PDA

View Full Version : how much can you make and misc thoughts


snakehead
01-06-2005, 03:22 AM
many times it has been asked, how much can you make playing poker? a friend who has been playing around the 80-160 level for over 10 years and I were discussing this the other day, and here is what we came up with:

80-160 to 150-300: $250,000-500,000/yr

30-60 to 40-80: $100,000+/yr

online, playing no higher than 30-60: $200,000/yr

these are subjective estimates based on our personal experience and knowledge of other players' results. ymmv. I would be interested in whether others agree or disagree.

I have no idea what my iq is, but I doubt I would ever make it onto one of david's lists. despite that, I have become somewhat succsessful at the 100-200 level. often players discuss the differences between the level they are playing and higher levels, whether they be 5-10 to 20-40 or 100-200 to 400-800 (or higher). usually, they think that the game is played the same but the higher limit players just have more money or were lucky in building a bankroll large enough to play that high.

I think this is wrong, and the reason applies to myself as well as to others. successful higher limit players play better than those at lower limits, and the most important skills they posess is hand reading. this allows them to make better decisions, which ties in directly to david's point about superior reasoning. decision-making is the real difference.

I think the real reason for david's list is to say, nah nah na nah nah, we're better than you are. but from my reading of his materials and my limited conversations with him, I think david is one of the most intelligent people I have ever met, so his list is probably right on.

Joe Tall
01-06-2005, 03:39 AM
Your estimates seem correct. Your post kicks ass. I always look forward to a fresh snakehead post.

__Q__
01-06-2005, 03:54 AM
And I'm always excited to see the old patriots logo. I wish they'd never changed it.

Equal
01-06-2005, 04:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]

online, playing no higher than 30-60: $200,000/yr


[/ QUOTE ]

It has to be higher than that. I'm not very good, don't multi-table regularly, don't have a rakeback deal, and don't put in full time hours and I got close to 100k in the last 6 months. I would say the limit is somewhere around $250k-300k.

Michael Davis
01-06-2005, 05:19 AM
I think your online estimate is low unless, perhaps, you are only considering full games. Multitabling shorthanded games can get you way above this number.

-Michael

Festus22
01-06-2005, 09:48 AM
Online 15-30: 8 tables, 2 BB/100, 40 hrs/week.

Conservative 400 hands/Hr x $60/100 hands x 40hrs/wk x 52 weeks = $499K. This is probably close to an extreme case but there's no rakeback added in either (which would be around $70K). The ability to multi-table online just skyrockets earnings per playing hour potential.

Jman28
01-06-2005, 10:04 AM
Playing 30-60 and you don't have a rakeback deal? Why? That's like giving away money to non-homeless people.

(no im not an affiliate.)

-Jman28

snakehead
01-06-2005, 02:47 PM
that's a great theory.

snakehead
01-06-2005, 02:49 PM
I once made $100,000 in one month, but that doesn't have anything to do with long term expectation.

Matt Flynn
01-06-2005, 04:04 PM
snakehead,

based on my limited experience, a good no limit pro who does not tilt and always stays on his A game - even if that A game were merely good - and played 1,500 hours/year would make $200,000/yr or more playing 4 full tables of 5-10nl if he were flexible in when he (or she) played and reasonably observant. a great shorthanded player would make twice that but would have to create several accounts and play out of others' accounts or he would not get enough action.

a limit pro playing four tables of 10-handed 5-10 could reasonably make 120,000/yr without extra effort provided he exercised game selection. a really good limit pro playing 4 full-table 10-20 and 15-30 games could make over 200K pretty easily if decent games continued to be available.

there's just no substitute for playing 240 hands/hour.

matt

MicroBob
01-06-2005, 04:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
there's just no substitute for playing 240 hands/hour.

[/ QUOTE ]


Except, of course, for playing 300 hands/hour.

TimTimSalabim
01-06-2005, 10:58 PM
I once made over $100 in 30 seconds playing online at one table, so I think that someone of average skill 16-tabling 100 hours a week should be able to *easily* make a billion dollars a year ($100 * 120 * 100 * 52 * 16). Ooops, sorry, that's only $998.4 million.

I'd do it myself, but I'm too busy surfing porn sites.

TazQ
01-06-2005, 11:53 PM
Have you tried playing 8 hrs a day online, for at least 3 weeks straight?

It really sucks. I'm thinking to protect yourself from burn out you should be looking at 4-5 hr days.

andyfox
01-07-2005, 01:42 AM
1) On earn per year in B&Ms, you and the other player are probably more knowledgeable than I, but I would think, in hold'em, around 1 BB/hour in 30-60 and 40-80. So 2,080 x 70 = $145,600. I would think somewhat less at the 80-160 to 150-300 level. Maybe .75 BB/hour, so 2,080 x 240 x .75 = $374,400. Looks like we're in the same ballpark.

I have no idea about on-line play.

2) I agree with you that those who say the game is the same at higher levels are mistaken. I think the biggest difference between low limit play and mid limit play is in understanding your own hand (i.e., what to play and when). The biggest difference between mid limit play and high limit play is in understanding your opponents hands, that is, indeed, hand reading. (Which, incidentally, is what keeps me at the mid-limits.)

3) I've already psychoanalyzed David in a series of posts on the psychology forum (at David's suggestion) some time ago. I have never met him, but from what he has posted here, and from what others tell me about him, he does have an ego problem, so I agree with your "nah nah nah . . ." But I also agree with your other assessment of him: he's one smart guy and I would value his lists about intelligence and poker more than most anybody else's.

Philuva
01-07-2005, 03:34 AM
Agreed with other poster. 8 hours of 8 tabling a day is VERY difficult.

snakehead
01-07-2005, 03:52 AM
the figure we came up with for online was based more on what we know about how much some very good players are making, not on theoretical win rates. if some of you are making more than that consistently, you are doing better than some of the pro's who are my sources.

snakehead
01-07-2005, 04:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
1) On earn per year in B&Ms, you and the other player are probably more knowledgeable than I, but I would think, in hold'em, around 1 BB/hour in 30-60 and 40-80. So 2,080 x 70 = $145,600. I would think somewhat less at the 80-160 to 150-300 level. Maybe .75 BB/hour, so 2,080 x 240 x .75 = $374,400. Looks like we're in the same ballpark.


[/ QUOTE ]

it's extremely difficult if not impossible to mantain a 1bb win rate at anything over 10-20. I'm sure some excellent players do it, but most will be far below that. I would guess that .75bb at 40-80 would be a very good win rate, and something smaller than that at 100-200 if you are playing 2000 hours per year. however, if you cherry-pick like me and play less than 1500 hours, you can achieve a higher win rate, with total income at or above that level.

worm33
01-07-2005, 04:10 AM
it's extremely difficult if not impossible to mantain a 1bb win rate at anything over 10-20.

Interesting to hear you say that. Maybe for the good-average winning grinder its hard to sustain 1 bb but IMHO any good player could win minimum of 1.5 bb/hour at the 40-80 at commerce or 30-60 at canterbury. The 30-60 bellagio maybe a little less just because its 10 handed mainly.

Joe Tall
01-07-2005, 04:42 AM
for david's list

Where can one view such 'lists'? I don't track David's posts, are they here? Or listed elsewhere?

Thanks,
Joe Tall

Evan
01-07-2005, 05:18 AM
I think he meant this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1435626&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&fpart=all&vc=1)

Ulysses
01-07-2005, 05:46 AM
Substantially more than $200k/yr can definitely be made playing 10-20 and 15-30 online and I know of at least a few who have been doing it for the last couple of years. It does not surprise me that many good live players are not making as much. The skills involved are quite different. I know people who are making $200+/hr online who I suspect would have trouble beating, say, the Commerce 40/80 game. Being able to play many games simultaneously and tons of hands at rapid-fire pace at some degree of reasonable proficiency is much more important than actually playing any individual hand really well.

However, many of the people multi-tabling making $100-150/hr who think they can play 40hr/wk and make $200-300k/yr are kidding themselves about their chances of maintaining their earn when they bump up hours, their ability to actually play that many hours, and quite likely the amount of their actual win rate. Having said that, you'd be surprised at the consistent hours some of these kids can put in.

Joe Tall
01-07-2005, 07:21 AM
Being able to play many games simultaneously and tons of hands at rapid-fire pace at some degree of reasonable proficiency is much more important than actually playing any individual hand really well.

Does this depend on how good at being fast you are?

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif,
Joe Tall

Turning Stone Pro
01-07-2005, 01:17 PM
I think I could lose about 1500BB per year, playing PP 15-30. I've lost 700BB in about eight months of play, and I feel I haven't reached rock bottom yet.

TSP

PokerBabe(aka)
01-07-2005, 01:33 PM
Hi snakehead, et.al.

I dk how many hours you are talking about with these theoretical win numbers, but they seem high to me. In fact, I don't know one 30-60 PRO in Vegas that makes 100k a year. A few make around the 70k mark, but that is a long way from 100. These few I am talking about are long term, winning players who are in the top 20% of their peers.

Babe /images/graemlins/heart.gif

Turning Stone Pro
01-07-2005, 02:25 PM
There isnt one 30-60 player in Vegas who makes 1 BB per hour? I find this hard to believe.

If this is the case, with the amount being made online, I think the old days of people living in Vegas and grinding out a living are going to be a thing of the past . . .

Look Dumb, Play Worse . .

TSP

snakehead
01-07-2005, 02:41 PM
the commerce games are more profitable than the vegas games, and most of the vegas pros who visit the commerce run away with their tails between their legs.

snakehead
01-07-2005, 02:44 PM
ok, so a few are doing it. my estimates are meant more for excellent, not stellar players. and I agree, there is no substitute for the sharp wits and stamina of youth.

Boris
01-07-2005, 03:25 PM
I find it hard to believe that some one could beat an online 15-30 game but have a very difficult time beating the commerce 40-80. Do your friends get a rake rebate?

Justin A
01-07-2005, 03:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think I could lose about 1500BB per year, playing PP 15-30. I've lost 700BB in about eight months of play, and I feel I haven't reached rock bottom yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think how much you could lose if you moved up in stakes!

Justin A

Luke
01-07-2005, 03:46 PM
I think I could lose about 1500BB per year, playing PP 15-30. I've lost 700BB in about eight months of play, and I feel I haven't reached rock bottom yet.

TSP


LOL...

GuyOnTilt
01-07-2005, 04:10 PM
I find it hard to believe that some one could beat an online 15-30 game but have a very difficult time beating the commerce 40-80.

Not really.

GoT

Ulysses
01-07-2005, 04:38 PM
[ QUOTE ]
ok, so a few are doing it. my estimates are meant more for excellent, not stellar players. and I agree, there is no substitute for the sharp wits and stamina of youth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I essentially agree with most everything you've posted in this thread. Just wanted to point out that it is definitely possible to make more quite a bit more than the figure you stated online, thought most definitely aren't doing that.

You and others have already highlighted the main fallacy wrt online earns. Many of the "you can make this much playing online poker" stuff comes from people who play a few hours a week and extrapolate that hourly rate to a 40hr/wk, and anyone who has played substantial hours either live or online knows it just doesn't work like that.

Ulysses
01-07-2005, 04:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I find it hard to believe that some one could beat an online 15-30 game but have a very difficult time beating the commerce 40-80. Do your friends get a rake rebate?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, here's some back-of-the-envelope math, Boris. I'm just making this up as I go, so don't be surprised if there's a silly error or two in there.

Someone 8-tables 15-30 on Party. They also have datamined 100s of thousands of hands with pokertracker and have stats sitting on their screen that let them decide to do things like fold or 3-bet AQo after someone's open-raise by looking solely at how often they raise, how often to call down at the end w/ a marginal hand based on knowing exactly what % of the time the opponent has the best hand at showdown, and so forth.

This person gets about 450 hands per hour. Let's say they make $.30 per hand. That's $135/hr. Plus, they get about $30-35/hr in rake back. That's well over $150/hr.

Now take this same individual. Put him in a B&M 15/30 game. He does not know whether someone raises preflop 5, 10, or 25 % of the time. He does not know whether someone plays 25, 35, or 75% of their hands. He does not know whether they show down the best hand 10% of the time at the end or 50% of the time. He tips the dealer $1 when he wins a pot. He tips the waitress $1 when he gets a drink. He also pays higher rake. Even with all of these disadvantages, this guy still is able to make $.30/hand live. He has a fastish dealer and gets 40 hands/hr. So, he makes $12/hr in the 15/30, but quite possibly significantly less due to rake and tips.

Is it hard to believe that someone who makes $12/hr or less in a 15/30 game will have trouble beating a 40/80?

Boris
01-07-2005, 05:04 PM
I think I'll start playing more online cash games. Up to now I played only tournaments.

Do people really 8 table?

Inthacup
01-07-2005, 05:27 PM
8 tabling takes some getting used to, but is definitely doable. You just have to work your way up to it like anything else.

mike l.
01-07-2005, 06:35 PM
interesting. i still think that one girl who plays 1-2 at commerce and plays i think about 80 hours per week is making a million a year. and she's not even particularly good.

of course my stint at higher limits showed me to be something too close to break even over maybe 300 hours so there ya go...

i wish i was good at poker. it sounds like there's a lot of money to be made. playing 40 a couple weeks ago at commerce i told a friend how much i made last year at poker when she asked and she laughed in my face.

andyfox
01-07-2005, 08:11 PM
That'd be about $240/hour, which seems reasonable. But not is she's not particularly good. The 1-2 doesn't go all the time at Commerce, so she must also play some 80-160 and/or 2-4.

Real friends don't laugh at friends.

PokerBabe(aka)
01-07-2005, 11:06 PM
Let me repeat my question. How many hours are you talking about here?

TSP, there are 30-60 PROS in Vegas who make 1 bb an hour and play 100-1200 hour a year. So, let's see, 60 x 1200 = 72,000. That would be working around 5 hours a day, 5 days a week eh? What didn't you understand about my comments.? I could mention two VERY PROMINENT PROS (people that everyone on this site would recognize) that made less than this in '04.

Once again, how many hours are you talking about for your "earn" estimates?

LGPG,

Babe

Equal
01-07-2005, 11:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Playing 30-60 and you don't have a rakeback deal? Why? That's like giving away money to non-homeless people.

(no im not an affiliate.)

-Jman28

[/ QUOTE ]

Didnt even know what an affiliate when I first deposited and unlike other people, I dont have a dog that can open a new account lol.

Jman, are you jman on a martial arts forum?

Equal
01-07-2005, 11:35 PM
[ QUOTE ]
the figure we came up with for online was based more on what we know about how much some very good players are making, not on theoretical win rates. if some of you are making more than that consistently, you are doing better than some of the pro's who are my sources.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of players who make over 200k a year online. Hell, I know a bunch personally, and that's just in my little circle of friends.

Out of those players, I don't think a single one plays full time. The highest is about 35hr/wk average - it's just too hard to put up full time hours week after week.

Ulysses
01-08-2005, 12:07 AM
I don't know anything about you or your circle of friends and how good any of you are, so this isn't directed at you, but I think it's important for people to know that there are numerous online players who made over $200k last year that I am certain will be bust within the next year or two. Many if not most of the players I've come to know online, especially the younger ones, vastly underestimate the degree of luck in this game and how long the long term really is when it comes to making money at the game.

mike l.
01-08-2005, 12:24 AM
"Many if not most of the players I've come to know online, especially the younger ones, vastly underestimate the degree of luck in this game and how long the long term really is when it comes to making money at the game."

im not sure if that's true. if theyre beating something like 15-30 between 5-8 tables for that much over a year of consistent (30+ hours a week) online playing that's like 3-5 years or more of my live play. so it's like theyve already reached the long term, at least what my long term will be.

Ulysses
01-08-2005, 01:26 AM
You'd be very surprised at the level of difference in results looking at multiple 100k hand samples from individual players. That's hands-wise equivalent to 2000+ hrs of live play.

snakehead
01-08-2005, 03:18 AM
she doesn't make anywhere near $1 million. she only plays that high because her boyfriend bankrolled her.

mike l.
01-08-2005, 03:20 AM
great so what that means is i could just be running good the past 5 years live games.

snakehead
01-08-2005, 03:36 AM
[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of players who make over 200k a year online. Hell, I know a bunch personally, and that's just in my little circle of friends.


[/ QUOTE ]


sorry, I don't buy it. you're telling me there are lots of internet players out there driving porches and living in penthouses. it just doesn't happen.

snakehead
01-08-2005, 03:46 AM
believe it or not, there are many players who play 8 hours a day and more. but I think it isn't so much quantity hours as quality hours that produces profit in poker. while my snide remark about vegas players was a little tounge-in-cheek, it is true that there is s big difference in the games, and it takes different skills to win in LA than in LV.

vegas games are usually several regulars (locals) who are feeding on one or two helpless tourists. los angeles games are full of gamblers who have lots of money, but the also have lots of experience. they will go off for big bucks, but it takes a little more skill to beat them than the vegas tourists.

since there are more and bigger donators in ca, the games are much more profitable.

as far as the 'name pros' who didn't make as much as my estimates, that just supports my contention that people don't make nearly as much as theory suggests.

snakehead
01-08-2005, 03:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
That'd be about $240/hour, which seems reasonable

[/ QUOTE ]

sheeat. even if her win rate was that high (it isn't), there aren't enough games that are good enough to turn it into $1 million a year. also remember, she is going to have bad runs during the year just like everyone else.

GuyOnTilt
01-08-2005, 03:52 AM
Hey Snakehead,

I don't have much to say that hasn't already been said here, but just wanted to say that your posts and threads are virutally always really insightful and helpful to me.

GoT

Michael Davis
01-08-2005, 07:11 AM
They're not going to go bust, they're just going to regress to the mean and become breakeven players, especially as the games continue to get worse. If they beat the game for $200K in any year they are not losing money players and probably never will be.

-Michael

Turning Stone Pro
01-08-2005, 11:18 AM
I was considering someone playing an average work week-type amount of time (40 hrs per week). $60/hr X 8 hrs/day = $480 X 5 days per week = $2400/wk X 52 wks = $124,800/yr.

I suppose if the top 30-60 players in Vegas decide not to play this amt of time, they would fall short of $100k. But, I was basing my figures on the average working stiff like myself.

Also, math was never my strong suit, so I apologize in advance.


TSP

andyfox
01-08-2005, 12:01 PM
One thing to consider is that a lot of players aren't truthful about how well they do. If somebody says they're making $200,000 on the net, or $1,000,000 at Commerce, I think those numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt. Not that it doesn't happen, but I suspect it happens far less often than simply taking people's words for it would indicate.

Also, your original post was talking about how much somebody "could" make. It's one thing to consider a hypothetical and another an actual, which is I think the point you are making. Many players are only about half as good as they think they are and I would suspect they probably only make half as much as they could, or would were they truly as good as their impression of themselves.

Softrock
01-08-2005, 02:18 PM
Amazing to me how this happens all the time with new players and seems to be forgotten. When I first moved up to 10-20 I rolled over the game (this back in 1988) but after about 18 months of running extremely good the cards started breaking even - took me a good five years to unlearn all the bad habits I'd acquired during that initial running good period.

snakehead
01-08-2005, 03:48 PM
have you ever heard of a player called neverwin?

slavic
01-08-2005, 04:16 PM
One thing to consider is that a lot of players aren't truthful about how well they do.

Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner.

Look I know most posters here are unprofitable, it would be wrong to believe that most braggerts are ultraprofitable.

My winrate looks good this year, but my 3 months hospital trip and returning to school full time means I played relativly few hours. There is no way I can extrapolate my numbers to make up for the half a year of playing time I missed.

Sorry I know I'm not adding much, but like GOT I have to say everytime Snakehead pops out to speak I perk up my ears.

Thanks,
slavic

Rick Nebiolo
01-08-2005, 04:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"Many if not most of the players I've come to know online, especially the younger ones, vastly underestimate the degree of luck in this game and how long the long term really is when it comes to making money at the game."

im not sure if that's true. if theyre beating something like 15-30 between 5-8 tables for that much over a year of consistent (30+ hours a week) online playing that's like 3-5 years or more of my live play. so it's like theyve already reached the long term, at least what my long term will be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree.

This talk of online interests me, especially given I have the computer hardware to multi-table. But I wonder if the games will toughen up faster than they do in B&M. Would I be getting in just at the wrong time?

~ Rick

Ulysses
01-08-2005, 05:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
They're not going to go bust, they're just going to regress to the mean and become breakeven players, especially as the games continue to get worse. If they beat the game for $200K in any year they are not losing money players and probably never will be.


[/ QUOTE ]

The statement that losing players can't make $200k online in a year is silly. I know of a few. The statement that slightly winning players who play an overaggressive style and make well over $200k can't easily go bust is even more silly. You vastly underestimate how quickly things like complete lack of game selection, playing too high, playing on tilt, and other factors like that can decimate a bankroll. There are a number of kids who have taken $1k-ish rolls to $100k or $200k or more in the last year or two and then back down to zero.

Ulysses
01-08-2005, 05:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Would I be getting in just at the wrong time?


[/ QUOTE ]

I started playing online in Sep '03. Time and time again, I say to myself "this is about as good as these games can ever get." Since then, the games (I've played just about everything offered online up to 30-60 limit and 5-10NL with occassional forays into bigger games) have continued to get better and better. The only game that I've seen get kind of bad is the Stars 5-10PLO game. When they added 75-150 O8, the Omaha gamblers all seemed to jump into that game instead, leaving the 5-10PLO game to get pretty crappy.

I've avoided playing some of the bigger games (75-150 O8, 80-160/100-200 HE, 25-50NLH) much in the past because they just weren't good enough of the time. Lately, even these games have been good quite often.

I'm sure online will get tougher at some point. But right now this industry is definitely still on the upswing and things continue to get better and better. A well-known sportsbook recently bought Paradise Poker. PartyPoker will likely go public in the very near future on a European exchange. These types of events adding legitimacy to the industry will probably help it even more.

That was the long answer.

Short answer - you definitely wouldn't be getting in at the wrong time.

partygirluk
01-08-2005, 05:19 PM
Or the glass is half full and you have been running bad.

[ QUOTE ]
great so what that means is i could just be running good the past 5 years live games.

[/ QUOTE ]

SomethingClever
01-08-2005, 06:21 PM
El D: Can't it be statistically shown with 99% or greater confidence that most of these players are winners after 100Kish hands? If they have a winrate of around 1.5 BB/100 or so?

I don't have the formulas in front of me to do the math...

Sponger15SB
01-08-2005, 07:24 PM
My guess is that these people win $200k and then go broke spending like a drug lord and moving up to higher limits like $100/200 or $25/50nl and lose whatever they have left.

Winning players can go broke you know.

SomethingClever
01-08-2005, 07:29 PM
[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that these people win $200k and then go broke spending like a drug lord and moving up to higher limits like $100/200 or $25/50nl and lose whatever they have left.

Winning players can go broke you know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough... but what if they continue to play within their bankroll?

Sponger15SB
01-08-2005, 07:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]

Fair enough... but what if they continue to play within their bankroll?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then ElD isn't talking about them.

Unless there is someone out there who lost 6000BB's playing $15/30

Nightwish
01-08-2005, 08:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think I could lose about 1500BB per year, playing PP 15-30. I've lost 700BB in about eight months of play, and I feel I haven't reached rock bottom yet.


[/ QUOTE ]
You definitely haven't.

Nightwish
01-08-2005, 08:24 PM
[ QUOTE ]

There are a number of kids who have taken $1k-ish rolls to $100k or $200k or more in the last year or two and then back down to zero.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you personally know this "number of kids" who have done this, or is this hearsay? Also, are we talking about people who won $100K in a tourney or people who made it in limit ring game play?

Ulysses
01-08-2005, 08:44 PM
Yes, I personally know a couple of them. Others are friends of people I know very well. Most follow the pattern of Neverwin. Some have some tourney wins, but the vast majority made the bulk of the money at ring games. None, to my knowledge, have ground out their money at one limit and stayed at or around that limit to lose it all back. I articulated the reasons most of these guys go broke in one of my posts.

MaxPower
01-08-2005, 09:36 PM
For those of us who don't follow the online poker soap opera, what is the story of neverwin?

Equal
01-08-2005, 11:15 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of players who make over 200k a year online. Hell, I know a bunch personally, and that's just in my little circle of friends.


[/ QUOTE ]


sorry, I don't buy it. you're telling me there are lots of internet players out there driving porches and living in penthouses. it just doesn't happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where can I buy a porsche and a penthouse for 200k (minus a year's living expenses and any spending sprees with the new found wealth)? Please, fill me in.

Equal
01-08-2005, 11:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
One thing to consider is that a lot of players aren't truthful about how well they do. If somebody says they're making $200,000 on the net, or $1,000,000 at Commerce, I think those numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt. Not that it doesn't happen, but I suspect it happens far less often than simply taking people's words for it would indicate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or we get the exact opposite. Like here for example. Many players say that you can't make THAT much online (how ever much THAT is when this topic inevitably comes up), then snicker to themselves and say, "if you only really knew how much I make hee-hee-hee."

How many of the top players here give even a range of the amount that they earn online? 0% would be a good estimation.

snakehead
01-09-2005, 04:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Where can I buy a porsche and a penthouse for 200k (minus a year's living expenses and any spending sprees with the new found wealth)? Please, fill me in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about one year's results. if you made this every year, you could easily be living a very comfortable lifestyle. people with consistent income can take out mortages and finance other assets like expensive cars.

partygirluk
01-09-2005, 06:34 AM
I too would like to know what happened to Neverwin. I always read that he is one of the best limit players online.

Danielih
01-09-2005, 09:09 AM
Well Im sorry to burst your bubble but you and your friends are terrible. The reason why no one makes 100k at the 3060 at the bellagio because all the good players choose to do more lucrative things. Who are these so called prominent pros? Myself and another serious regular in the game have made over 100 an hour over thousands of hours. Am I telling the truth? Yes. Am I good? maybe. It's that the regulars (look in the mirror) are terrible.

mike l.
01-09-2005, 10:52 AM
"I'm not talking about one year's results. if you made this every year"

youre forgetting that 95% of the posters on here have not played for more than 1 year.

Danielih
01-09-2005, 06:21 PM
Also to keep in mind that one year is still the short term for someone who plays primarily B&M

Equal
01-09-2005, 07:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where can I buy a porsche and a penthouse for 200k (minus a year's living expenses and any spending sprees with the new found wealth)? Please, fill me in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about one year's results. if you made this every year, you could easily be living a very comfortable lifestyle. people with consistent income can take out mortages and finance other assets like expensive cars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok that's fine. Online poker is a very young phenomenon, so I'm sure that many players who are making a killing right now probably haven't been around long enough to have a porsche and a penthouse purchased solely with online poker winnings.

snakehead
01-09-2005, 09:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Ok that's fine. Online poker is a very young phenomenon

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong again. I first played online around 95 or 96, and I have friends who have made the majority of their poker income online for at least 5 years.

Danielih
01-09-2005, 10:25 PM
1995? I've been playing online since 2000 and while it wasnt brand new then I find it hard to believe that there was much online action in 1995. I admit that I do not know but I would be surprised if there was any higher limit action 1020+? or enough games to multitable?
Just curious

ActionBob
01-09-2005, 11:38 PM
Sure the action back then was not the same as it is now as far as limits and game selection. But the games were certainly just as good. You just weren't going to find many people multi tabling like they can today. Also getting games over 10-20 was tough then. I think Planet had a 20-40 at the time and Paradise had numerous juicy 10-20's when they first started which I'd suspect is where most would have been able to try and make a living at this back then. But I don't recall there being all that much more in games which one could try to make at least a comfortable living at.

-ActionBob

LondonBroil
01-10-2005, 02:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I too would like to know what happened to Neverwin. I always read that he is one of the best limit players online.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
For those of us who don't follow the online poker soap opera, what is the story of neverwin?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm also going to ask someone to tell me his story because I have watched him on the 100/200 on PS before.

ThorGoT
01-10-2005, 04:51 PM
Who is this Neverwin? What, exactly, happened? Please enlighten us! To be referred to by just one name -- like Cher, Madonna, and Jesus -- clearly indicates that this is a story for the ages.

Equal
01-10-2005, 08:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok that's fine. Online poker is a very young phenomenon

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong again. I first played online around 95 or 96, and I have friends who have made the majority of their poker income online for at least 5 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol Why do you keep attacking things I say? While I am sure you are right that people have been playing online poker for many years, I don't think you could call it a "phenomenon" back in 1995.

The simple fact is that the majority of online winning players today have been playing for less than two years.

And if you don't think that 200k hands a year gets you to the long-run, then I guess we'll agree to disagree.

While many posters here have an extremely valid point about the long-run in poker, I swear some of them would say, if they saw Doyle Brunson keel over dead, "That's too bad, I guess we'll never know if he was a winning player or not."

Lawrence Ng
01-13-2005, 08:11 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I know people who are making $200+/hr online who I suspect would have trouble beating, say, the Commerce 40/80 game. Being able to play many games simultaneously and tons of hands at rapid-fire pace at some degree of reasonable proficiency is much more important than actually playing any individual hand really well.

However, many of the people multi-tabling making $100-150/hr who think they can play 40hr/wk and make $200-300k/yr are kidding themselves about their chances of maintaining their earn when they bump up hours, their ability to actually play that many hours, and quite likely the amount of their actual win rate. Having said that, you'd be surprised at the consistent hours some of these kids can put in.


[/ QUOTE ]

I use to think that these numbers were highly overestimated, but having experienced myself the last couple of months at the calibre of some online play - especially at the 5/10 level and up even I have to submit defeat to these garangatan hourly rates.

What really got me caved in now is that a few friends and I amalagamated our database from PT together and found that we averaged out well at 2.7 BB/100 hand over half a million hands at the 5/10 SH.

I can only slap myself in the mouth as I preached I would never quit my day job to poker, but this hourly rate and what Diablo's hourly rates at the mid/high limit stakes are is too good to ignore. The opportunity present right now in Poker can't be passed up.

Guess what excuse I gave my boss for having to cut back hours?

Lawrence

Lawrence Ng
01-13-2005, 08:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Does this depend on how good at being fast you are?

,
Joe Tall

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there was a good discussion a while back on the subject that if a poker player were also able to play video games for a long duration (4+ hours) at a time, that they would also make good online multi-tabling poker players.

I play MMORPGS, FPS for hours at a time so playing online for hours a day doesn't mean much except it cuts into my leisure time more for playing my computer games. At 60$/hr right now I think it's worth the sacrifice. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

However, the biggest obstacle for me is that I am so use to playing live that I had to revamp my style completely to multitabling and playing online as there are significant differences.

Lawrence

Lawrence Ng
01-13-2005, 08:35 AM
[ QUOTE ]
im not sure if that's true. if theyre beating something like 15-30 between 5-8 tables for that much over a year of consistent (30+ hours a week) online playing that's like 3-5 years or more of my live play. so it's like theyve already reached the long term, at least what my long term will be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike,

For the last 5 years I averaged about 600 hours per year in a live cardroom. That's 3,000 hours and at about 30 hands an (overestimating a bit here) hour, that's 90,000 hands to which right now I still am not within a 97 percent confidence interval of what my true win rate is. It's in the green all the right, but the long run still hasn't hit yet for me or so my spreadsheet tells me.

Lawrence

GuyOnTilt
01-13-2005, 08:46 AM
That's 3,000 hours and at about 30 hands an (overestimating a bit here) hour, that's 900,000 hands

Probably just a typo, but it's only 90,000 which is just nowhere near enough to nail down your winrate with any sort of confidence. I don't have an extensive enough db myself yet, but I've seen db's of solid players who show HUGE discrepencies in their winrates over 50k stretches and a lot more than I expected over 100k stretches.

GoT

Lawrence Ng
01-13-2005, 08:50 AM
[ QUOTE ]
One thing to consider is that a lot of players aren't truthful about how well they do. If somebody says they're making $200,000 on the net, or $1,000,000 at Commerce, I think those numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt. Not that it doesn't happen, but I suspect it happens far less often than simply taking people's words for it would indicate.

Also, your original post was talking about how much somebody "could" make. It's one thing to consider a hypothetical and another an actual, which is I think the point you are making. Many players are only about half as good as they think they are and I would suspect they probably only make half as much as they could, or would were they truly as good as their impression of themselves.


[/ QUOTE ]

The average west coast 20/40 game is pretty loose. So if a good player were make .75 BB/hr that would still equal to well over ($30 x 8 hrs a day x 300 days a year) $72,000 a year. Being conservative as you say let's make it $60,000 a year which is not too shabby.

I can't imagine however, in a tight game with fewer loose players how this yearly rate could be reached though. I've tracked my play through tighter tougher live games and logged about 400 hours of those and am only averaging .2 BB/hr

Lawrence

Lawrence Ng
01-13-2005, 08:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
That's 3,000 hours and at about 30 hands an (overestimating a bit here) hour, that's 900,000 hands

Probably just a typo, but it's only 90,000 which is just nowhere near enough to nail down your winrate with any sort of confidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Corrected, sorry for the typo.

Thanks GoT.

Lawrence

TimTimSalabim
01-13-2005, 05:37 PM
60k in California is damn near poverty level.

cpk
01-13-2005, 11:28 PM
I wouldn't say "poverty level," but you're probably going to want to get a roommate. I lived just fine on $30k/year for a while in Seattle, and the cost of living even in LA is not twice as much.

astroglide
03-27-2005, 03:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
wrong again. I first played online around 95 or 96

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe irc/chat poker with an agreement to settle up later or something? planetpoker opened in 1998, delta poker shortly afterward. those were the first real ones as far as i know. the web was barely used in 1995, i only remember being able to access it through bbses and that was still mostly for usenet.

wacki
03-27-2005, 08:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wrong again. I first played online around 95 or 96

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe irc/chat poker with an agreement to settle up later or something? planetpoker opened in 1998, delta poker shortly afterward. those were the first real ones as far as i know. the web was barely used in 1995, i only remember being able to access it through bbses and that was still mostly for usenet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy cow astro, how old were you when you started playing poker?

astroglide
03-27-2005, 12:53 PM
i signed up at delta poker on may 10th, 1999. that was just to loan money to a magic player, but it wasn't too long until i was playing. so 4-5 years, which would make me about 22.

mosta
03-27-2005, 03:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
the web was barely used in 1995, i only remember being able to access it through bbses and that was still mostly for usenet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember getting on the web in late 94 at graduate school. You could use Lynx, or Mosaic. There were some funny pages out there. I remember a guy with a diary documenting the comings and goings of his idiot upstairs neighbor. May have been the first blog. There was also a Giant Red Button that does Nothing. And there was porn to be found. AFter a few days I said to my friend who turned me on to it--Who cares?--pornography, mostly lame humor, and people will probably start trying to sell things. Well, I was right, that it really wasn't all that, and I was so wrong--ie, did not see the easy money that came from what I thought it would be about.

snakehead
03-29-2005, 03:16 AM
I could have been wrong about the year. I first played on coco poker, which was later bought by planet poker. they both used the same software, and the highest game was 5-10. I never thought twice about buying chips with my credit card.

could it have been late 97? I remember the car I was driving then.

andyfox
03-29-2005, 01:27 PM
A Rambler?

Moyer
03-29-2005, 04:02 PM
The Rambler Wagon. That's a rare car. People would remember selling a car like that...

Phat Mack
03-29-2005, 04:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The Rambler Wagon. That's a rare car. People would remember selling a car like that...

[/ QUOTE ]

He never said he sold it. I heard that he gave it away after beating Caro out of his Yugo.

PukaPlaya
03-29-2005, 08:03 PM
[ QUOTE ]
60k in California is damn near poverty level.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.

If only you weren't right.

turnipmonster
03-30-2005, 02:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
60k in California is damn near poverty level.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.

If only you weren't right.

[/ QUOTE ]

people say the same thing about nyc and it's ridiculous and flat out not true. as if everyone that lives in nyc makes 60k/year or something.

Mikey
03-30-2005, 09:50 PM
"Many players are only about half as good as they think they are and I would suspect they probably only make half as much as they could, or would were they truly as good as their impression of themselves."

That is so true. Good post

kiddo
03-31-2005, 06:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
El D: Can't it be statistically shown with 99% or greater confidence that most of these players are winners after 100Kish hands? If they have a winrate of around 1.5 BB/100 or so?

I don't have the formulas in front of me to do the math...

[/ QUOTE ]

You miss diablos point. There are a lot of guys - just read this forums - that are moving up very quickly. They play maybe 50K hands at each level and then got more then enough money to move up. Within a few months they are multitabling at $15/30. They can go on for a year never having a dowswing bigger then 200BB.

But then suddenly they drop 500BB and they dont understand what is happening. They start to play worse (even more aggressive in the wrong spots), they tilt, they start to feel bad both on- and offline and they have a very hard time playing their A-game.

And the main problem is that they havent played poker for long, they are decent but not very good. If they could stay focus they still could beat that $15/30, but they cant accept the fact that they will beat it for much less then they did 4 months ago.

These guys needs to get down to $5/10 and start over but they normally dont.

mosta
03-31-2005, 09:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
60k in California is damn near poverty level.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.

If only you weren't right.

[/ QUOTE ]

people say the same thing about nyc and it's ridiculous and flat out not true. as if everyone that lives in nyc makes 60k/year or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a friend who makes around $25k in NY as an assistant editor at a highbrow magazine. She rides her bike to work from Brooklyn (around the BAM), and has a great time all around. I also have friends who make in the $200k range and complain that they have to live hand to mouth.

BradleyT
04-01-2005, 12:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Rambler Wagon. That's a rare car. People would remember selling a car like that...

[/ QUOTE ]

He never said he sold it. I heard that he gave it away after beating Caro out of his Yugo.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a quote from Joe Dirt.

Moyer
04-01-2005, 04:50 AM
must be too low-class for this board to get

Reef
04-01-2005, 09:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
8 tabling takes some getting used to, but is definitely doable. You just have to work your way up to it like anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think 6 is much better. 4 can get a little slow, but 8 is too fast. Especially SH NL.

Blarg
04-03-2005, 04:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
interesting. i still think that one girl who plays 1-2 at commerce and plays i think about 80 hours per week is making a million a year. and she's not even particularly good.

of course my stint at higher limits showed me to be something too close to break even over maybe 300 hours so there ya go...

i wish i was good at poker. it sounds like there's a lot of money to be made. playing 40 a couple weeks ago at commerce i told a friend how much i made last year at poker when she asked and she laughed in my face.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some friend :P