playing poker for a living long term, Sustainable?

[Radio]

Iv just been wandering if playing poker online for a living is going to be sustainable in the long term? I mean it seems to be a little nich thats too good to be true, If you study and put in the ground work anybody could make mega bucks out of this. Surly more and more people are going to catch on and start playing good poker and make wining harder and harder. Also as it becomes more popular surly the governments are going to take notice of all these people not working and just playing poker for living. And end up doing something to fcuk us up or make life more difficult for the poker pro. I know in the usa u already have to pay tax on your winnings. So is it a case of sit back and play poker for the rest of your life and live the easy life, Or is it a case of get in now while the goings good and make as much as you can out of this fishing frenzy before the bubble bursts. What do you think? wheres the pro poker going to head?

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]
Iv just been wandering if playing poker online for a living is going to be sustainable in the long term? I mean it seems to be a little nich thats too good to be true, If you study and put in the ground work anybody could make mega bucks out of this. Surly more and more people are going to catch on and start playing good poker and make wining harder and harder. Also as it becomes more popular surly the governments are going to take notice of all these people not working and just playing poker for living. And end up doing something to fcuk us up or make life more difficult for the poker pro. I know in the usa u already have to pay tax on your winnings. So is it a case of sit back and play poker for the rest of your life and live the easy life, Or is it a case of get in now while the goings good and make as much as you can out of this fishing frenzy before the bubble bursts. What do you think? wheres the pro poker going to head?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's a little of both. Things won't always be this good, most likely...that much is true. However, most people have a tendancy to think they're a lot better than they really are, not just in poker, but in any competitive pursuit. There will always be lots of these people - in fact, they should always make up the majority of poker players!

For a different example, think of chess. Are you pretty good at chess? Can you beat most of your friends? If not, do you have a cousin or uncle or grandparent who is really good, who you could never beat?

I can pretty much guarentee that you have no idea how bad you or the other 'good' player is. This is true in 99.9% of cases (in the other 0.1%, the person actually plays in chess tournaments, as I do, and has a rating that indicates they really are a good player). A decent tournament player could play a large number of simultaneous games against "good" casual players and virtually never lose a single one.

What does this have to do with poker? Well, most people have no idea what being "good" at poker really means. Most of the people who post here do, but that's a very small part of the poker playing population. Don't worry, there will always be plenty of people out there who are in way over their head, aren't nearly as good as they think they are, or are just out to gamble and have fun. Providing you really are good enough, I think you'll be able to make money off of them for a long time to come.

[Radio]

thanks man your answer has given me the perspective I was looking for.

[ElSapo]

In fencing, back when I was competitive, I was rated a 'C.' Fencers ratings run from A-E, and unrated. An A-fencer is a top-rated fencer, but even among this group there is wide disparity of talent. An E-rating is a beginner.

So I was a pretty solid 'C' fencer, and in looking back I think it means this -- at this stage, you start to see what is ahead. You've solidly grasped the basic concepts and are beginning to employ advanced thinking. You have had a good degree of success against other fencers around the same level. Perhaps most importantly, you can see just how deep and far the thinking and skills in the game extend. At this stage you start to gain perspective on what you've learned, and how much is out there.

I think of poker a lot like this. I'm gained some perspective, I've started to see how much is out there. I have some basic skills, but some huge drawbacks. I think a lot of players are like this.

ElSapo

[ctv1116]

I think a common poker saying is "Poker is a very hard way to earn an easy living."

[Paul2432]

[ QUOTE ]
Surly more and more people are going to catch on and start playing good poker and make wining harder and harder.

[/ QUOTE ]

All the slot and table game players have not caught on and continue to finance billion dollar mega resorts in Las Vegas an Atlantic City. Do you think casino executives are worried that the general gambling public will catch on that the games cannot be beat and stop playing?

A lot of people play for fun and don't really care whether they win or lose.

Paul

[illunious]

One of my favorite Dynasty (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=823492&page=&view=&sb=5&o =&vc=1) quotes:

[ QUOTE ]
If slot machines, craps, roulette, blackjack, and every other casino game has managed to bust out the collective fish after decades, why would poker cause a bust out?

[/ QUOTE ]

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
One of my favorite Dynasty quotes:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If slot machines, craps, roulette, blackjack, and every other casino game has managed to bust out the collective fish after decades, why would poker cause a bust out?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[/ QUOTE ]

does his quote read right?

[illunious]

Yeah, has should probably be "has not".. should of added (sic) or something.

Still a good quote, even missing a word /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[BusterStacks]

actually it should be "have not", as you can treat a group of subject as a "they". But anyway..

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
actually it should be "have not", as you can treat a group of subject as a "they". But anyway..

[/ QUOTE ]

::grinds teeth::

Die!!!!!!!!

[sublime]

Still a good quote, even missing a word

agreed. i miss dynasty. he posts in the OOT forum a decent amount, but i miss the poker posts. i was fortunate enough to meet him and ed miller at the same time, and while ed patiently tried to explain some how some of my poker thoughts were fallacious, i could see dynasty out of the corner of my eye ready to explode /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[TommyO]

No.

[Radio]

why not tommy?

[driller]

I don't know, but it seems like anymore a lot of players at the games I play online (PP 5-10 and 3-6) play very tightly. It is not unusual for me to sit down and see a table with 6 or 7 opponents whose vp$ip is less than 20%. Playing tight doesn't make you a winning player, but it makes it harder for a winning player to win money from you. Online players may be more accustomed to learning than the avg b&m player, be more apt to use software like poker tracker, be more apt to participate in poker forums, be more apt to read good instructional books on poker, etc.

Just seems to me that the games are less fishy than even 6 months ago.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
In fencing, back when I was competitive, I was rated a 'C.' Fencers ratings run from A-E, and unrated. An A-fencer is a top-rated fencer, but even among this group there is wide disparity of talent. An E-rating is a beginner.



[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. An ex-girlfriend of mine went to the Atlanta olympics in fencing. She never mentioned this lettering system but she did talk a bit about the politics, infighting, and actual cheating that went on in upper level fencing.

--Zetack

[TazQ]

Depends on what you consider a living is.

I'm pretty sure an expert player will never have a hard time making $50/hr online. Thats plenty for me.

[transmitt]

Taz,
your response sounds very similar to what people thought about the stock market in 1999 (or 1987 or 1982 or 1929.....) just because you invest, either time or money, doesn't mean you earn. its good to have a hobby you are good at, but if you are asking this site if it is feasible, it probably isn't. go to school, get a job, and play as much as you want for the other 128 hours a week when you aren't working.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a common poker saying is "Poker is a very hard way to earn an easy living."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I've heard that a lot. And while I think its still true, in that grinding out your winnings on line is still a difficult thing to do, I wonder if its as true as it used to be.

Conventional wisdom used to be that a good player could make 1.5 BB's an hour. On line you can see about twice as many hands per table. So a very good player should be able to make 3 BB's an hour, call it 3 BB/100.

So a player who makes say 1 BB/100 by our old standard simply isn't a very good player. A winning player yes, but not a good one. But that player six tables 15/30 and they make 90 dollars an hour--maybe 105 if they really maximize their table time. 30 hours a week for say 48 weeks and our not so great player has made 130k a year. Plus he's done it without spending 60 hours a week in a casino.

Sure, its no cakewalk to put in that many hours of six tables, but a determined player can now make a decent living at poker a lot easier than a few years ago.

The mere fact that guys can post about making 44k in five weeks, or 150k in about six months, and nobody thinks there is anything extraordinary about that, should say something. Not your typical results perhaps but nobody seems to think its eye popping either.

So, yes, a hard way to make an easy living. I think a lot of people think its easier than it is. But its not as hard as it used to be.

--Zetack

[helpmeout]

Once every man and his dog finds out you can make $100k a year playing online poker the games will get much tougher.

The cheaters from online video games who make big money from making bots in MMORPGs and other types of currency games will jump over to poker.

They'll be sitting on their ass as their bots play 16 tables at high limits.

If things stay good for another 5 years I'd be happy.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
Once every man and his dog finds out you can make $100k a year playing online poker the games will get much tougher.



[/ QUOTE ]

Actually this will make the games even better. Because most people suck at poker and most people dont have the want to learn, or the discipline. They are just gunna dump in their money cuz they hear about how easy it is to make 6 figures at poker and those of us who can play are going to take it from them.

I agree tho, that the bot situation could ruin poker. Either that or effing US legislation are the only 2 things I see putting an end to poker. Hopefully neither happens in the next few years and I can save enough money so that I dont have to get a 9 to 5 when poker is done for.

[illguitar]

For the standard of 3BB/100, I always thought that was 3 Big Bets per hundred, not Big Blinds. So in a 15/30 game, 3 BB= 90. Am I wrong?

[gummy d]

Add to threats of online poker: Teams of players colluding through the sharing of their hole cards. Where there is money to be made, there will be people cutting corners and cheating. /images/graemlins/frown.gif
gummy d

[David04]

[ QUOTE ]
Add to threats of online poker: Teams of players colluding through the sharing of their hole cards. Where there is money to be made, there will be people cutting corners and cheating. /images/graemlins/frown.gif
gummy d

[/ QUOTE ]
Fortunately most people who need to collude are not good enough to collude well.

[tytygoodnuts]

This a very interesting topic! I have a few comments of my own:
Aren't the online casinos based off US shores? How could the US regulate it, if it were so?
I highly doubt the game of poker will ever go "bad". Just think how long poker has been around. Its impossible to run out of fishies.
Do you remember the saying "there is a sucker born everyday"? There will always be new people wanted to try their "luck" at the poker table.
There is probably is some collusion going on in the online casinos, but if you are still beating a certain game who cares?

[pindawg]

I don't think just nayone who "knows" you can make 100k/yr at poker can do it. Most people don't have the discipline to acheive anything like that. It's a vicious cycle, and like the food chain, the very best predators will always have a nice meal.

[bear187]

Since poker is considered (by all of the expert/pro's) to be a game of people played by cards, I think that unless human nature changes, or some serious evolution takes place (esp anyone?) poker will always remain with the same skill balance.

[helpmeout]

Most people suck and will give up.

There will be enough desperate people (like myself and a lot of other 2+2ers) who will put in a lot of effort and start making big money.

The number of fish will stay the same but the number of pros will go up. The guys who have been making big money over the last 2-5 years or whatever wont be leaving, but more newer people will be competing for a share of the fish money.

Bots are also likely to become a big problem, we will pay for it one way or another. (tougher games or higher rake from extra cash needed to track them)

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
Add to threats of online poker: Teams of players colluding through the sharing of their hole cards. Where there is money to be made, there will be people cutting corners and cheating.
gummy d

[/ QUOTE ]

Colluding online is much harder than you think. All the major poker sites have security teams that devote all their attention to matters such as this.

Having said this, if you play a NL game and collude with your partner when you have KK UTG and fold realizing your buddy has AA on the button, you can bet that will set off a flag to the security team.

Lawrence

[TommyO]

I just think that over time the games will get much tougher. In fact I think we're already starting to see that. I also think at some point the religious right will raise a stink about online poker and some type of legislation will get passed that will shut it down, at least for players in the states.

[Radio]

These are the kind of answers i was looking for

[crockett]

I think all the replies so far are combining to provide the correct answer.

1. I do think it is possible that the fish will NEVER dry up. Remember, I said possible. We already have a case study to prove that it is possible. Casinos. They are bigger and more prevelant than ever even though society becomes smarter and knows that they are playing a losing game. At least in poker the players no that the odds are not stacked against them.

So how do we keep the fish around? I said it after MoneyMaker won. The Poker community needs to do and take every opportunity they can to promote a fun, entertaining, safe, ethical and legimate experience for the wave to continue. Casino's have done it. People know for a fact that the games are strictly monitored, they see the BUKU security, and they know they will paid when they win big.

Poker needs to do the same thing in other ways. Every professional should act like a professional. The Elix Ungers and the Mike Matsows need to go away...even though there "encentric personalaties" can provide some good to the game. Every serious player should seize every opportunity to squash stupid rumors. I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain to friends and relatives that it would be counter productive for a Poker site to rig the game against you. With positive professional promotion of the game I think it can be accomplished.

2. It has to be secure and legimate. That is why stamping out in forms of cheating (bots, collusion, etc) must be a priority. A priority for both Poker sites AND players. Finally, the government will have to come to terms (this is the legitimate part). Many people are totally against doing something unless they feel it has been legitimized (like Casinos). If the government doesn't jump onboard, their is good chance the ship will sink.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
I think all the replies so far are combining to provide the correct answer.

1. I do think it is possible that the fish will NEVER dry up. Remember, I said possible. We already have a case study to prove that it is possible. Casinos. They are bigger and more prevelant than ever even though society becomes smarter and knows that they are playing a losing game. At least in poker the players no that the odds are not stacked against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Casinos might actually be the only real long term threat to poker. They've always been ambivalent to their poker rooms, even when shown that they probably are about equally profitable to BJ tables per square meter. I think casinos feel cheated when someone else busts the sucker.

Collusion and bots are also problems, but those can be solved. And if it's true that Party Poker is estimating their 2004 profit to $500 million there is alot riding on keeping this good. Even if they have to advertise more, hire more security experts and develop better software to identify bots and colluders and it cuts their profit to $100 million a year they are still making insane amounts of cash.

[Boltsfan1992]

Hiya -

When I see the number of entrants to the WSOP drop instead of go up, when I see the 50,000 plus at the party sites drop to a low number (I don't know how many they started with), and the poker room in my area shuts down because of a lack of interest/business (my conservative town authorized the dog track to put in a card room - I'm sure the rake will be bad but I still will check it out), then I will get concerned.

But it all depends how you define long term. I don't think I'll be playing for a living any time soon.

PB

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
For the standard of 3BB/100, I always thought that was 3 Big Bets per hundred, not Big Blinds. So in a 15/30 game, 3 BB= 90. Am I wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that most people talk about BB as big bets in a limit game, big blinds in a no-limit game.

[lu_hawk]

Think about Wall Street too. People have been getting screwed there for generations. But JP Morgan still makes a crapload of money.

There may be good times and bad times in poker just like there are good times and bad times in the market, but it's silly to think that everybody is going to wise up and stop donating money.