Are Pro Poker Players Starving?

I am fairly new to poker and was surprised to learn that the average expectation of a Professional Poker player is one big bet per hour. One lousy big bet? BFD.


If you are killing a 20-40 game, and you grind out a 40 hour week (comparable to most jobs) - you will net $83,200 per year; $62,400 for 15-30; and $41,600 for 10-20. Albeit, it is probably tax-free, but without any benefits, holidays, etc.


Now, most of us love the game, but would you love sitting in a smoke filled room, mucking hand after hand with a bunch of tourists you disdain, grinding out that elusive big-bet per hour? 40 hours per week, week after week?


Is this really anyone's dream?

play in Cali where there is no smoke and weaker games. Play short-handed and you will not be mucking hand after hand. Me and a couple of my friends can make over 1.5 BB/hr playing 40-80 and 80-160 so we are not exactly starving. Besides you get to make your own schedule and play whenever you want. I don't even own an alarm clock because I simply have no need. Damn life as a poker player is tough isn't it? If this isn't your dream then what the hell do you dream of doing?

"grinding out that elusive big-bet per hour? 40 hours per week, week after week?


Is this really anyone's dream?"


other than the term big-bet, you could be describing any job.


-Derek

Goods points Xavier. I to do not own alarm clock.

Accounting was much more of a grind for me.


Starving? I had steak on Friday night. But I usually just have Fruit Loops in the morning. Well, not in the morning-- in the afternoon shortly after I wake up.

for the most part, poker is not so freewheeling and entrepreneurial as people think, and more like a union job


by this, i simply mean that individual performance or merit does not so much dictate your earnings as the number of fish, and their size of play and mistake rate "negotiated" for you by the environment where you live


i first started making worthwhile money when i graduated from calculating odds and perfecting my own play to choosing rooms, tables, and times, and reacting to other people's play. it is much easier to play sloppily for 20 hours than perfectly for 3 hours, and sloppy play is good enough to win if it is tailored to your opponent, and you're not sloppy in terms of whom you play against.


so next i tried moving around geographically to find the best game at a given hour or day, and the next step was in finding the best place even to satrt a game, or entice some sucker to play heads up, and so on.


ultimately, once you're good enough to break even in your local 20-40 game, the only way to advance is with a little hustle, a little sales, a little business travel, cultivating marks, sales targets, whatever - just like any other business.


but the people who grind it out for one BB per hour against their same dull home game and same faces week in and week out are the same people who, though "talented," are too lazy to put on the necessary interpersonal hustle in other income-producing endeavors as well.


so, in conclusion, YOU CAN KILL ONE BB PER HOUR, but it involves a little more than the monotonous factory work (even with a flexible punch-clock) that most "professional" poker players are comfortable and content with. in other words, if you just settle for the game the house lays at their structure and with the local crowd they attract, you're never gonna make a dime more than anybody else.


the way to win at poker is not to play well but to play against suckers, and how you create that situation is up to your own creativity and ingenuity. only it's not a skill most "good" poker players have.

"but would you love sitting in a smoke filled room,"


No smoking in California.


"mucking hand after hand"


That applies to any winning player, pro or not, so it's irrelevant.


"with a bunch of tourists you disdain,"


Disdain? Wow, that's quite a presumption, and depressingly cynical. I suspect that anyone with that attitude has a low capacity for joy, whatever their income activity.


"Is this really anyone's dream?"


Strawman. You described a miserable situation and asked who would want it.


How about this for a dream. No one to rely on, and no one relying on me. All the other good things about poker stem from that.


I'll concede that poker is the wrong business for people with urgent goals and material obsessions. I'll also concede that golf is the wrong career for people who don't like being outside. Finding a career that matches our natural traits is a worthy dream, and for some, poker does exactly that.


Tommy

making it at poker is just like working in the real world. Some make more $$$$ than others. some have longer hours than others. some have better working conditions than others. some enjoy their work more than others.


the answer to your question....yes, some pros are starving, BUT som are living "high on the hog".


and as in the real world, generally those who enjoy their work do better than those who do not...nd those who put effort. study, lead the pack.

Wonderful response. For what it's worth, most of the pros I've known over the years seem, on average, happier, nicer people than the non-pros.

>"mucking hand after hand"


>>"That applies to any winning player, pro or not, so it's irrelevant."


I disagree. If you're a winning player, but not a pro, you don't have to sit there and endure a particularly dead run of cards. The non-pro can come back two months later and STILL be a winning player!

Tommy's answer is particularly healthy, and I concede his logic -also, I don't disdain anyone in particular - but judged by general comments about "suckers" and "live ones" etc. that you pro's do.


I was generally curious about the whole thing.


thanks all.

"How about this for a dream. No one to rely on"


Technically, I don't think that's true. Your money isn't just coming from nowhere.

I don't think so, many however go bust. the problem is not

so much with the big bet per hour or going bust (maybe it won't

happen) as to a limit of growth for taking a risk.

if I have say 30-40k and no worries, I can become a good player

and play 20-40. if I try to move up I will hit the cieling a lot.

If I trade say index futures (I may have lesser reliance to luck)

and more based on work. If I can make that "big bet an hour" trading. I now want to move up I just ad a zero to my trades

(in theory) maybe I won't I just double or tripple my contract

size. Point - poker is for the poker maniacs - not for a business man with a vision. When you try to move up the sharks

just wait for you to eat you up alive. Life is too short for that.

the dead run of cards has nothing to with when you play, or how frequent. if you play at all, and are a winning player, the cold waves will hit. the pro can get up and leave just like the non pro. i think the point that gets missed is that winning play is attributed just as much to knowing how to win the most when your cards are good and you outplay your opponents as it is to the discipline of mucking losers, and not throwing your money away. it doesn't matter if you are a pro and rely on your poker winnings for financial security, or are a winning player with other income. winning doesn't mean 'always having more chips than you bought in with.' winning means riding the waves, the highs and lows, and still having more in the end than you started with. mucking a loser hand is a winning move. it may not win the pot, but it fails to risk chips when the odds are horribly wrong. that is a key in winning that many don't quite grasp (myself included - evidenced more from my own lack of discipline than an inability to grasp the concept).

Bunhead: "mucking hand after hand"


Me: "That applies to any winning player, pro or not, so it's irrelevant."


Randy: "I disagree. If you're a winning player, but not a pro, you don't have to sit there and endure a particularly dead run of cards. The non-pro can come back two months later and STILL be a winning player!"


I don't follow you. If a pro OR a winning-non-pro quits playing for two months, they are both still winners when they return. How does this relate to the accepted teaching that mucking hand after hand is required to win?


Tommy

Me: "How about this for a dream. No one to rely on"


Bobby: "Technically, I don't think that's true. Your money isn't just coming from nowhere."


Let's look at the four types of incomes I've had, and one that I haven't, because I think they cover the full range.


Stock boy at a grocery store. I relied on the company to stay in business, and on my employer to keep me under employ.


Musician in a bar band. I relied on the other band members, and on the bars to hire us.


Magazine article writer. I rely on publishers to buy my stuff. If I were to write a book, I'd rely on people to buy it.


Company owner. I'd rely on the market and on the abilities of my manager(s) and employees.


Poker player. I rely on the existence of sufficiently beatable games, and that's it. Sure, technically, that well could run dry if all games became unbeatable (either by the games getting tougher or my mind slipping with age), but compared to the other endevours, I think most would agree that poker is significantly less dependent.


Tommy

I'm just saying that I don't find Bunhead's observation irrelevant just because every winning player has to suffer through the mucking of most hands. I don't play every day so it doesn't bother me at all, where if I chose to play every day as a full-time pro, I can see where this one aspect of poker might start to feel excruciatingly boring at some point.


-Randy

"I'm just saying that I don't find Bunhead's observation irrelevant just because every winning player has to suffer through the mucking of most hands. I don't play every day so it doesn't bother me at all, where if I chose to play every day as a full-time pro, I can see where this one aspect of poker might start to feel excruciatingly boring at some point."


Okay, I see your point now. Sorry. This is an area where the trait "scatterbrained" comes in kinda handy for me so I tend to downplay the boredom thing.


Tommy

" Okay, I see your point now. Sorry. This is an area where the trait "scatterbrained" comes in kinda handy for me so I tend to downplay the boredom thing. "


Really Tommy? I'm surprised at this. I'm a bit scatterbrained myself, and I find it hurts my game. I have less attention and I lose my reads on other players. I have noticed that my postflop play gets significantly weaker, as I stop seeing opportunities and making reads after about the 4 or 5 hour mark. As I'm only a marginally winning player at this point, this is Bad. (Online even more so, but I am certain this is because I'm a visual person and not seeing my opponent hurts me.)


So, I'm curious: how do you find being scatterbrained to be an advantage?

"So, I'm curious: how do you find being scatterbrained to be an advantage?"


Well, I didn't say it was an advantage. I said it relieves boredom. Being able to self-entertain without props definitely causes me some focus problems at the poker table, but it also makes it easier to fold preflop during the inevitable long runs of no good starters.


Tommy