What does it mean to be a "pro?"

[Billy Baroo]

I've heard many different opinions about what parameters must be met for a poker player to be regarded as a "professional." I was curious as to what 2+2ers feel makes someone a professional.

The way I see it, any person who gains the large majority of his or her income from poker and lives above the poverty line is a professional.

[twistedbeats]

it usually means answering lots of stupid questions about playing in the televised tournaments. but it also entails lots of people telling you how they once hit big on a scratch ticket or with keno.

but i use your definition with the stipulation that the pro pays rent or mortgage. basically that pros don't live in their parents' basements or on their friends' couches

[Greg (FossilMan)]

Some people say you're a pro if poker is your sole source of income.

Other say you're a pro if poker is your primary source of income.

Still others say you're a pro if you play a winning game, and put in a lot of hours.

I say you're a pro if you play well enough all the time that if you put in a reasonable number of hours you COULD support yourself playing poker if it were your only source of income. So, the rich guy who comes to town 5 times a year, and beats the 50-100 game for an average of $40 per hour is a pro in my book. Of course, what that really means is he could be a pro if he wanted. And, if I'm playing against him, that's all that really matters to me, i.e., how well does he play. I don't care how much money he makes elsewhere, the question for me is how much money is he taking off the table in MY game.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[prop]

well a pro is someone who makes their living playing poker. ive been a pro for many years but for some of those years i was just an advantage player because i was doing something else to make a living. like right now i dont play poker full time because im making more money working with my brother. some/many of the best players arent pros, theyre too smart to play poker all day.

[PokerPaul]

greg,

u buying into the foxwoods main event, or do you still put in time to get in for discounts via sattelite?

[MicroBob]

I primarily consider myself 'pro' because it is my sole-source of income.

But a couple of people claimed something like "multi-tabling for a zillion hours on 3/6 does NOT make you a professional."
Evidently, if you regularly bounce around from one big MTT to another you can call yourself a pro even if you suck and are losing a ton of money.

IMO, if you are down to your last $10k and use it all to buy-in to some big MTT you are not behaving very 'professionally' with your money.

Others have argued that the girl at Starbucks who gets your coffee or the dude that rings-up your groceries aren't normally considered "professional" coffee-getters or "professional" grocery-baggers just because they get paid to do it. And certainly, for some who have these occupations it is a sole-source of income and not just a part-time job.
I think it's a reasonable argument but am not sure exactly how much weight to give it.

I'm making money, it's my sole-source of income, I approach it very professionally. Also, on my taxes I will be filing as a 'professional gambler'. It is obvious that I am not the 'other' option being 'recreational gambler'.

But to avoid too much contraversy I just say that I am 'playing full-time for income.'


Interestingly, if I qualified for the WSOP via a Stars-satellite or something, I'm sure I would be referred to as an 'amateur' or 'online-qualifier' which sometimes implies 'amateur' even though many of the online-qualifiers are pretty good AND some of them also play full-time for income.


All in all, it really doesn't matter what the definition is.
If you are a winning player then you are a winning player. And if you are a losing-player then you are a losing-player.

I have much more respect for someone who doesn't consider themselves 'pro' but who can consistently beat the game then I do for someone who says they are a 'pro' and 'look at me, I play 40/80 and higher' but they are deep in debt.

[Blarg]

What's amazing to me is how piss-poor about money some of the best players are. You always read about so many of the best poker players in the world losing hundreds of thousands on proposition bets or dumb sports bets, just squandering in a minute what they had to spend a long time grinding out. And they don't necessarily have anything ro replace it with besides talent.

Obviously interpreting being a pro purely as a measure of poker skill alone doesn't give the kind of picture we normally associate with professionalism in other fields. And there are undoubtedly many mediocre players who do fairly well because they don't screw around with their money, while there is no shortage of brilliant guys who are idiots when it comes to money management. The Stu Ungar model comes to mind of a genius professional who lived without professionalism.

I think both ways of defining a professional player -- as someone who plays at a really high level and as someone who plays for a living -- have merit, but lean toward validating the simple, technically correct, and merely grubby definition of a guy who plays poker for a living. Even if you're a genius poker player, if you can't manage your life, you're incompetent at one of the most important aspects of being a pro poker player.

[Lawrence Ng]

People who I play with often think I'm a pro. I think a lot has to to do with the fact I play tight aggressive, I dress like a bum in the poker room, and I win. The grinders/regulars know I'm a winning player.

By definition being a professional is where one has an occupation of performing a task/service or providing a good and relies PRIMARILY on that profession itself to earn a living.

I don't use poker for this, thus I do not consider myself a Pro.

[jakethebake]

Doesn't it have to be about poker skill alone? Are you saying that a doctor that turns around and blows all his money on gambling or cocaine isn't a professional doctor (which happens quite a bit)? Sure he's an idiot, but it doen't mean he's not a doctor. Or same for lawyer or any other profession?

[morgant]

granted the rich guy may have a good game, but actually making a living off of poker is a different cup of tea than the casual player who can hang with "pro's"

[drewjustdrew]

The rich guy with the good game is probably actually a tougher opponent depending on what you call a good game. A lot of pros pass on positive EV situations in an effort to reduce variance in their results. If they took more positive EV situations without fear of variance, your results should naturally suffer.

[Blarg]

Well, a doctor or lawyer who ruins his business won't be a pro for long, but will just be a professional on paper, just like a careless professional poker player. But at least most doctors and lawyers work for somebody else, a hospital or law firm. A poker player likely doesn't have anyone else helping to manage the office and keep it running while he's on cocaine binges -- he IS the office.

Being more directly(heck, entirely) responsible for money matters than the average professional is, proper money management for a poker player doesn't seem nearly as tangential and irrelevant in defining a pro. A pro is someone who not just can do something for a sustainable living, but actually DOES it. A poker player who is the biggest genius in the world at poker but can't make a living because of terrible money management skills, well, he's a poker player all right, but is he really a pro?

In one way, maybe, but not in the ways that matter. He's not treating poker as a business and not succeeding in that business. Once he is not treating it and cannot treat it as a business, he's no more a pro than anyone, even if he's 100x smarter and better at poker. He's just a really talented guy without a job.

A doctor or lawyer can't be professionals unless they can handle everything that's part of their job. You can't be "mostly" or "pretty much" a doctor or lawyer. A lawyer incapable of putting together an argument or researching case citations would never have been able to become a lawyer in the first place.

Yet anybody without a job can claim to be a pro poker player on the spot. Without being able to sustain a living at poker, that claim would seem silly, and sustaining a living is about more than just playing cards. A guy who just has skill with cards may be admirable, but he's only halfway there as a professional if he can't manage his money.

[Moyer]

[ QUOTE ]
Others have argued that the girl at Starbucks who gets your coffee or the dude that rings-up your groceries aren't normally considered "professional" coffee-getters or "professional" grocery-baggers just because they get paid to do it. And certainly, for some who have these occupations it is a sole-source of income and not just a part-time job.
I think it's a reasonable argument but am not sure exactly how much weight to give it.


[/ QUOTE ]

How many occupations actually use the phrase "professional"?

Professional engineer? Professional farmer? Professional dentist?

It seems to me that the word professional is usually used to describe an occupation that may otherwise be thought of as a hobby. Professional golfer, professional fisherman, professional skateboarder, professional bodybuilder, professional race car driver, etc.

If poker is your profession, then you are a professional poker player.

This is not baseball. There are no minor leagues. Some people think the big MTTs are the Majors so those players must be the only pros. Those people are wrong because that's not how poker works.

When I hear that someone is a professional poker player, I think that they must make a living from playing poker. It doesn't mean they're the best in the world. But it means they're good enough to make a living at whatever limit they're playing.

Obviously, you can still be very very good without making your living from poker.

[jakethebake]

Yea that didn't make any sense at all. There are a lot...and I mean a LOT of doctors, lawyers, and every other profession that are lousy at handling their money or just like doing stupid things when they're not practicing their chosen profession. It doesn't change the fact that it is their profession.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, a doctor or lawyer who ruins his business won't be a pro for long, but will just be a professional on paper, just like a careless professional poker player. But at least most doctors and lawyers work for somebody else, a hospital or law firm. A poker player likely doesn't have anyone else helping to manage the office and keep it running while he's on cocaine binges -- he IS the office.

Being more directly(heck, entirely) responsible for money matters than the average professional is, proper money management for a poker player doesn't seem nearly as tangential and irrelevant in defining a pro. A pro is someone who not just can do something for a sustainable living, but actually DOES it. A poker player who is the biggest genius in the world at poker but can't make a living because of terrible money management skills, well, he's a poker player all right, but is he really a pro?

In one way, maybe, but not in the ways that matter. He's not treating poker as a business and not succeeding in that business. Once he is not treating it and cannot treat it as a business, he's no more a pro than anyone, even if he's 100x smarter and better at poker. He's just a really talented guy without a job.

A doctor or lawyer can't be professionals unless they can handle everything that's part of their job. You can't be "mostly" or "pretty much" a doctor or lawyer. A lawyer incapable of putting together an argument or researching case citations would never have been able to become a lawyer in the first place.

Yet anybody without a job can claim to be a pro poker player on the spot. Without being able to sustain a living at poker, that claim would seem silly, and sustaining a living is about more than just playing cards. A guy who just has skill with cards may be admirable, but he's only halfway there as a professional if he can't manage his money.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Greg (FossilMan)]

Well, I guess it really doesn't matter what you call him. If the toughest guy in the game is a non-pro who makes $5M a year from his "real" job, he's still the guy I don't want in the game. Even if he's just an amateur who's "hanging" with us pros.

later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Tommy Angelo]

I think of the difference between "professional poker player" and "non-professional poker player" as being the same as the difference between "agnostic" and "atheist." Whatever you call yourself, that's what you are.

[snakehead]

if it weren't for agnosticism, I wouldn't know what to believe.

[jakethebake]

Best answer so far.

[ QUOTE ]
I think of the difference between "professional poker player" and "non-professional poker player" as being the same as the difference between "agnostic" and "atheist." Whatever you call yourself, that's what you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

[jakethebake]

Call yourself whatever ya want. When I was in the Marine Corps I knew a guy that used to write in "paid killer for the govt." as his occupation on his taxes. I guess he figured that's one way not to get audited.

[ QUOTE ]
I think of the difference between "professional poker player" and "non-professional poker player" as being the same as the difference between "agnostic" and "atheist." Whatever you call yourself, that's what you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

[TomCollins]

Greg, you shouldn't speak so highly of yourself.

[Mikey]

what it means to be a pro is a loser who sits in front of his computer and or cardroom of choice with absolutely no social skills nor social life.

Allocates a large portion of his net worth into playing poker, wasted precious years of his/her invested in something which does not benefit anyone else except for his/herself for monetary gain.

Has a very large ego and loves to be always right about whatever topic he is talking about whether it be poker or the any other topic (sports, news, policts)

Believes he is the best player and may be far from it.

May or may not spend endless hours on poker forums and may or may not look down on other players who don't or can't comprehend the same mental concepts as our pro does.
Yet he is so far from knowing all there is to know about poker.

Will never admit openly that he/she is wrong.

That's what I believe is a nutshell is what is meant to be titled "pro."

Beware, some players have exactly these characteristics but are far far far from being pro's because they may actually believe they are but they are probably losers in the long.

Hopefully we'll let other elaborate.

[MaxPower]

I don't know, but if you are in college or live with your parents, you are not a pro (unless you are supporting your parents).

[driller]

I prefer the "Tommyism":

It's the easiest thing in the world, to become a professional poker player. All you have to do is quit your job.

[driller]

Another one:

"The only way to get by without a job is to not have one."

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Yea that didn't make any sense at all. There are a lot...and I mean a LOT of doctors, lawyers, and every other profession that are lousy at handling their money or just like doing stupid things when they're not practicing their chosen profession. It doesn't change the fact that it is their profession.


[/ QUOTE ]

Money management is not an essential, even defining aspect of their professions. In fact, there's not a thing about it in their training or certification at all, and virtually without exception, they hire other people to do it for them.

The difference between that and being a poker player couldn't be more stark.

[Steve Giufre]

[ QUOTE ]
what it means to be a pro is a loser who sits in front of his computer and or cardroom of choice with absolutely no social skills nor social life.

Allocates a large portion of his net worth into playing poker, wasted precious years of his/her invested in something which does not benefit anyone else except for his/herself for monetary gain.

Has a very large ego and loves to be always right about whatever topic he is talking about whether it be poker or the any other topic (sports, news, policts)

Believes he is the best player and may be far from it.

May or may not spend endless hours on poker forums and may or may not look down on other players who don't or can't comprehend the same mental concepts as our pro does.
Yet he is so far from knowing all there is to know about poker.

Will never admit openly that he/she is wrong.

That's what I believe is a nutshell is what is meant to be titled "pro."

Beware, some players have exactly these characteristics but are far far far from being pro's because they may actually believe they are but they are probably losers in the long.

Hopefully we'll let other elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah I'll elaborate. It takes a real special kind of moron to write what you just did.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Allocates a large portion of his net worth into playing poker, wasted precious years of his/her invested in something which does not benefit anyone else except for his/herself for monetary gain

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm always surprised to see this idea pop up so much. What the heck are most jobs about? Very few of them are centered on helping anybody else, unless you say virtually everything you can ever do is helping someone, somehow. And if you can, you can say that about poker too.

If you were to go by all the people saying poker doesn't contribute anything, you'd think that in contrast everyone who had a job was pretty selfless and noble. I think the percentage of people I've actually met or even heard of in my life who are particularly selfless or noble is actually quite small. If everyone drawing a paycheck wants to chime in and claim that sort of high moral distinction, I think they're...ahem...overstating their case. Just a little.

[TomCollins]

So Mikey, when did you turn pro?

[Mikey]

in order to become a better poker player you have to be honest with yourself.... and I am honest....

When I was on tilt, I would try to visualize myself sitting across the table looking at this guy (ME)who is on tilt and who is letting emotion effect his play. I realized then that this type of behavior looked ridiculous.

I then proceeded to look at myself again and answered this type of question as honestly as I could"WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A PRO?". I am describing myself in this post because I have the mental power to look at myself as objective as possible.

Hence this post describes me.


"Yeah I'll elaborate. It takes a real special kind of moron to write what you just did."

You don't know me well enough.

[Steve Giufre]

OK, I got ya. It was hard for me to believe you were trying to say that everybody that plays cards for a living is a no good..... Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
what it means to be a pro is a loser who sits in front of his computer and or cardroom of choice with absolutely no social skills nor social life.

Allocates a large portion of his net worth into playing poker, wasted precious years of his/her invested in something which does not benefit anyone else except for his/herself for monetary gain.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey! don't knock it, that's my dream your describing.

[jakethebake]

That's a ridiculous answer.

[jakethebake]

When people say or write things like this I tell them to go read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead then come talk to me. I usually hear back in about a year... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Allocates a large portion of his net worth into playing poker, wasted precious years of his/her invested in something which does not benefit anyone else except for his/herself for monetary gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

[jakethebake]

Your post said enough.

[ QUOTE ]
"Yeah I'll elaborate. It takes a real special kind of moron to write what you just did."

You don't know me well enough.



[/ QUOTE ]

[Blarg]

Too bad you are missing either the brains or the courage to say why. Which it appears you cannot do anyway, because in two responses you still have yet to advance a cogent counter-argument. So you might as well just drop it.

A counter-argument isn't simply telling someone else "That's ridiculous." Doing that is pointless; at best it's unproductive.

The fact remains that money management is a key element of being a professional poker player. It's not a key element of being a lawyer or a doctor; most pay someone else to manage their money and have to think very little to not at all about it. That's fundamentally different from a professional poker player's relation to his bankroll and savings and investments. A poker player who cannot manage his financial assets well enough to live on them is missing an integral skill that's a big part of the foundation of what his profession is all about; he's just a highly skilled guy without a job.

Oh, I forgot to respond according to your standards, so here goes: "Oh yeah?"

[jakethebake]

It's stupid because managing your personal affairs is an important part of ANYONE's life, but is separate from their profession. And I don't care what you do. Whether you're Blarg the poker pro or Mike Tyson the boxer or MC Hammer the musician. If you can't manage your personal financial affairs you'll be in personal bankruptcy. Ask ANY small business owner. Their personal and business finances are nearly always commingled to some extent. And if Joe Restaurateur can't manage his credit cards or car loan it doesn't mean he's a bad restaurateur. Not does it mean the poker pro is a bad poker pro.

[Blarg]

Personal bankruptcy has no effect on the ability of a doctor or lawyer to do his job. Nor does having not a penny in his wallet.

Managing your money is not only not central to a lawyer or doctor's ability to perform his craft; it's not even relevant. You can have zero dollars in any of your accounts and it won't matter. Not the same with a poker player. He needs not only a good size bankroll, but more money than that, in case he loses his bankroll or substantial part of it.

Good money management is integral to being a sustainably successful poker pro. You can't separate it out. A poker pro can't even sit down to the table and play without it. If he blows his cash, he's out of the game, maybe for a very long time indeed. It can't get any more starkly clear than that.

Once a poker pro blows his wad, he's just another guy without a job.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Personal bankruptcy has no effect on the ability of a doctor or lawyer to do his job. Nor does having not a penny in his wallet.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yea. Ya said that already.

[ QUOTE ]
Good money management is integral to being a sustainably successful poker pro. You can't separate it out. A poker pro can't even sit down to the table and play without it. If he blows his cash, he's out of the game, maybe for a very long time indeed. It can't get any more starkly clear than that. Once a poker pro blows his wad, he's just another guy without a job.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's no different than any small businessperson. Like I said, the funds get commingled, and when you're broke you're broke. Hell. Let's just agree to disagree.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[CrackerZack]

Amen. I couldn't be a pro. But I play bad. But if I didn't, I still couldn't be a pro.

[scotnt73]

on the weeks that i make more than i did at work i dont consider myself a pro. a pro makes his living playing poker. i am better than alot of pros but i am not a pro. pro is not a skill level. pro is just a poker player making his living at it or trying too. if someone attemps it and loses money and gets a real job again i still think of them as having been pro for that month or 2.

if someone is a very good poker player i say they are world class. there are many pros on this board but only a handful of world class players.

[Turning Stone Pro]

(n/m)