show me their cashier history statements which could easlily prove their ponit without puttting them at risk . well, no takers so far.
This thread unfortunately has gotten blown out of proportion. I know people win at poker, i object to statements that delude beginners into believing they will be able to easily achieve that kind of income at the 3-6 level let alone 5-10.
as an aside:
Would you agree that as you play multi-table ,hand reading deterioates significantly?

[PokerHorse]

"you only have to play 2-3 hoursa day to make a decent living"

I've been playing for roughly 18 years at 20-40 etc. i wish you luck making a living online playing 2-3 hours a day. wow, this TV Poker thing is really bringem in David. It's a good time to be a Poker Publisher is all I can say.

[ClarkNasty]

You are a freaking idiot.

[PokerHorse]

You are right , I'm very stupid. You should believe everything you read, because really, there is no marketing involved in selling books. It's just the real deal. in fact once you read mr Millers book, I'm sure you too will be able to make at least 50-100k a year online in no time.

I have nothing against Ed Miller or David Sklansky. They are both very smart people. I'm sure the new book is very good. That,s not the point. good luck

[ClarkNasty]

Are you just bitter because there are hundreds of people making more now playing 3/6 online (in fewer hours no less) than you were ever able to make playing live, or are you really this obtuse? Forget 50k per year, there are many posters on this site making over 100k per year online. It's really not that hard.

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe you could be possibly making a reasonable profit. are you making 50k or over? If so why not post your cashier history statement so we can document your statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I don't care whether you believe or not.

[MicroBob]

this is hard for me....because if what you say is true i have a ton of respect for anyone who has made money playing poker for the past 18 years.

however, your posts indicate a gross misunderstanding of how relatively simple it is to make money playing online.


you seem to fail to realize that 20/40 B&M is very different than 20/40 online (or 15/30 since that is the popular game at party for example).

1BB/hr B&M at 30 hands an hour is a good rate.
2-3 hours a day this is $80-$120 which isn't a whole heckuva lot.

just .62BB/hr online X 4 tables = 2.5BB/hr...at 15/30 this is $75/hr.

and with the maniacs that are being reported at 15/30 it shouldn't be too hard to win .62BB/hr (maybe 1BB/100).


if the fish run out of money then games will get tougher so these conditions may not last forever....but if you're good enough to beat the games for just a little bit then you should be able to do okay.


i agree that not everyone has the ability to play 4-tables at once.....but for those who can do it, making a decent income isn't as impossible as you seem to believe.

[OrangeHeat]

This about the 1,000,000,000th post questioning win rates from a loser who does not have the skill and talent to beat even a 3/6 game online.

Jealous retard.

People do it - you can't because you suck.

Orange

[astroglide]

let me say that I have asked for just one of the many posters who are claiming they are making significant money at 3-6 to private mail me in order to show me their cashier history statements which could easlily prove their ponit without puttting them at risk

http://www.badbeat.com/tmp/general.jpg

http://www.badbeat.com/tmp/session.jpg

http://www.badbeat.com/tmp/position.jpg

and that's 3/6 play which i would consider to be sub-optimal: too many psychology plays, not enough stealing, probably too many sb completions, not enough raising. i spent too long trying to figure out where the balance was for smaller stakes games after having been away from them. playing properly i would expect to make more than $62/hr, but even at that rate it's very easy to gross $50,000 in a year. if you think i'm lying, crunch the numbers yourself. the relevant ones are all there, so vp$ip, hands, etc should all add up correctly.

[Nottom]

How many tables do you run astro?

[Duke]

I'm sorry you're incapable of playing 6 games at once at a low limit. If you can't make $50 an hour playing 6 3-6 games you need to work on your game.

~D

[Duke]

After reading more of your posts in the thread I realize that you're retarded. Sorry for being polite before.

"It's not linear."

That's pure gold. Yeah people run good for, oh, 100k hands and are lucky.

"Amplified fluctuations online."

Uh... Yeah you might lose more in 10 minutes than is possible live, or make more, but if you really think that playing 1500 hands a day will give you bigger swings then you really have no idea what you're talking about. If you really don't think that playing for 100,000 hands will produce an average earn rate equal to your actual earn rate, or pretty close to it, then you have no idea what you're talking about.

And yeah, I've been moving up and I've rebuilt what you would likely consider a bankroll in the last 6 months, starting from $500. And I'm not that great.

Davidross made $65k or something in a year and he's not that great. Astroglide made $60 an hour when he didn't play that great.

But I'm sure you have plenty of company in the "I can't do it so it's impossible because I've been playing poker for 18 years" camp. The logical flaw is that you haven't played 18 years. You played for a couple months, then repeated that 108 times.

I think it would have been easier if everyone in this thread just said "he's stupid," and ignored you.

~D

[MicroBob]

good post duke.

many have posted that it would have been easier to post 'you're an idiot. go away.'
but i actually considered the possibility that some players might actually believe this really IS impossible when it obviously is not.


i get semi-frequent PM's from posters (familiar and unfamiliar) asking me if it is REALLY possible to make a living-income playing 2/4 and 3/6.
at first glance it really does seem too unrealistic to possibly be true.

there have been several threads on these forums where someone has asked 'how many here are actually playing online-poker as their sole source of income' and there are inevitably a ton of replies that you have to have something like a $25k bankroll and be able to beat-up on the 10/20 game in order to be able to do this.
and then someone will say 'well...more realistically, you could GET BY if you had $10k and played 5/10 but you would be eating a lot of bologna sandiwhces. do you really want to try to live on $20k a year??' or some other such nonsense.


it really isn't that hard to do the math to figure out how much you can make at 1BB/100 or 2BB/100 or whatever your conservative estimate of your long-term win-rate might happen to be.

but there are still several more players in these forums who simply never knew that $40-$50k at 3/6 was possible...much less very realistic.

that is why i fight so hard to prove the point.
and because i happen to be quite the argumentative S.O.B.

[vulturesrow]

MB,

Well I appreciate your efforts personally. I knew it was possible, but never put much thought into the factors and math etc. You have definitely opened my eyes a little more. Kudos.

Chris

[PokerHorse]

you must be one of those right? show me your cashier history statements. just private mail me and ill give you an email address . thx in advance

[PokerHorse]

dont be mean. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[PokerHorse]

Micro bob, I understand the math, and honestly I appreciate your not losing your head, and staying on subject. at 3-4 tables you lose the ability to READ well, unless you are counting on there being enough terrible players(which seems to be what evryone is counting on)to compensate for this loss. (by the way I do play online as well,although i haven't tried Multi-tabling.
I have encountered many weak players, but more so, many loose players that are constantly trying to raise or check raise you off of hands. unless someone who is multi-tabling is extremely familiar with the players, I find it difficult to see how you can maintain an advantage, especially with players coming in and out of the games so frequently.
My original post was that it is a big deal to take home 50k
at 3-6 multi-tabling , not whether you can make money.

My opinion is that it is a long run break-even proposistion playing this way.(3-4 tables)
Look at it this way. If it were very easy, then this forum
would be pint size, because there would be no need for advice and counsel on how to play , and no hand holding for those going through extended down trends.The human factor in us makes this a difficult game, and that was simply my point from the beggining.
before the internet , the amount of REAL poker pros was quite small percentage wise . many have tried and failed.
Now that you can see 300 hands an hour, does this really change the skills involved that are neccessary?
Again, I'm not arguing that you cant make money. I am arguing that making 50k playing 3-6 is ver y difficult, and only playing 2-3 hours a day and making 6 fiqures at 15-30, multi tables, is again, not a LONG TERM proposisition.
Ask your self why so many are angry at my posts. I'm trying my best to say MY OPINION etc, but I'm a dream buster, so to speak, and people dont like that. I was hoping to end this thread and move on but i've got too many people wound up here. if you know your right, then just go out there and play your 3-tables and make your 6 figures .All the power to you if you succeed. good luck
Now, lets move on okay???

[PokerHorse]

you cared enough to make a sarcastic post.No I'm sure it's just too strenous to email a copy of that history.If you change your mind just private message me and I'll tell you where to send it. No takers yet...........hhhmmm i wonder why. Your post means nothing if you cant or wont back it up.

[astroglide]

always 6 tables

[PokerHorse]

excellent post, well put. exactly my point. My point isn't that you can't make money. Hell, I'm on there playing too as well as live.
It's simply that it was not appropriate to be put in the book that way.
I'm guessing that some of the players raising hell with me over my statements are making maybee somewhere between 1500-3000 in a good month, and thats great. It's just not easy.
But of course even David Sklansky won't retract , because well.... i wont go there. again I'm glad you are brave enough to take the unpopular side

[astroglide]

dude, i provided my 6 table 3/6 results. there is no room for debate.

[ClarkNasty]

"I'm guessing that some of the players raising hell with me over my statements are making maybee somewhere between 1500-3000 in a good month"

Change "in a good month" to "in a decent week" and you are getting much closer to reality.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
No takers yet...........hhhmmm i wonder why. Your post means nothing if you cant or wont back it up.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wonder why? Because who in their right mind is going to email their statements to some stranger on the internet?

It's mutually exclusive. Anyone bright enought to win that much money at 3/6 is not dumb enought to send you their finacial statements.

It seems that people are more than willing to describe their experiences to you to explain a situation that you apparently know very little about, but if you start them for a full rectal exam of their records, they're going to stop caring if you believe them.

"Hell, I like you, you can come over to my house and [censored] my sister."

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
"I'm guessing that some of the players raising hell with me over my statements are making maybee somewhere between 1500-3000 in a good month"

Change "in a good month" to "in a decent week" and you are getting much closer to reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, the word "some" is so vague that we can't really say much about what it means.

You're probably both right.

My own take is that I'd bet most people on these forums make less than either estimate playing poker, especially if they're playing 2/4 and 3/6.

Also personal take -- I'd love to be doing Astroglide's numbers, but wow, six tables. If being able to do that is one of the qualifications, that definitely takes the "easily" part out of the "making 50k a year at low limits" for all but a small percentage of even good and excellent players. I don't think I could play six tables comfortably, much less for 40 hours a week, even if I were the best player in the world.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Also personal take -- I'd love to be doing Astroglide's numbers, but wow, six tables. If being able to do that is one of the qualifications, that definitely takes the "easily" part out of the "making 50k a year at low limits" for all but a small percentage of even good and excellent players.

[/ QUOTE ]
You wouldn't have to play six tables to make $50K.

astroglide's stats say he's made 1.91 BB/hr per table. That's 11.46 BB/hr at six tables. 11.46 BB = $68.76. In a 40-hour work week, that's $2,750.40. In 50 weeks, that's $137,520.

You could play many fewer hands than that and still make $50K/year. You could, for example, play six tables for 15 hours per week instead of 40. Or you could play just two tables at a time if you play 45 hours/week.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
My point isn't that you can't make money. Hell, I'm on there playing too as well as live.
It's simply that it was not appropriate to be put in the book that way.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are a feckin ass clown. You challenged people to prove that they could make $50k a year at small stakes. A lot of people said they do it, and someone gave you his stats.

The point isn't that it's inappropriate to put in the book. The point is that you made a stupid, nitpicky post about a semantic detail in the Foreword (not a forward, that's a chain letter you sent to your sister) to a book about poker - a foreword, I might add, that has several more irritating and condescending moments. Then everyone told you to stop being a tard.

Then you posted about 14 replies trying to dodge the points you were shown to be wrong on and come up with some exception or unlikelihood within others' arguments that would make you at least technically a little bit right. You're very good at this, so I recommend you take up defending GWB in the Other Topics forum. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Not only are you wrong, but from a rhetorical and logical point of view every word you say makes me want to break my foot off in your non-formatting, lower-case abusing ass.

NT

[Blarg]

True. I could probably do most anything for 15 hours a week without dropping dead over it.

I think my best bet is to work on getting his earn rate rather than his multi-tabling ability, though. Which is still a long, long way off for me. /images/graemlins/smile.gif But I haven't even been playing hold'em three months yet, so it's going to be a long time till I throw in the towel. Still in the black after 25,000 hands though. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[PokerHorse]

no one has given me any stats. what are you so angry about? you would be easy pickens in a game as it is easy to see you go on tilt very very easily.

[Beavis68]

This has gone on way to long. Do you know what it would take to make 50,000 a year considering a 40 hour work week?

[PokerHorse]

the cashier history statements dont show any names etc they simply show credits and debits. You would know this if you ever were lucky enough to put some money back into your personal account. Just stop already. i wrote a retracted post in order to stop all you hot heads from continuing on tilt. If you guys get this angry, then I'm positive you cant deal with a 200 bb negative swing playing multi tables.

[maurile]

I'm not sure what your argument is, PokerHorse. Are you saying it's impossible to have an EV of 1 BB/hr/table playing four $3/$6 tables? 'Cause that's all it would take (playing 40 hrs/week) to have an EV of $50K/yr.

[PokerHorse]

That's great I'll go thru the archives. I'll save questions for after reading them. thanks!

[astroglide]

no one has given me any stats

yes they have. i gave you all of them in this thread. scroll up and look for the pretty pictures.

[MicroBob]

i agree. the pictures were indeed very pretty.

[nothumb]

[ QUOTE ]
no one has given me any stats. what are you so angry about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it's because you don't actually read and acknowledge facts. You just skip to the part of a post that is most contestable and harp on it. Or just pull stuff straight out of your cavernous ass.

[ QUOTE ]
you would be easy pickens in a game as it is easy to see you go on tilt very very easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and I'd smoke you because you form opinions about people based on unreliable evidence or a small sample size. Do you really think you know anything about how I play poker from reading this post?

NT

[PokerHorse]

read the full thread

[maurile]

I did read the full thread. Then, to clarify an issue I was uncertain about, I asked you a yes/no question that would have taken you three fewer words to answer than what you actually wrote. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[astroglide]

i don't think that's a fair suggestion given that you haven't read the full thread.

[Tosh]

[ QUOTE ]


yes they have. i gave you all of them in this thread. scroll up and look for the pretty pictures.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're making the fundamental mistake of thinking that he is prepared to admit he is wrong, when provided with conclusive proof. Shame on you astroglide, for thinking he in the slightest bit rational.

[ZootMurph]

From Duke:

[ QUOTE ]
But I'm sure you have plenty of company in the "I can't do it so it's impossible because I've been playing poker for 18 years" camp. The logical flaw is that you haven't played 18 years. You played for a couple months, then repeated that 108 times.

[/ QUOTE ]

My favorite paragraph in this thread... thanks, Duke! And true. I hate to say but I had this same problem for a while... never improved and kept thinking that it's BS that all these people are making money playing poker. That has changed, thanks to these forums. I'm making money (not $50k a year yet, but someday soon...), and I'm improving regularly.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
You would know this if you ever were lucky enough to put some money back into your personal account. Just stop already.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. "Just stop already", along with a wise ass comment about questioning whether I was every "lucky" enough to win. Taking jabs at people is not going to make them stop.

Frankly, I personally don't give a damn what you're opinion of my profitability is. I was hoping to help you overcome your apparent stupidity. Didn't work, but oh well, I can't help you climb Mount Everest either, even if it would be simplier.

This is why everyone is beating up you, fella. Not because you pissed them off or that they are "tilting", but because you come across dumb-ass self-rightous moron, and it's to fun to berate morons. If you keep making an ass of yourself, people will keep pointing it out. If you want it to stop, STFU or go away.

If you are just a troll, well done, you succeeded. Now go away.

Just my two cents.

[PokerHorse]

Please go to the internet page to read my response to the stats thanks.

[ftball0000]

I would like to say Pokerhorse is doing one of the BEST trolling jobs of all time!

Congratulations Pokerhorse, I am very impressed.

-Ftball
(currently making $7.96 an hour working for an NFL team)

[astroglide]

"the internet page"?

[astroglide]

ah, he meant this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=894084&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1#894084). for some reason, he started a thread in a different forum.

[warlockjd]

Probably closer to $2-3/table/hr. And this was before Party's most recent rake increase. That was very key, too.

[warlockjd]

[ QUOTE ]
Great just document that you have been doing this for 18 months or so and this argument is over. if you will post your payout receipts for the last 9 months, that would be enough to convince me. if you would like to take me up on this and let me actually verify your results i will pay you a fee for your time and trouble.
does that sound fair or is there a better way to show me?

[/ QUOTE ]

No one cares about convincing you. I know I am a winner and have supported myself from poker for 14 months plus. Now comes a fish who doesn't believe me.

Who Cares /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[CollegePlayer]

how did you figure out how to put the computer on? Go back to 1986 you dildo.

[Moyer]

[ QUOTE ]
i spent too long trying to figure out where the balance was for smaller stakes games after having been away from them. playing properly i would expect to make more than $62/hr, but even at that rate it's very easy to gross $50,000 in a year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you mean $72/hr (2BB per table)?

[IndieMatty]

Bump because this is far better reading then the "GET THIS" thread.

[tek]

I don't play online, but I find this argument interesting.

You say it's easy.

I would then say, then why are there more net losers than winners online.

You would then reply, because they haven't read my books, don't use the info in the books correctly, etc.

The fact is most people don't make money online or at a B&M. Poker books have been around long before the current poker mania, but most players continue to lose.

Same as the stock market boom from 1995-2000. Everybody thought they just had to open a brokerage account and throw darts. So they bought stocks in questionable companies that went under or good companies whose stock price was overextended.

I do think that giving people unrealistic earnings expectations is not kosher.