Cooke's, "Play to Live or Live to Play " article

[Zeno]

Mr Cooke's recent article in Card Player (Feb 14 issue) about playing poker as a profession, is excellent. In my opinion, if you are thinking about "turning pro" you need to clip out this article, save it, and study what he has to say. Many young players do not consider the full consequences of such impulsive life decisions as "turning pro". Cooke's article helps put things in perspective.

-Zeno

[PokerBabe(aka)]

I also think this was an excellent article. LGPG, Babe /forums/images/icons/heart.gif

[scalf]

/forums/images/icons/wink.gif babe, article did not have enuf emphasis on fashion...gl /forums/images/icons/smile.gif /forums/images/icons/diamond.gif

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Hi scalf, Yes, Roy did omit this important aspect of a poker career /forums/images/icons/grin.gif /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif /forums/images/icons/smile.gif LGPG, Babe /forums/images/icons/heart.gif

[Ed Miller]

I think I'm gonna have to work on that if I do move to Vegas... maybe the Babe can help me out. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Hey Major- you are not alone in the "LG help wanted" category. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif I have been trying to get Dynasty out of shorts for almost a year now. /forums/images/icons/mad.gif Last week, he was actually wearing LONG pants /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif However, this may have had more to do with the weather (it was actually chilly AND raining in Vegas) than with the Babe's suggestions to LG. /forums/images/icons/crazy.gif LGPG and hope to see you soon, kiddo /forums/images/icons/heart.gif

[Dynasty]

Shorts when it's warm. Sweats when it's not. T-shirts all year long. Comfort is a about 25x more important to me than appearance.

PG- that's all that matters.

[PokerBabe(aka)]

For Dynasty, it's PGSS (plays good in shorts or sweats). /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif /forums/images/icons/grin.gif See you tomorrow, hopefully in long pants. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif LGPG, Babe /forums/images/icons/heart.gif

[mikelow]

Should be LBPG. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Zeno:

One aspect of the article that I didn't like was his statement that he had the equivalent of a master's degree in poker because of all the work on the game that he has done. While I agree that you always need to work on your poker game, it's nothing compared to getting an advanced degree in a tough technical field at a good school. For example, to prepare for my oral examination, I did nothing but study for a minimum of 12 hours per day for almost three straight weeks. I believe that's the hardest I have ever worked, and in all my effort on poker/gambling, I have never done anything to compare to that. Plus the level of difficulty can't compare either.

Best wishes,
Mason

[brad]

a good analogy i think would be

advanced degree is to advanced poker play

as

competition target shooting is to gunfighting.

heh

(you can jump right in and do well but it takes work to last and sometimes not even then heh.)

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I have a BS degree, and a few of the courses needed for a masters. It's tough. Mason is right. Another analogy is in order. There is no masters in poker.

al

[Zeno]

Mason,

I agree that the analogy is misplaced and your point is more than just valid - There is no comparison.

I am always a bit reticent but I also had to give an oral defense of my thesis for a Masters Degree. The culmination of more than 2 years of hard work. It was not pleasent staring at a committee of scientists ready to ask any question they wanted to poke a hole in your presentation, arguments, or conclusions. I worked very hard getting prepared. It was a relief when it was over, but they always send you out of the room and make you wait while they "decide" your fate - which makes waiting for the river card when you go all in for 2k in a Pot-limit Omaha game seem like a walk in the park.

Thank you for making a needed point.


Regards,

-Zeno

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Zeno:

Your description sounds very similar to my experience. For those who don't know, when you are required to make an oral defense for your degree, you need to know virtually everything you ever took cold. Studying poker, while necessary and important to improve your play, is cakewalk compared to an oral defense, and is a day in my life which I remember quite clearly.

Best wishes,
Mason

[scalf]

/forums/images/icons/confused.gif not trying to rain on your parade..take a look at a lot of fields...a lot of masters degrees..a lot of abd..(all but dissertation)..i think it's about a 6-1 ratio...the one being PhD's....makes you appreciate dr. schoon a little...but there are very tuff master's degrees, i do not doubt the significance nor difficulty, but i feel the doctorate separates the...blah..blah..gl /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif /forums/images/icons/cool.gif

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Yes, the Babe also had to do a 2hour "oral ordeal" prior to getting her masters degree in Psychology. Mine was confined to the subject at hand, which was a defense of the research I did on "Post-tramautic Stress in Vietnam Veterans". I think some of my subjects are current poker players /forums/images/icons/crazy.gif ! The skills I learned from doing original research have helped me throughout life. I also think the discipline learned from formal academic training is invaluable, no matter what you do. I switched gears prior to getting my Ph.D., because I thought I could make more money in the stock business (and I was correct). I don't think Roy's comment about a "Master's in poker" is so off the wall. It takes much hard work and study to become an expert at poker. It takes extreme discipline and many "exams" at the tables to become a great player. And someday...I hope I graduate with honors! LGPG, Babe /forums/images/icons/heart.gif

[John Ho]

He doesn't have a masters so he wouldn't know.

Poker is something you can say you have a "masters" in when you consistently win at the mid to upper limits. It's achievment oriented whereas getting the paper degree is knowledge oriented. You can get a masters degree in business and still be a poor businessman but somebody who is broke and on the rail should not call himself a master at poker.

[Rick Nebiolo]

Dynasty,

It is possible to dress in comfort and "look good". Cottton sweaters look good (better than a sweatshirt) and are extremely comfortable. Nice jeans or slacks that fit right look good (much better than sweatpants) and are comfortable. Even a men's suit is very comfortable if it fits correctly and is made from decent fabric.

BTW, the main reason to look good is not vanity but to make the world a nicer place for everybody else. IMO the world would fall even further into a depressive funk if most people dressed like the typical poker player.

That being said, I'm writing this in my underwear that I haven't taken off since yesterday /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

Regards,

Rick

[brad]

i agree that its equivalent or harder than a psych degree.

heh. just teasing.

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi Mason,
It may not be as regimented to become a poker pro, but I honestly think it is more difficult.

For example, about 98% of the people who graduate Law School pass the bar, and a large percentage of those earn a living with thier JD. Granted not a technical field, but not easy either.

What percentage of even serious poker students, ever make a living at it.

So I'm not sure how to react to your statement, except to say that a good memory covers the degree thing. Poker would seem to require different soft skills.

For example, I know that I did a Comp Sci degree, and most of it was memorization. Writing programs to solve problems was difficult... but there was an absolute answer.

So it would seem the oral defense is a "Blackjack" problem (best possible strategy can be known at the start... cookbook).

Poker has that, "game of imperfect information" problem within it.

Don't know if that makes it "hard" or just "unclear".

I'll admit, the oral defense *is* tough... no argument there. But do they take a chunck of your backroll when you blow it, or do just do it over?

As for my, my trial of the concept of becoming a Poker Pro was short lived and was not successful enough to stake my living on it. So at least for me, I'd consider trying to earn a living as a Poker Pro would be for me... more difficult than earning a living off my degree, and thus getting the degree seems to be of lesser difficulty to me because it is a laid out path with very few "it depends" sort of scenarios.

Heck if poker were the easier way, everyone would do it. I can remember a rock and roll musician using that rationale about how becoming a Rock Star was more difficult than going to college. (Granted... become a Rock musician may be easier... it's the Grand Success that's the hard part.)

Sincerely,
AA

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi AA:

You wrote:

For example, about 98% of the people who graduate Law School pass the bar

When I entered graduate school there were 30 of us who started the program. Only 10 made it as far as a master's degree.

Also, if you flunked your orals I believe you would get a second chance. If you failed them a second time, that was it.

Best wishes,
Mason

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Bless you, Rick for the first part of your post. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif I will ignore the image of you in your undies. /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif /forums/images/icons/grin.gif LGPG, Babe /forums/images/icons/heart.gif

[HDPM]

Law school's easier than that Mason. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

One thing I will give Cooke is that the average winning poker player is smarter than the average of a lot of fields by far. The average poker pro who can beat mid-limit games is a lot smarter than the average lawyer I think. But there are a lot more lawyers making a lot more money than mid-limit pros, so sometimes I wonder what the pros are thinking when they could make a lot more doing something else. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif
One other thing I look at is how smart the posters are here. The people attracted to poker are often pretty smart. So I give credit to the pros who can beat some smart people for a living.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi HDPM:

You wrote:

The people attracted to poker are often pretty smart.

I agree that this is true if you only restrict your population to winning poker players. But if you include all the degenerates, I'm not so sure.

Best wishes,
Mason

[HDPM]

yeah, I generally agree. Of course there are smart losing players who just play recreationally. But with that exception I agree. A lot of degenerates or losing players sure are not too smart.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Babe:

I agree with Cooke that to become a highly successful poker player takes much work, and that you always need to work on your game. Where I disagree, and disagree strongly, is that it is comparable to an advanced degree from a good school in a technical field.

But this is a point that most of our readers should be happy with. You don't need to be super smart to become a good poker player. You just need to be willing to work hard. In fact, many people who are pretty smart fall behind the hard workers. It's sort of like the "tourtise and the hair" fable.

Again, my objection was the comparison to someone with a legitimate master's degree. Part of the reason for this is that's I don't believe anyone has worked harder at mastering poker concepts than I have, and many of my private notes have been turned into books and articles. But compared to my work in graduate school, (and some of the work I did in my 11 year pre-poker career), while very tedious at times, the level of thinking required was much easier.

Best wishes,
Mason

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi Mason,
Didn't realize the engineering Master's were so tough. Perhaps it a "era in time" sort of issue as well. Didn't you do your degree in the late 60's early 70's?

I did mine in the 80's. And Comp Sci and the little bit of Law School I did were obviously not the math/physics heavy sort of subjects that Engineering is.

I can remember hearing "College Doctoral Thesis Horror Stories" when I was a kid. Perhaps this is the sort thing you went through?

Comp Sci. even the Operating System specialization I took was much more about logic and alogorithms than any hard math, apart from the obligatory System Performance, Stats with Calc, and Calc classes. But I suspect they were watered down for us guys.

Probably a good thing too. I was working full time at Pratt & Whitney Aircraft there in Florida at the time, could never have survived anything tougher than I did.

I've often regretted that I didn't have the chance to be just a student, and take a really "bad ass" major.

Sincerely,
AA

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi AA:

I got my BS in 1973 and my MS in 1975. Both in math and both from Virginia Tech. I was briefly in their Ph. D. program for statistics but was offered a job with the US Census Bureau and decided to take it.

Best wishes,
Mason

[CEO]

I guess what is so interesting about this debate is how little "bang" you get for your invested time & effort in learning poker, compared to other areas requiring a high level of expertize, especially when you reach either the top of poker or some other profession.

For example, compare the incomes of top professionals in any profession and poker really pales, particularly against the top in business, which poker skills are often compared to. Top business people can literally earn millions, if not tens of millions per year. In fact, at the top it is possible to become worth hundreds of millions, and some become billionaires.
Poker offers nowhere near this oppty.

So which requires more work is up for debate, but I am certain that poker returns, for time invested is far worse. Also, in other areas the really big returns come only when you are successful enough to delegate everything except what you really want to do yourself. Poker offers nothing like this, and you are always forced to be actively engaged in every issue. (hand).

[Dentist]

When I read that statement, I laughed as well.

I spent 4 years in school learning a variety of procedures that I have to perform on a daily basis. Every day is a test for me that I have to pass. The margin for error is none when it comes to treating patients to the penultimate standards that our profession has set.

I have spent 8 months doing some recreational reading on poker (that's how long I've been playing the game) and I consider myself to be ahead of most of the 6-12 players I currently play with (I will move up soon....)

After 8 months of dental school, I was starting to get good at cutting on plastic teeth......
Poker is EASY compared to high level professional work. The amount of knowledge that goes into something as simple as a filling is truly shocking.
Just to do a stupid filling you have to take courses is anesthesia, anatomy, material science, dental pathology, operative dentistry, lab work in handpiece control, and more..

I didn't have to do that much work to understand the flow of the standard hold 'em game.

All the talk of hourly rate is generally a joke to me. If it were all about money, I could do far better griding out more hours at work. There's not a big enough game in town to make my hourly rate as good what I can make at work.

Poker for me is a competition that I enjoy, whose score is measured in chips. It's just my choice of exercising that competitive vibe in me. It's my: (golf, bowling, pool, sports, etc...) because I like to use my mind to play, and I like scoring in money rather than points like in a traditional card game, or chess, or a sports event..

It's not a freaking doctorate degree. If I dedicated 4 solid years studying and playing poker (the amount of time my DDS took). I'd be a freaking LEGEND in my own time.

I'm sure there are other doctors on this site as well. It is the mental aspect of this game that brought me in. I love to analyze things and use knowledge to beat people.

Thanks Mason and 2+2 for allowing the "nerd" in me to be expressed on the Poker table in the form of beating the uneducated..

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Thanks Mason and 2+2 for allowing the "nerd" in me to be expressed on the Poker table in the form of beating the uneducated..

/forums/images/icons/diamond.gif Ditto that- and this is what it's all about boys....I think the competition in poker is more seductive than in many other areas. It's all about being the best you can be. And of course, the real pros have that one special edge. They LGPG....Babe /forums/images/icons/heart.gif

[Fishy]

You're saying that for the same amount of effort, the top poker players are not earning nearly as much as top executives, movie stars, etc.

I don't think that is true, for the effort and intelligence needed to be a winning player is nothing compare to running and achieving success in a highly competitive industry. The economy is a HUGE game with millions times more players than poker, hence the huge variance in earnings is to be expected albeit for only a small minority.

The amount of profit made in business also is due to the large capital involve in those multi-million enterprises. If you think in terms of percentage expected value/risk, for a finite time period. I don't think poker is that low.

Even the best investor Warren Buffet only managed an average 24% annual rate of return compounded.

Also, in general your earning potential should reflect your skills too in the real world and in the real world, acquiring knowledge, information and business skills are easier in the sense that there are more available resources, literatures for study than poker, the business world has more symmetric information flow than the poker world. Then the greater competition should increase efficiency and bid down the value of these guys.

Those who do achieve the top levels you're talking about are due to monopoly of knowledge, luck, or greater input(effort/captital).