My typical day

[fallout1234]

My background: last worked in 2002 as a programmer. left to take care of new baby. Start playing poker April, 2004.

Here is my typical day:

Get up around 9am. Get kid ready for daycare. Back home 10:30am and start playing 5/10-10/20. Stop playing around 3:30. Have lunch. Doing housing work...
Pickup kid around 5:30. After 9:00pm play some more poker till 12:00. Sometimes no poker at night.


My husband started around the same time as I. We had $1000 as our starting bankroll. Now we have worked it up to $40,000. Whenever I have a losing streak I want to start looking for a job , but I never really tried very hard.

I sometimes feel guity spending all my time playing cards instead of doing some real work. But if I had a regular job I don't think I will have any time playing. Tough decision.
Also I only earned 20K in more than a year. Not much compared to my old job.Good thing is I only "work" 4 - 5 hours a day.

Am I wasting my life here?

[Benal]

Why the daycare if you're home all day?

[jba]

not that it's any of my business, but why would you take the kid to day care if the two of you are home all day? I would think having the kid at home is one of the perks.

my suggestion: take out one or two 3-6 month contracts, get yourself to some office every day, remind yourself how bad work sucks.

[ QUOTE ]
Why the daycare if you're home all day?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Hey sis look. All mommy does is gamble on that computer all day. I wish our mommy played with us."

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why the daycare if you're home all day?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Hey sis look. All mommy does is gamble on that computer all day. I wish our mommy played with us."

[/ QUOTE ]

how is mommy playing with them if they're at daycare?

[fallout1234]

I took care of my kid full time until he is 2. I think it's better he spend some time with other kids. My husband is a college teacher which means he has some days he doesn't have to go to office. but he is busy overall.

[ChrisConstantine]

Clearly you believe that spending this much time on this activity is a waste.

When I start to feel that way I simply play less and/or do more of the other stuff on the internet while I'm playing.

It appears you can make adjustments for the short term but you should be planning a major reduction in internet poker play in the future.

I accept poker as a career providing a service for other players to compete against but that's a stretch that took me 15 years to achieve. It's also easier to accept after having a few other careers.

[fallout1234]

I would assume people on this board won't consider poker as gambling?

[ QUOTE ]
I would assume people on this board won't consider poker as gambling?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ed Miller says it is gambling.

[SamIAm]

[ QUOTE ]
I accept poker as a career providing a service for other players to compete against but that's a stretch that took me 15 years to achieve.

[/ QUOTE ]That is SUCH a stretch, to the point that maybe it should count as a lie. I think you have to face the fact that you don't construct or provide anything in your line of work. That's ok; there are lots of jobs that earn money but don't necessarily add to society. But don't pretend you're "providing a service".
-Sam

[SamIAm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would assume people on this board won't consider poker as gambling?

[/ QUOTE ]Ed Miller says it is gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]Duh. It's putting money at risk with the potential to win more. I think the compulsion, knowledge, and EV of the situation are largely what differentiates "Gambling for a living" and "Having a gambling problem".

I don't think using tylenol shows a drug problem, but it's still a drug.
-Sam

I believe this is what the population refers to as "sarcasm".

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I wasting my life here?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really like poker and love what you're doing, the answer is no.

But given that you've looked for a "real" job before and given that you're posting about it on a message board, I'm thinking the answer is yes.

(On a somewhat related note, I don't know how much programmers earn, but I'm guessing that anybody with the intelligence and discipline to consistently beat 10/20 could earn more than $20k per year in some other line of work.)

[TrueBritt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I accept poker as a career providing a service for other players to compete against but that's a stretch that took me 15 years to achieve.

[/ QUOTE ]That is SUCH a stretch, to the point that maybe it should count as a lie. I think you have to face the fact that you don't construct or provide anything in your line of work. That's ok; there are lots of jobs that earn money but don't necessarily add to society. But don't pretend you're "providing a service".
-Sam

[/ QUOTE ]

We provide the same service that Casinos do: entertainment. That's why people play blackjack, and that's why they play poker. They play for fun.

[ QUOTE ]
We provide the same service that Casinos do: entertainment. That's why people play blackjack, and that's why they play poker. They play for fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, and they can play for fun against other people who are playing for fun, or they can play for fun against people who are constantly studying to improve at taking their money. This "we provide a service" line is pretty amusing to me. Remove all the 2+2ers from Party Poker and you'll certainly have more enjoyable and less costly games for the fish. Expert players ruin the experience just enough to make money, but not enough to scare the fish away entirely, and they use variance as a smoke screen. Let's not kid ourselves.

[chessforlife]

what is wasting life?

[Mason Hellmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
what is wasting life?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not enjoying it?

[FlFishOn]

"Am I wasting my life here? "

You're wasting your kid's lives. Get them out of daycare. You should be ashamed.

[celiboy]

Let me get this straight

1.You husband is a professor and therefore makes a very good income - enough to support you and your kids comfortably.

2. You gamble all day while your kids are in daycare which is likely costing you $500+ a month after tax.

That's pathetic

"What you call wasting, I call living...I'm living my life!"

[/Seinfeld quoting]

[HRFats]

[ QUOTE ]
I took care of my kid full time until he is 2. I think it's better he spend some time with other kids. My husband is a college teacher which means he has some days he doesn't have to go to office. but he is busy overall.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you SERIOUS??? You honestly think it's better that he spend all day with other kids and a daycare provider than with his Mommy? Get a grip lady!! Have you ever thought of starting a play group? I am bothered by the fact that you pawn your kid of to a day care center so you can play poker. This is so wrong it should be illegal.

But hey, think of all the great things he will learn from those other kids - espacially the older ones. Believe me, he will get enough interaction with other kids from K-12 and you can play poker all day for 13 years. He's what, 3?? Yeah, you're making a BAD decision!

[HRFats]

[ QUOTE ]
I sometimes feel guity spending all my time playing cards instead of doing some real work. But if I had a regular job I don't think I will have any time playing. Tough decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm still ranting on. She feels guilty that she's not doing real work and concerned that a real job would interfere with poker time. Hmmmm - poker or a real job. What about your CHILD? Don't you feel guity that you play poker instead of mother?? Does anyone else with kids have a problem with this??

[pleyya]

I wouldnt say that somebody who plays poker profesionally "gambles all day". If you play profesionally it becomes like any job. Just because her husband makes money she should not be forced to not have a career of her own. If she was a teacher or waitress or whatever and sent her kid to daycare during the days, how would this be different ? It woudlnt.

[fallout1234]

This is my whole point, playing poker is not like having a job. If I said I put kid in daycare for a job, no problem. Playing poker, oh my god. Even ppl on this board feel this way.

[fallout1234]

Part of the reason I don't want to go working is now I can send him to daycare after he gets up, any time. I often puts him there 11am. And pick him up before 5 and have dinner ready for him. How can I do it if I work 9-5?
Also professors don't always make good money. We live in a small apartment and don't have much to spare.

[FishNChips]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I sometimes feel guity spending all my time playing cards instead of doing some real work. But if I had a regular job I don't think I will have any time playing. Tough decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm still ranting on. She feels guilty that she's not doing real work and concerned that a real job would interfere with poker time. Hmmmm - poker or a real job. What about your CHILD? Don't you feel guity that you play poker instead of mother?? Does anyone else with kids have a problem with this??

[/ QUOTE ]

I was planning to post something a bit softer, but yes, I agree 100% that if you are taking your kid to day care so you can come home and play poker 5 hours a day then there is an issue. If you "need" to play poker for income (doesn't sound like it, but we don't have all the pieces here) then play AFTER Jr. goes to bed.

My day:
up at 6:30am. Work 7:30 - 5:00pm.
5-9:30pm, hang out with my daughter and my wife.
9:30 - 1am : multitable 3/6

my wife's day
up around 7am
7:30am - 5pm : take care of our daughter * (wife works part time from home - has 2 meetings a week that she brings our daughter to then squeezes in an hour whenever our daughter naps, she also works a full day on Sunday).
5pm - 7pm : RELAX while I hang out with daughter.
7pm - 9:30pm : hang out with me (dinner/talk/tv/etc)

I clear just enough every month to cover the gap between what my wife used to make (before she was a mommy) and what she makes now.

If you're going to leave your kid at day care then get a real job and make enough to put $$$ away for her college tuition/car/other stuff.

FishNChips

[FishNChips]

[ QUOTE ]
This is my whole point, playing poker is not like having a job. If I said I put kid in daycare for a job, no problem. Playing poker, oh my god. Even ppl on this board feel this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, its your life, do it how you want. I don't think that playing poker all day is a waste of your life, but you asked for opinions and I think it stinks that you drop your kid off at day care so you can play poker. See my other post for more on this, but one of the great things about on-line poker is that the game is ALWAYS there. Hang out with your kid during the day, play poker at night. Your husband can deal with limited time together for a cuple years until Jr. is in school, but these first few years are so huge in your kids development that if you CAN its better to spend the time with the kid.

There are plenty of people that would KILL to be able to stay home with their kid but can't. If you are a winning poker player and can make enough to bridge the gap then do it at night.

Again, its your choice. But don't ask for opinions if you don't really want them.

FishNChips

[HRFats]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldnt say that somebody who plays poker profesionally "gambles all day". If you play profesionally it becomes like any job. Just because her husband makes money she should not be forced to not have a career of her own. If she was a teacher or waitress or whatever and sent her kid to daycare during the days, how would this be different ? It woudlnt.

[/ QUOTE ]

She made a whopping $20K in a year (actually more than a year). After taxes closer to $15K. Daycare is $100 - $150 per week so call it $5,000 per year. So she clears $10K - peanuts, really.

BUT the reason she quit her programming jod was to stay home with the kid. And the reason she give for daycare is so he can spend time with other kids - and so she can play poker. Sounds like she's selfish to me...She can't wait onother year and a half and play when the kid is in school?

When you have little kids, they should be your first priority, your second priority and your third priority.

You also must feel guilty that you hawk your kids off to a stranger with a questionable backround every day. Ask someone that used to work in a daycare center what the quality of care is really like and you will quit your job tomorrow. My wife worked in a daycare center for a week while in college and quit because of how the children were treated.

[MicroBob]

I don't have kids...but intend to in the semi-near future.

If I'm still playing poker from home then I would consider this to be an advantage.

Maybe I don't undderstand the full realities of it all...but I would think that you can take care of the kid just a little bit while clicking-away online.
And my sig-other can pursue her career all she likes while i'm the stay-at-home-dad-who-is-still-making-money.


I don't think the OP is nearly as bad as others are making her out to be.
I might be inclined to take my kid to day-care every once in awhile just as much for the social-interaction as anything. But this wouldn't be a regular thing if I didn't have to do it of course.

[ QUOTE ]
So she clears $10K - peanuts, really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh come on. That "peanuts" is about the annual income of a full-time, year-round worker on minimum wage. I'd love to be in a place where $10k is peanuts. You may not think it's worth the trade-off, but let's not pretend that the income she's forgoeing by quitting poker isn't very significant to many families.

[pleyya]

I guess its different if you play poker for the thrills and leave your kids away than if you are pursuing a poker career and making money, so i kinda see your point. Somehow whether or not a pokerplayer gets recognition depends on how much money he makes. I guess this wouldnt be an issue if she made 150 000 a year

[FishNChips]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have kids...but intend to in the semi-near future.

If I'm still playing poker from home then I would consider this to be an advantage.

Maybe I don't undderstand the full realities of it all...but I would think that you can take care of the kid just a little bit while clicking-away online.
And my sig-other can pursue her career all she likes while i'm the stay-at-home-dad-who-is-still-making-money.


I don't think the OP is nearly as bad as others are making her out to be.
I might be inclined to take my kid to day-care every once in awhile just as much for the social-interaction as anything. But this wouldn't be a regular thing if I didn't have to do it of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sir:

I think that you'll find that taking care of the kid and playing won't mix. I think that there may be a few kids out there that this would work with, but in general, babies/toddlers need way too much attention to make playing at the same time an option.

My main issue with OP is:
1 - she could adjust her playing schedule and keep the kid at home
2 - her husband is around sometimes, he could take care of the kid when he's around
3 - it seems like she's choosing to play to make a little extra cash and is using that as an excuse to pawn her kid off (I realize that this may be an inaccurate conclusion, but given the facts as presented this is what I'm coming to). The math was done above, she's just not making that much for the 6-8hrs a day that her child is in day care.

Again, its her choice. She can do whatever she wants, but she asked for opinions and now she's getting them.

FishNChips

[HRFats]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I don't undderstand the full realities of it all...but I would think that you can take care of the kid just a little bit while clicking-away online.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it's almost impossible. Kids are pretty demanding and when your holding pocket aces HU with a 50% VP$IP player, something will happen and you will have to leave the computer immediately...

If I'm home with my kids I try to clear a casino bonus and save the poker for after bed time.

[FishNChips]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So she clears $10K - peanuts, really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh come on. That "peanuts" is about the annual income of a full-time, year-round worker on minimum wage. I'd love to be in a place where $10k is peanuts. You may not think it's worth the trade-off, but let's not pretend that the income she's forgoeing by quitting poker isn't very significant to many families.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a fair point. If they live in a small apt in a low cost of living area this might cover 80% of the rent every month and that is significant.

My issue is with the schedule. As another poster stated, your kids have to be priority 1/2/3...n. You're a parent now, thats how it is. She can play at night after her husband gets home or after her kid goes to bed. I've also not seen her say that she "needs" the $$$. She has stated that there isn't much to spare if they rely on her husbands salary.

Priorities!
FishNChips

[fallout1234]

Ok I made 10K after tax after deducting daycare cost. But my husband's 20K won't be there if my kid is at home all day.

And last year I started by playing 25c/50c with 500 dollar bankroll . The first 1k took me 4 months to earn. So my 20K per year is not an flat average.
We hope to use poker money to help pay for a house later, considering how costly house are, we can't afford it by my husband's teacher salary.

[Neurotoxin]

if you have a $40,000 bankroll why are you only making $20k a year.

[FishNChips]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok I made 10K after tax after deducting daycare cost. But my husband's 20K won't be there if my kid is at home all day.

And last year I started by playing 25c/50c with 500 dollar bankroll . The first 1k took me 4 months to earn. So my 20K per year is not an flat average.
We hope to use poker money to help pay for a house later, considering how costly house are, we can't afford it by my husband's teacher salary.

[/ QUOTE ]

clearly we're giving you feedback on about 1/100th of the truly available information so how about I do this:

1 - is it a "waste" to spend your day playing poker : ABSOLUTELY NOT! Plenty of folks on this site do it for a living and I do not have any issue with that. Its not a waste if you understand the risks and its not an addiction / life destroying activity.

HOWEVER

2 - your situation is a bit different because you have a kid involved. In My Opinion, your child needs to be your #1 priority and that means that if you CAN you should have the little one at home with you during the day. Your choices should reflect what is in the best interest of your child, not what is easiest/most convenient/nicest/funnest/coolest for you. You're a parent now, the days of "what I want" are over and "what is best for my child" should be the driving force behind your decisions. If dropping your child off at day care and spending 5 - 8hrs/day playing poker is truly what is best for your child then go for it.

3 - don't justify dropping your child off at day care with "the social interaction is good for him." If I need to dig up the cites for the studies I'll do it, but its better for the kids to be at home with mom and/or dad during their early years. They'll get plenty of interaction when they reach school age.

Again . what you do is up to you, but you asked, its been answered, and you might not like it.

FishNChips

[fallout1234]

Each of us has 20K bankroll.

[fallout1234]

Thanks for your suggestion. I understand your point, and respect your and your wife's schedule. I see you sleep less than 6 hours a day. I really can't do that and function right. I am almost 35 now and no longer have the energy of a 25 year old. I find myself too tired taking care of a toddler all day to do any serious poker playing afterwards.

Once again let me say I respect your way of taking care your baby.

[HRFats]

[ QUOTE ]
if you have a $40,000 bankroll why are you only making $20k a year.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's because her husband also plays and he made $20K last year as well.

So it sounds like you need the money so you can buy a house. Why don't you limit your play to times when your child is in bed either at night or morning or both. Let your husband keep his schedule so he still makes his $20k. You will save $5k in daycare (how much ARE you paying?) and can probably make $6k playing mornings, nights and weekends ($500 a month should not be a problem).

So you save $5k, make $6k that becomes $4500 after taxes for a total of almost $10k. You're in the EXACT same position , your son is no longer in daycare and you are only playing half the hours you were playing before - and you don't need to take a job...

[josie_wales]

You are asking about work.

But the issue that I see here is that you are paying someone else to raise your child.

jw

[fallout1234]

None of us could play poker when my kid is around. He distrcts too much. He demands control of every computer.
He only sleeps 9 hours a day. The most we can do is 2 hours playing time.

[Baulucky]

No time for wild sex on a "typical day"?.

nh. That's why I'm never going pro.

[TrueBritt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We provide the same service that Casinos do: entertainment. That's why people play blackjack, and that's why they play poker. They play for fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, and they can play for fun against other people who are playing for fun, or they can play for fun against people who are constantly studying to improve at taking their money. This "we provide a service" line is pretty amusing to me. Remove all the 2+2ers from Party Poker and you'll certainly have more enjoyable and less costly games for the fish. Expert players ruin the experience just enough to make money, but not enough to scare the fish away entirely, and they use variance as a smoke screen. Let's not kid ourselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like casinos and all other service businesses, we charge for the service we provide. That service is competition, gamble, and fun. That is, competition and gamble provide the fun for the fish. Fun (i.e. entertainment) is what they are buying. The fish could easily decrease the competition in their game by dropping down a level or two. But that would decrease the gamble, too. On the whole, they would have less fun, so they stay at the higher level, where they are destined to lose over the long run. But that's ok because they are there for fun, and their loses have simply paid for their fun.

It is common knowledge that the casino has the edge in all table games. Yet millions of people play them anyway. Why? Because gambling is fun. Winning gives us a rush of euphoria. Apparently, for many people, that short-term rush is worth the long-term losses that are inevitable in those games. The same is true for the losing poker player. He is paying for that short-term rush with his long-term losses. It is his choice to do that, and there is nothing wrong with either the casino or the winning poker player charging him a fee for his fun.

[FlFishOn]

" If I said I put kid in daycare for a job, no problem."

No. You are giving up possibly the biggest joy in life. You will never get a chance to revisit this sh+tty decision 5 years from now. Dump the daycare and raise you kids. You alreadt know it's the right thing to do or you're not really a Mom.

[FishNChips]

[ QUOTE ]
None of us could play poker when my kid is around. He distrcts too much. He demands control of every computer.
He only sleeps 9 hours a day. The most we can do is 2 hours playing time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to try and respond to the previous response to me as well as this post.

Yes, I sleep about 6hrs a night. I'm fortunate that I function pretty well with that level of sleep. I'm 32 and it affects me more now than it did 5 years ago. Not everyone can survive on 6hrs sleep (my wife definately can't). I'm not suggesting that you should get only 6hrs sleep. I am suggesting that there might be other times during the day when your husband is around to take care of your child or when your child is asleep that you could play.

I have a great deal of respect for you trying your best to save $$$ and buy a home. Its not an easy thing to do. I'm not questioning that you love your kid or that you want what's best for your child -- having enough $$$ to support a family is tough these days. I just think that taking your kid to day care every day isn't the best solution, but I'm not living in your shoes and I don't know the answer.

As for the post quoted above : if both you and your husband are home then one of you should be able to play. A 2yr old shouldn't "demand control of every computer." One of you takes care of the child, one of you closes a bedroom/office door and plays. If the child is loud, the caretaking parent can take him/her to the park or for an errand.

If you are in a situation where you HAVE to do it the way you describe then go for it and I hope you run well!

Best of Luck,
FishNChips

[HRFats]

[ QUOTE ]
None of us could play poker when my kid is around. He distrcts too much. He demands control of every computer.
He only sleeps 9 hours a day. The most we can do is 2 hours playing time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have two choices. Either keep dropping your child off at daycare or figure out another solution.

As stated by Fish and Chips, it's much better for the child if he stays home with Mom or Dad and does not go to daycare.

In My Opinion, you are making excuses here to justify putting your only child in daycare. He will only be three ONCE. Right now, YOU are God to him. In five years he won't give you a hug and kiss in fron of his friends and in 10 years, when he's a teen, you go from being God to being an [censored].

You have a unique opportunity to stay home with your child. Hold off on the house for 18 months until he starts school and you can play poker then. Or just hold off for six to eight months and put him in pre-school for three hours a day.

When he leaves for college in 15 years will you says "I'm so glad I played poker when he was three" or "I'm so glad we sucked it up for 18 months so I could stay home with him. I'll have those memories forever"...

[FishNChips]

[ QUOTE ]
No time for wild sex on a "typical day"?.

[/ QUOTE ]

mention of a child pretty much eliminates this option.

you kids these days are so much fun!

FishNChips

[FishNChips]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
None of us could play poker when my kid is around. He distrcts too much. He demands control of every computer.
He only sleeps 9 hours a day. The most we can do is 2 hours playing time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have two choices. Either keep dropping your child off at daycare or figure out another solution.

As stated by Fish and Chips, it's much better for the child if he stays home with Mom or Dad and does not go to daycare.

In My Opinion, you are making excuses here to justify putting your only child in daycare. He will only be three ONCE. Right now, YOU are God to him. In five years he won't give you a hug and kiss in fron of his friends and in 10 years, when he's a teen, you go from being God to being an [censored].

You have a unique opportunity to stay home with your child. Hold off on the house for 18 months until he starts school and you can play poker then. Or just hold off for six to eight months and put him in pre-school for three hours a day.

When he leaves for college in 15 years will you says "I'm so glad I played poker when he was three" or "I'm so glad we sucked it up for 18 months so I could stay home with him. I'll have those memories forever"...

[/ QUOTE ]

ugh... when I read something like this it makes me realize that I'm often an overblown windbag ... HRFats has said in 3 paragraphs what I've tried to say in like 15 posts in this thread.

Spot on sir, spot on!
FishNChips

[fallout1234]

Toddler + Poker = Sex Killer

[William]

[ QUOTE ]
Toddler + Poker = Sex Killer

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. You've got your priorities really screwed up lady!

[FishNChips]

[ QUOTE ]
Toddler + Poker = Sex Killer

[/ QUOTE ]

hey now, don't go blaming poker for this! Toddler's are sex killers, they don't need any help.

If you were dropping your kid off at day care so you could have sex us parents would ALL understand!

(see, I can get off my high horse and have a little fun =) )

FishNChips

[HRFats]

[ QUOTE ]
Toddler + Poker = Sex Killer

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Seiously...


...what is sex /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[HRFats]

[ QUOTE ]
If you were dropping your kid off at day care so you could have sex us parents would ALL understand!


[/ QUOTE ]

Now THERE's an idea!!! That must be why my baby sitter charges so much and I gladly pay her.

[FishNChips]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you were dropping your kid off at day care so you could have sex us parents would ALL understand!


[/ QUOTE ]

Now THERE's an idea!!! That must be why my baby sitter charges so much and I gladly pay her.

[/ QUOTE ]

you pay your baby sitter for sex? Now THAT is a good idea!

FishNChips

[HRFats]

[ QUOTE ]
you pay your baby sitter for sex? Now THAT is a good idea!

FishNChips

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't everyone here do that? Noone ever said sex with their SPOUSE. I think the original post was something about wild sex. Like THAT's gonna happen with my wife. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Yeah, I know what you're saying, but here's the problem: you're charging a fee for your services, but a lot of people are giving it away. To use your casino comparison: if you were in some kind of collective casino, running a standard roulette table, but there are four people on either side of you running a table without the zeros (i.e. mostly neutral-EV), are you still providing a service? I suppose, but it's neither a necessary nor desireable service. It's a service that your casino patrons would happily go without, if only they were sophisticated enough to know the difference that losing the zeros makes. The mob was providing a service too when they were kind enough to offer "protection" to local shopkeepers.

I exaggerate, of course, but I really think that you're kidding yourself here. If anything, the fee that fish pay is the rake. Losing their money on top of the rake isn't a "fee" for the action, because they can get their action from other fish, which will be neutral-EV. You're not charging them for their fun; they would be getting that anyway. You're charging them for their ignorance, or at least their ignorance relative to you: someone who spends substantially more time learning and playing this game than they'd care to commit.

And I'm sure that you're not suggesting that without the pros, or even the 2+2ers, that the tables would be virtually empty every night. There would still be thousands of games taking place on many different sites; the only difference being that the fish would have more money in their accounts at the end of the night than they would have had otherwise. Good players are not props, nor is their presence as such required.

One last thing: you conclude by saying that "there is nothing wrong with either the casino or the winning poker player charging him (the fish) a fee for his fun." That's true; there's nothing wrong with it, and that's why I happily play poker, and win. The delusion that a few posters seem to be under is that they're productive members of society, charging a fee for a service, like an accountant or masseuse. And that's just not fair.

[gisb0rne]

Pro online players don't provide a service because the game is there with or without them and the experience is no way enhanced by their presence. Partypoker or whatever site you play on is the one providing the service. Certain professional players that play live provide a service, similar to that of professional athletes and actors. Would a rich fish rather play against other rich fish or against Phil Ivey?

Several people seem to be missing the idea that the ~ $15k income is fixed. That's not true at all. Because the income was derived from an initial bankroll of $500 or so, the OP is making much much more now than when she started. Her current annualized income might be more like $50k or even more.

[TrueBritt]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I know what you're saying, but here's the problem: you're charging a fee for your services, but a lot of people are giving it away. To use your casino comparison: if you were in some kind of collective casino, running a standard roulette table, but there are four people on either side of you running a table without the zeros (i.e. mostly neutral-EV), are you still providing a service? I suppose, but it's neither a necessary nor desireable service. It's a service that your casino patrons would happily go without, if only they were sophisticated enough to know the difference that losing the zeros makes.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your analogy, the consumer has the choice between a neutral and a -EV game. That would be analogous to a choice between a poker game in which his opponents are, on the whole, equal in skill to him (let's forget the rake for now) and a game in which his opponents are, on the whole, better than he is. If such a choice existed, obviously the consumer would and should choose the neutral EV game. And if the choice of a +EV game were added, he should of course choose that one. We should all choose the game with the highest expectation.

But what if our poor player is so bad that there are no + or neutral EV 5-10 (let's say) games for him? What should he do? Drop down a level or two, of course! But he doesn't. If he did, he would no longer be a losing 5-10 player, but an even or winning player at some lower level. That's not who we are talking about.

Why doesn't he move down? Because the 3-6 game doesn't have high enough stakes to get him excited. So he stays in a -EV game despite the fact that he is destined to lose in it. He is choosing a -EV game because he wants excitement. In other words, he is, consciously or unconsciously, buying entertainment.

He had a choice to move to a + or neutral EV game, and he chose not to. He must now accept the consequences of that choice.

[ QUOTE ]
If anything, the fee that fish pay is the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the fee the casino charges for hosting the game. There is another fee, which is the fee the winning players charge the losing players to play in a game that is exciting, but which is too high for their skill level.

[ QUOTE ]
Losing their money on top of the rake isn't a "fee" for the action, because they can get their action from other fish, which will be neutral-EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

No they couldn't. There are winning players in every 5-10 game. To get their action for free, they would have to move down a level, and they don't choose to, because the stakes aren't high enough to get them excited.

[ QUOTE ]
You're not charging them for their fun; they would be getting that anyway. You're charging them for their ignorance, or at least their ignorance relative to you: someone who spends substantially more time learning and playing this game than they'd care to commit.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, I'm charging them to play at a level that is exciting for them, but which is too high for their skill level.

[ QUOTE ]
And I'm sure that you're not suggesting that without the pros, or even the 2+2ers, that the tables would be virtually empty every night. There would still be thousands of games taking place on many different sites; the only difference being that the fish would have more money in their accounts at the end of the night than they would have had otherwise. Good players are not props, nor is their presence as such required.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is an unrealistic scenario, though, because, bad players will always attract good players, unless the stakes are too small to make it worthwhile for the good players.

[ QUOTE ]
One last thing: you conclude by saying that "there is nothing wrong with either the casino or the winning poker player charging him (the fish) a fee for his fun." That's true; there's nothing wrong with it, and that's why I happily play poker, and win. The delusion that a few posters seem to be under is that they're productive members of society, charging a fee for a service, like an accountant or masseuse. And that's just not fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're offering the same service that a casino is offering: entertainment. And if that entertainment could be found elsewhere, I'm sure the fish would go there. But the fact is, the fish attract the sharks, so there is nowhere else for them to go. They are destined to feed the sharks until they drop down to a level at which they themselves are the sharks.

[ScottTheFish]

[ QUOTE ]
If I said I put kid in daycare for a job, no problem. Playing poker, oh my god. Even ppl on this board feel this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't feel that way...putting this child in daycare full time and letting him be raised by strangers is borderline child abuse, IMO, regardless of the job. I know "everyone" does it. "Everyone" is wrong.

If you were a single mom or something, ok. But your husband has a college education, you could live fine on what he makes. If you say you can't I say BS. You simply choose lifestyle over staying home and raising your kid, as most people do, which is wrong.

Maybe you can't live in the same size house and drive the same cars and maybe you'd have to cook at home and go out to eat less, etc. but it can be done.

You will never get this time back with your son. He needs his mother. There are plenty of ways he can get to play with other kids without being in full time daycare, that is a pathetic cop-out.

My wife never worked a day from the time she got pregnant until my son started 1st grade. But she's never at work while he's home. And no I didn't make great money at the time. We made a decision to cut our lifestyle and live on one income.

I would work 3 jobs if I had to to keep him out of daycare.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is my whole point, playing poker is not like having a job. If I said I put kid in daycare for a job, no problem. Playing poker, oh my god. Even ppl on this board feel this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, its your life, do it how you want. I don't think that playing poker all day is a waste of your life, but you asked for opinions and I think it stinks that you drop your kid off at day care so you can play poker. See my other post for more on this, but one of the great things about on-line poker is that the game is ALWAYS there. Hang out with your kid during the day, play poker at night. Your husband can deal with limited time together for a cuple years until Jr. is in school, but these first few years are so huge in your kids development that if you CAN its better to spend the time with the kid.

There are plenty of people that would KILL to be able to stay home with their kid but can't. If you are a winning poker player and can make enough to bridge the gap then do it at night.

Again, its your choice. But don't ask for opinions if you don't really want them.

FishNChips

[/ QUOTE ]

In what way does it stink. I think it is healthy for a child to interact with other children instead of being home with their mother all the day. There are other benefits besides developing social skills, such as strengthening the immune system.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
Back home 10:30am and start playing 5/10-10/20. Stop playing around 3:30. Have lunch. Doing housing work...
Pickup kid around 5:30. After 9:00pm play some more poker till 12:00. Sometimes no poker at night.


Good thing is I only "work" 4 - 5 hours a day.

Am I wasting my life here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds more like you wasted time while in math classes.

[ScottTheFish]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is healthy for a child to interact with other children instead of being home with their mother all the day. There are other benefits besides developing social skills, such as strengthening the immune system.

[/ QUOTE ]

So take the kid to the park. Take him to play dates with other kids in the neighborhood. Take him to a Mother's Day Out program for 2 hours 2 or 3 times a week.

There are other choices in between full time daycare and total seclusion, geez.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it is healthy for a child to interact with other children instead of being home with their mother all the day. There are other benefits besides developing social skills, such as strengthening the immune system.

[/ QUOTE ]

So take the kid to the park. Take him to play dates with other kids in the neighborhood. Take him to a Mother's Day Out program for 2 hours 2 or 3 times a week.

There are other choices in between full time daycare and total seclusion, geez.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. And she has chosen an option that works for her. But young men(?) on this forum can't accept it but tries to twist it into a moral argument that is as modern as the Gutenberg way of printing books.

i was going to read through the whole thread but was disgusted with all the absurd remarks about daycare. It is POSITIVE for children to be put in social environments away from home at an early age. Read some parenting books, take some child psychology classes. Any parent that keeps their kid at home when they can easily put them in a good day care a few hours a day/week is doing their child a diservice. I'm sure some people have already addressed this, but I still noticed the same kind of posts on the last page of this thread.

[ScottTheFish]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes. And she has chosen an option that works for her.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, works great for her. For the kid, not so much.

[ QUOTE ]

But young men(?) on this forum can't accept it but tries to twist it into a moral argument that is as modern as the Gutenberg way of printing books.

[/ QUOTE ]

If thinking a baby is better off with his mother than in day care makes me less than modern, I'd rather hang out with Gutenberg, thanks. I'm going out on a limb and guessing you don't have a child.

[ScottTheFish]

[ QUOTE ]
It is POSITIVE for children to be put in social environments away from home at an early age. Read some parenting books

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it is, for 4 or 5 hours a week. Not 30 or 40 or 50. Which parenting books recommend full time daycare over a stay at home parent? That's right, none.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

Yep, works great for her. For the kid, not so much.


[/ QUOTE ]

You know zilch about her and her child, yet you seem to think you can judge her. Quite arrogant. Most research point towards daycare being positive for the development of children. But hey, whats science against moral condemnation. I guess putting the scarlet letter on others brings you more joy than entering the 20th century mentally.

[ QUOTE ]
If thinking a baby is better off with his mother than in day care makes me less than modern, I'd rather hang out with Gutenberg, thanks. I'm going out on a limb and guessing you don't have a child.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going out on a limb and guessing that you are american. Because that is the only country that where someone would be branded a bad mother for using daycare.

[ScottTheFish]

I'll say it again. 4 or 5 hours a week of interaction with other kids away form home is GREAT. NECESSARY. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. I never said it wasn't. All daycare is not bad. Read that again. I agree with you there.

But that's not what happens. They're there ALL DAY. EVERY DAY. 40 hours a week. Sometimes more. And it's not so they learn social skills and build their immune system. Those are rationalizations.

They are there so their parents can work more and afford
better cars and a nicer house.

Yes there are single parents, etc. that have no choice. Families with 2 young healthy educated parents can live on 1 income if they choose to. That's who I'm talking about.

LOL, i just reread the thread and noticed only one person wasn't living in 1950 still. Children that are put in daycare between the ages of 3 and 5 develop better reading skills, speech skills, social skills, and are more ready to adapt to changing social environments. There are always crack house day cares, and there are always daycares that do fabulous things for children. The fact that a child is alowed to interact with other children on a daily basis in an academic environment is very positive. You can't reproduce this environment through networking with other parents. Anyone with kids who have them as their "top priority" should consider a good day care if it is affordable. I have two kids and have a good network of parents. We all put our kids in daycare, even though most of us don't need to.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll say it again. 4 or 5 hours a week of interaction with other kids away form home is GREAT. NECESSARY. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. I never said it wasn't. All daycare is not bad. Read that again. I agree with you there.

But that's not what happens. They're there ALL DAY. EVERY DAY. 40 hours a week. Sometimes more. And it's not so they learn social skills and build their immune system. Those are rationalizations.

They are there so their parents can work more and afford
better cars and a nicer house.

Yes there are single parents, etc. that have no choice. Families with 2 young healthy educated parents can live on 1 income if they choose to. That's who I'm talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Women in the workplace. Who came up with that crazy idea?
Not like the good old days. Those selfish evil women should know their place.

[ScottTheFish]

[ QUOTE ]

Women in the workplace. Who came up with that crazy idea?
Not like the good old days. Those selfish evil women should know their place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice sarcasm. Did you even read my post? Where did I say women shouldn't work? My wife works while my son is at school.

And yes I do think choosing money over time with your baby is selfish. And yes I think 40 hours a week with the mom and 10 hours in daycare is better than the other way around, but hey, I'm just old fashioned like that.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Women in the workplace. Who came up with that crazy idea?
Not like the good old days. Those selfish evil women should know their place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice sarcasm. Did you even read my post? Where did I say women shouldn't work? My wife works while my son is at school.

And yes I do think choosing money over time with your baby is selfish. And yes I think 40 hours a week with the mom and 4 or 5 hours in daycare is better than the other way around, but hey, I'm just old fashioned like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what if the money the mother earns is the difference between a university education or not for the child when he get older. Is her actions still selfish? What about if it makes the difference between great and poor healthcare for the child? Is it still selfish?

You don't have to point out that you are old fashioned. Your Eisenhower era views were obvious from the first post you made in this thread.

[Kablooie]

Yeah, i love the way men are so happy to work three jobs to keep the kids out of daycare - but actually stay at home with the kid themselves? Nah, that's Mum's job. If they had had the wonderful experience of taking care of toddlers full time, they'd probably appreciate the equal importance of a few hours peace and quiet whilst somebody else takes care of the little brats.

[ScottTheFish]

[ QUOTE ]

And what if the money the mother earns is the difference between a university education or not for the child when he get older. Is her actions still selfish? What about if it makes the difference between great and poor healthcare for the child? Is it still selfish?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there are plenty of ways to play for college when the time comes. Loans, grants, financial aid, or even working and paying for their own college like I did.

The health care or other financial hardship is a fair point. I already said some people don't have a choice, mom has to work. So how about this novel idea: Mom works at night while dad is home, or vice versa. I just blew your mind, right?

Sure the parents don't see each other as much, but they're not babies who need constant attention and teaching. They'll be fine.

Surely you'd agree that's preferable to having the kid spend 8 hours a day in day care.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And what if the money the mother earns is the difference between a university education or not for the child when he get older. Is her actions still selfish? What about if it makes the difference between great and poor healthcare for the child? Is it still selfish?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there are plenty of ways to play for college when the time comes. Loans, grants, financial aid, or even working and paying for their own college like I did.

The health care or other financial hardship is a fair point. I already said some people don't have a choice, mom has to work. So how about this novel idea: Mom works at night while dad is home, or vice versa. I just blew your mind, right?

Sure the parents don't see each other as much, but they're not babies who need constant attention and teaching. They'll be fine.

Surely you'd agree that's preferable to having the kid spend 8 hours a day in day care.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I think day care is healthy for a child, of course it isn't preferable. Their current situation seems normal and healthy to me. Of course I don't try to bash others on the head with the bizarre idea that day care makes someone a bad mother.

But feel free to continue to offer advice on how people you never met should structure their lives. What does it matter if the parents never meet, as long as the mother is hovering over her baby 24 hours a day. Because hey, that is the most important thing.

[Dennisa]

[ QUOTE ]
My background: last worked in 2002 as a programmer. left to take care of new baby. Start playing poker April, 2004.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you take your kid to daycare???? Why not play poker around the times your kid sleeps and be full time mom. This gives you an advantage of not paying day care and being a better parent. You should easily get in those 4-6 hours of poker later at night and during nap times.

[ScottTheFish]

[ QUOTE ]


Since I think day care is healthy for a child, of course it isn't preferable. Their current situation seems normal and healthy to me. Of course I don't try to bash others on the head with the bizarre idea that day care makes someone a bad mother.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Time in daycare is better than time with a parent, even with money issues aside? Good Lord.

Are you really telling me 40 hours a week in daycare and 10 with the mother is better than the other way around? And I'm the one with bizarre ideas?

You're really not too bright are you? Did you read this earlier?

I'll say it again. 4 or 5 hours a week of interaction with other kids away form home is GREAT. NECESSARY. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. I never said it wasn't. All daycare is not bad.

Was that somehow unclear?

I've said several times in several different ways daycare does not make someone a bad parent. I spelled out specific circumstances under which I consider it bad parenting.

I assume your kid will go to boarding school from birth through college. With so much rearing by strangers and so little time the parents, it will be the healthiest kid in history.

In your case I would buy it. Better yet just don't breed.

[Kablooie]

I think you're the one that's being persistantly a little bit on the dim side here. Previous posters are quite right in pointing out that daycare is helpful in socialising kids, and giving their immune systems a workout. Humans have never formed social groups that consisted of 1 parent alone with their children before the twentieth century, there is a huge amount of social and anthropological history that documents this. 40 hours of daycare is worse than 40 hours with a parent? Parent is ill/alcoholic/depressed/abusive - daycare is worse? Dream on.

I don't know what it is about some americans these days, they just have to tell everybody else how to live their lives in a complex and varied world, and there is no deviation allowed from their one true way. The last bunch to try this approach were the communists - it didn't end well for them i hear.

It's tough being a parent, there's no excuse for making it worse for people by laying down guilt trips on how much day care they use.

[DocMartin]

Interesting thread, couldnt resist chiming in.

Wife and I are both university profs (the money really isnt all that but the hours and freedom are fantastic) and we have arranged our schedules that one of us can always be at home. We have 2 kids (4 & 2) and they hit daycare twice a week for 4 hours a shot and we wouldnt object to them being there more frequently. The decisions of where and how often weren't made lightly.

We think it's great for them. Professional teachers/caregivers, social interaction, independence, and access to a variety of educational and developmental activities. It's also nice to have some free time and a break from the little maniacs.

I have no real poker schedule but made about 35K working my way up to 5/10 from .5/1 this year putting in an average of 10K-ish hands a month whenever its convenient.

The OP wasnt asking for advice on how to raise her child and much of it was overzealous and uninformed. She was asking for opinions on her choice to play poker instead of going back to a traditional job like programming.

So.. poker is a sweet gig right now especially for someone in need of a flexible schedule. As long as you are still enjoying it, making enough money for your needs, your husband is cool with it, and it allows you to have balance in your life it seems like a decent choice.

[scrapperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL, i just reread the thread and noticed only one person wasn't living in 1950 still. Children that are put in daycare between the ages of 3 and 5 develop better reading skills, speech skills, social skills, and are more ready to adapt to changing social environments. There are always crack house day cares, and there are always daycares that do fabulous things for children. The fact that a child is alowed to interact with other children on a daily basis in an academic environment is very positive. You can't reproduce this environment through networking with other parents. Anyone with kids who have them as their "top priority" should consider a good day care if it is affordable. I have two kids and have a good network of parents. We all put our kids in daycare, even though most of us don't need to.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO most day care places are zoos. They are not teaching kids values and dicipline. I dont ship my kid off to some random stranger if she can be with me. Call me crazy but I trust myself to give her the proper direction a lot more than a random day care worker.

[MicroBob]

Is it too obvious an observation to point out that some day-cares are different/better than others?

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

Wow. Time in daycare is better than time with a parent, even with money issues aside? Good Lord.

Are you really telling me 40 hours a week in daycare and 10 with the mother is better than the other way around? And I'm the one with bizarre ideas?

You're really not too bright are you? Did you read this earlier?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you using caveman-weeks with much less time here? Where the hell did that 10 hours/week come from? If you think she spends that little time a week with her baby you shouldn't talk about the brightness of others.

Anyway, since you are in a rut with your moral arguing I'm putting you on ignore now. I have no doubt you will continue to preach to others how they shall lead their lives without me. Five posts is my fundementalist limit. I don't want to O.D.

[ QUOTE ]
But what if our poor player is so bad that there are no + or neutral EV 5-10 (let's say) games for him? What should he do? Drop down a level or two, of course! But he doesn't. If he did, he would no longer be a losing 5-10 player, but an even or winning player at some lower level. That's not who we are talking about.

Why doesn't he move down? Because the 3-6 game doesn't have high enough stakes to get him excited. So he stays in a -EV game despite the fact that he is destined to lose in it. He is choosing a -EV game because he wants excitement. In other words, he is, consciously or unconsciously, buying entertainment.

He had a choice to move to a + or neutral EV game, and he chose not to. He must now accept the consequences of that choice.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm very pressed for time here, so unfortunately I can't give this debate the time that it deserves.

My reaction, though, is that there is no reason why the higher stakes game has to be -EV. Were there no pros, the fish would simply inhabit every level, their choice depending on their bankroll. Sure, it's exciting to play higher stakes. But you don't need to sacrifice expectation to play higher stakes, or at least, not by definition. To continue the casino analogy, the EV of a roulette table is the same whether you're playing at the $5 or the $100 tables. The excitement comes from moving up to stakes that are meaningful for the bettor, but the casino doesn't start paying out 30-1 on the numbers just because the stakes are higher, as if that's the higher stakes "fee" gamblers have to pay.

That the higher stakes games are -EV is not what makes the game exciting, it's an unfortunate trade-off for the excitement that the fish would rather do without. It's not "exciting" to be playing against better players: some TAG who lurks to your left, folds for 20 hands, raises to isolate you, and then grinds you down with aggressive play doesn't make the game fun. The stakes can be fun, but they will be considerably more fun if everyone is there to gamble and enjoy themselves. Someone who is there to suck up their money diminishes the experience considerably.

[Innocentius]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I took care of my kid full time until he is 2. I think it's better he spend some time with other kids. My husband is a college teacher which means he has some days he doesn't have to go to office. but he is busy overall.

[/ QUOTE ]


Are you SERIOUS??? You honestly think it's better that he spend all day with other kids and a daycare provider than with his Mommy? Get a grip lady!! Have you ever thought of starting a play group? I am bothered by the fact that you pawn your kid of to a day care center so you can play poker. This is so wrong it should be illegal.

But hey, think of all the great things he will learn from those other kids - espacially the older ones. Believe me, he will get enough interaction with other kids from K-12 and you can play poker all day for 13 years. He's what, 3?? Yeah, you're making a BAD decision!

[/ QUOTE ]

What is this?! The middle ages? The kid might well be better or at least no worse of at a day care center.

Many people here play poker for a living. Many call themselves professional. If you see playing poker as your job and have kids, leaving the kids to day care while you are playing is a no-brainer.

Welcome to the 21st century.

[Innocentius]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I sometimes feel guity spending all my time playing cards instead of doing some real work. But if I had a regular job I don't think I will have any time playing. Tough decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm still ranting on. She feels guilty that she's not doing real work and concerned that a real job would interfere with poker time. Hmmmm - poker or a real job. What about your CHILD? Don't you feel guity that you play poker instead of mother?? Does anyone else with kids have a problem with this??

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should she? Should her husband be ashamed that he teaches college instead of being home with his child?

[Innocentius]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL, i just reread the thread and noticed only one person wasn't living in 1950 still. Children that are put in daycare between the ages of 3 and 5 develop better reading skills, speech skills, social skills, and are more ready to adapt to changing social environments. There are always crack house day cares, and there are always daycares that do fabulous things for children. The fact that a child is alowed to interact with other children on a daily basis in an academic environment is very positive. You can't reproduce this environment through networking with other parents. Anyone with kids who have them as their "top priority" should consider a good day care if it is affordable. I have two kids and have a good network of parents. We all put our kids in daycare, even though most of us don't need to.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO most day care places are zoos. They are not teaching kids values and dicipline. I dont ship my kid off to some random stranger if she can be with me. Call me crazy but I trust myself to give her the proper direction a lot more than a random day care worker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think most parents agree that "shipping" children off to "random strangers" isn't a very good idea. Therefore, I'm not going to call you crazy. However, you could do some research, visit a couple of different day care centers, and talk to the people working there. Find out what education they have, what kind of education and environment they offer for the children, and then decide which day care center to "ship" your kids off to. Out of a lot of "random strangers" the laws of probability suggest that some should be rather adept at taking care of children. Some of them may even be better at it than you.

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL, i just reread the thread and noticed only one person wasn't living in 1950 still. Children that are put in daycare between the ages of 3 and 5 develop better reading skills, speech skills, social skills, and are more ready to adapt to changing social environments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of the college students in this thread need to print out this quote and re-read it a couple of times.

My wife and I are both basically conservative traditionalists. When we had our first kid (he's 7 now), we were not happy about sending him to daycare but we thought that was a better all-around alternative than raising him on only one income. In hindsight, we were idiots to have been unhappy about it at all. Both our kids (our daughter is now 4 and has been in high-quality daycare since she was an infant) picked up reading and basic math skills way above those of most stay-at-home kids.

This is not just our lucky experience. Our son's kindergarten teacher told us last year that the gap between stay-at-home kids and day-cared kids is night and day in our community, probably because stay-at-home kids spend most of the day parked in front of the television.

On a semi-related note, both of our kids get pissy when we pull them out of daycare or after-school care on holidays, or if they have to be picked up early for some reason. When you were 7 you probably enjoyed playing with your friends more than watching a rerun of Jimmy Neutron on Nick too.

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO most day care places are zoos.

[/ QUOTE ]

I live in a community of ~20k, and we have two very good day care facilities (one of which is overtly Christian which is cool with us but that is admittedly a turn-off for some). Sure a lot of day-care places suck, but it's not that hard to find good care either.

I haven't read every post, but here's my take on the situation.

Bring your child to day care 2 days per week. My daughter is 4 in preschool and she really looks forward to going. I think part of the reason she likes it so much is because it's not every day.

Schedule more of your poker time for the night hours. This should probably increase your general winrate. Also when comparing poker winnings to day care cost you should obviously benifit here as well because you won't be paying so much. The key to this idea is if you are able to schedule in more night time playing comfortably, without neglecting hubby too much. During the days the child is at home with you, take a nap with him/her at naptime. It will help get you through some of the later night playing. A 2 hour nap could get you through 3-4 hours of prime time night games reasonably.

I don't think you're wasting your life. You may have a little guilt running through you because of the situation. If you can pull off the above idea succesfully,I think you'll feel a lot better about your circumstance.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But what if our poor player is so bad that there are no + or neutral EV 5-10 (let's say) games for him? What should he do? Drop down a level or two, of course! But he doesn't. If he did, he would no longer be a losing 5-10 player, but an even or winning player at some lower level. That's not who we are talking about.

Why doesn't he move down? Because the 3-6 game doesn't have high enough stakes to get him excited. So he stays in a -EV game despite the fact that he is destined to lose in it. He is choosing a -EV game because he wants excitement. In other words, he is, consciously or unconsciously, buying entertainment.

He had a choice to move to a + or neutral EV game, and he chose not to. He must now accept the consequences of that choice.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm very pressed for time here, so unfortunately I can't give this debate the time that it deserves.

My reaction, though, is that there is no reason why the higher stakes game has to be -EV. Were there no pros, the fish would simply inhabit every level, their choice depending on their bankroll. Sure, it's exciting to play higher stakes. But you don't need to sacrifice expectation to play higher stakes, or at least, not by definition. To continue the casino analogy, the EV of a roulette table is the same whether you're playing at the $5 or the $100 tables. The excitement comes from moving up to stakes that are meaningful for the bettor, but the casino doesn't start paying out 30-1 on the numbers just because the stakes are higher, as if that's the higher stakes "fee" gamblers have to pay.

That the higher stakes games are -EV is not what makes the game exciting, it's an unfortunate trade-off for the excitement that the fish would rather do without. It's not "exciting" to be playing against better players: some TAG who lurks to your left, folds for 20 hands, raises to isolate you, and then grinds you down with aggressive play doesn't make the game fun. The stakes can be fun, but they will be considerably more fun if everyone is there to gamble and enjoy themselves. Someone who is there to suck up their money diminishes the experience considerably.

[/ QUOTE ]

The main value of multi-tabling pros is not to offer entertainment, but to increase the game liquidity and significantly shorten the wait time for a game, especially at the higher level. without the pros, the fish may need to wait 15-20 minutes before a 200+15 SNG table can fill up. in the off-peak hours, a fish may not even be able to find a game. this is why a poker site would encourage people multi-tabling even though the people running the poker site know almost all the multi-tabling people are sharks.
it is similar to the stock market, you can trade your stock at anytime because there are lots of day traders who provide the market liquidity and on average they make money off you.

[FlFishOn]

" Out of a lot of "random strangers" the laws of probability suggest that some should be rather adept at taking care of children. "

Some will also be pedophiles.

Enjoy!

[FlFishOn]

No one with day care raised children can easily admit they may have chosen poorly. It's human nature to refuse to admit you may have taken the selfish path at the expense of your children.

[Innocentius]

[ QUOTE ]
" Out of a lot of "random strangers" the laws of probability suggest that some should be rather adept at taking care of children. "

Some will also be pedophiles.

Enjoy!

[/ QUOTE ]

This is part of the reason why I suggested doing some research before you select a day care center...

[Innocentius]

[ QUOTE ]
No one with day care raised children can easily admit they may have chosen poorly. It's human nature to refuse to admit you may have taken the selfish path at the expense of your children.

[/ QUOTE ]

And, by the same reasoning, the same goes for those who raise their children at home.

[fallout1234]

Thank you, I really appreciate it.

Not to try to defend myself from all the posts against my decision, but I need to point out my baby is quite happy in daycare. I care about him enjoying his life.

I put a lot of pressure on myself to earn enough money each month to make me feel I am on the right path. My husband has always suggested I don't have to care so much about how much I earn.

[MrBlueNose]

Forget everything about daycare, how much you earn etc, the key thing from your first post is:

[ QUOTE ]
Whenever I have a losing streak I want to start looking for a job

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a horrendous attitude to have, and you should quit playing poker on a serious level before you blow all your money. You don't have the mental ability to play.

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
No one with day care raised children can easily admit they may have chosen poorly. It's human nature to refuse to admit you may have taken the selfish path at the expense of your children.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with arguments like these is that they cut both ways. I could just as easily turn around and argue that stay-at-home parents can't easily admit that they made a mistake in setting their children behind academically. But that argument would be unfair since it automatically assumes that people who happen to disagree with me are incapable of objective, rational thought.

Generally, trying to psycho-analyze people who disagree with you just ends up making you look like a dick while simultaneously undercutting your credibility.

[Dennisa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL, i just reread the thread and noticed only one person wasn't living in 1950 still. Children that are put in daycare between the ages of 3 and 5 develop better reading skills, speech skills, social skills, and are more ready to adapt to changing social environments. There are always crack house day cares, and there are always daycares that do fabulous things for children. The fact that a child is alowed to interact with other children on a daily basis in an academic environment is very positive. You can't reproduce this environment through networking with other parents. Anyone with kids who have them as their "top priority" should consider a good day care if it is affordable. I have two kids and have a good network of parents. We all put our kids in daycare, even though most of us don't need to.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO most day care places are zoos. They are not teaching kids values and dicipline. I dont ship my kid off to some random stranger if she can be with me. Call me crazy but I trust myself to give her the proper direction a lot more than a random day care worker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think most parents agree that "shipping" children off to "random strangers" isn't a very good idea. Therefore, I'm not going to call you crazy. However, you could do some research, visit a couple of different day care centers, and talk to the people working there. Find out what education they have, what kind of education and environment they offer for the children, and then decide which day care center to "ship" your kids off to. Out of a lot of "random strangers" the laws of probability suggest that some should be rather adept at taking care of children. Some of them may even be better at it than you.

[/ QUOTE ]


I have a boy 12 and girl 9. Try getting a letter from the State of Colorado saying that one of the sons of you daycare provider is being investigated for Child Molesting. I received this letter about my daughters daycare. She was 3 months when she was at this daycare. I doubt if anything happened, and she was long out of the site as my wife and I decided to live on one income and no kids in daycare when she was 6 months old. A parent or grandparent will care for a child much better than an institution.

We did put our children into a preschool program for about 15 hrs per week. The preschool was fine, religious based and operated 9 months out of the year.

But to say warehousing kids at a daycare 40 hrs is better than having a parent bring up a kids is insane. Next thing you will say is single parents familys are just as good as dual parent familys.

[FlFishOn]

You address 1/2 my argument. Daycare is often the selfish choice. That leads to self-deception.

A large portion of the 'Women's movement' has been the promotion of daycare in order to comfort the mom's that are urged to dump the kids in daycare and pursue a career at all cost. On of the costs is born by these kids. Their agenda coud easily influence their recommendations.

You also quote unreferenced social science to support your argument. When such science defies my common sense I weight it near zero.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
But to say warehousing kids at a daycare 40 hrs is better than having a parent bring up a kids is insane. Next thing you will say is single parents familys are just as good as dual parent familys.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no right answer to either of your two statements that works for every situation!!

The answer in both cases is, it depends on the totality of the circumstances.

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
You address 1/2 my argument. Daycare is often the selfish choice. That leads to self-deception.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe when stay-at-home parents see day-cared kids speaking, reading, etc. at a level far beyond their own kids they engage in a little self-deception too.

Seriously, this kind of argumentation is stupid. If you want to argue that day care is bad, fine. Stick to logic and evidence, not psychoanalysis.

[TStoneMBD]

i read alot of this thread and im pretty disgusted with alot of the posts in it. you have a problem and rather then people give you a solution to that problem they are reprimanding you for sending your kid to daycare.

the best solution to your problem that ive heard is to hold off on playing poker until your kid starts going to preschool. i think that makes alot of sense. as the others have said its not a good situation to be putting your kid into daycare for almost an entire day.

at the start of the thread you said that you want your kid going to daycare to meet other children, but its sounding like that was just a poor justification for not raising your kid yourself.

it sounds like you are making more than 20k a year. that was your first year but as you said in the early months you didnt make much. you could probably clear 40k this year easily. youre not making peanuts and thats more money then your husband makes and a real step forward in getting to that house you want.

from what ive read you cant play poker with your kid in the house, its just not possible. if this was my predicament i think i would be dropping my kid off to daycare for 4 hours a day. during those 4 hours i play poker and pick him up immediately after. if im not going to play today the kid stays home with me. i dont think making the kid spend a few hours out of the house is a bad idea but i dont know much about children to know one way or the other. i dont know what your hourly rate is but clearly if you dont think you can make much more money then the price of daycare playing 28hours a week then you should probably hold off altogether and only play poker those times when your kid falls asleep early or something. you could also have somebody come to your house for 4 hours a day to look after the kid for you. maybe a family member or if you start doing really well with poker you could afford to pay someone $10/hr.

another solution to this problem is to move your computer into your bedroom and when your husband comes home from work you go into your bedroom so that your kid cant bother you. you play poker then and he takes care of the kid all by himself. clearly i think its best if he supports this idea rather than just laying the burden onto him. you dont want to create problems within your marriage.

the guy who told you to play after your kids go to sleep and sleep 5 hours a night is a boob.

you probably dont want your kid growing up in your small apartment which is understandable, so you either have to start making money now or your income needs to increase in the future so you can live in a nicer apartment which it will if you proceed in getting better at poker.

[Mempho]

Why are you unable to play the primetime shift more often? What goes on until 9pm? Is your husband unable to take care of your child three nights a week so that you can fit most of your play into this time....or does your husband play every night during this block?

[TrueBritt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My background: last worked in 2002 as a programmer. left to take care of new baby. Start playing poker April, 2004.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you take your kid to daycare???? Why not play poker around the times your kid sleeps and be full time mom. This gives you an advantage of not paying day care and being a better parent. You should easily get in those 4-6 hours of poker later at night and during nap times.

[/ QUOTE ]

[krimson]

I think the daycare argument going back and forth here is very black and white. Here is a useful website about daycares, that seems to be reprsentative of either side.

http://www.saferchild.org/daycarefaq.htm

Not everyone has the option or constitution to be a stay-at-home parent. But experts say - and Safer Child tends to agree - that staying at home for some or all of the first three years is generally better for the child. No matter how lousy a parent you feel you are, your child has a powerful and innate longing to be with you and to know that you want to be with him or her.

Personally, I think you have the option to be spending more time with your child, but you are playing poker instead. It seems that your priorities are a bit messed up. The good thing about playing poker for a living is the flexibility. There is no reason you can't have your kid at home, find a pre-school or similar environment to put him in a couple times of week, for a few hours, and get your poker in then, or while he's sleeping, etc etc. Plus, if you're playing 8 hours a day of 10/20, you should be making waaay more than 20k a year.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if your husband resents the situations. Your a stay at home Mom, but skipping out the "Mom" part.

[FlFishOn]

"Maybe when stay-at-home parents see day-cared kids speaking, reading, etc. at a level far beyond their own kids "

Site your source or be gone. I believe not a word of it.

[WarBus]

My 2 cents:

There is no reason to feel guilty about playing cards.

I understand the need for day care. Spending 7 days a week with a small child can drive anyone loopy so time away is actually beneficial.

The benfit of poker is that you can play whenever you want and if you are even a moderate winner 4 tabling can bring in a fair amount of money. 20 hours a week as a 1 BB winner is $800. Not bad for a part time job.

They key is how to make the most of your freedom. Maybe send your child to day care 3 days a week and adjust your poker time.

Example:

Monday:
Day care, 3 hours afternoon poker. 3 hours evening poker.

Tuesday:
Kid stays home. Evening poker optional.

Wednesday:
Day care, 3 hours afternoon poker. No poker so you can watch Lost.

Thursday:
Kid stays home. Evening poker optional.

Friday:
Day care, 3 hours afternoon poker. 3 hours evening poker.

Saturday:
Kid stays home. 3 hours evening poker.

Sunday:
Kid stays home. Evening poker optional.

18 hours of poker. Use the optional nights to make up the 2 hours plus any times where you take an afternoon or a poker night off.

Total:
20 hours of poker. Lots of free time with your child and husband. Enough time away from your child to keep you sane. Enough evenings free for the possiblity of a night out with your husband. A decent part time job with a very flexible schedule. A good paycheck even after the cost of daycare.


Warbus

Note:
I have my 2 kids (6 & 9) 5 months a year. Poker is my only source of income. I play about 70 - 80 hours a month when I have them and 100 when I don't. My kids are older and a little more adept at entertaining themselves plus my girlfriend (does not work) takes care of their needs/questions during my afternoon sessions. The amount of time I have to take them places and do things with them is amazing.

[kiemo]

Great discussion here. Can we talk about religion, abortion, and tipping wait staff next!

[nsdjoe]

[ QUOTE ]
Great discussion here. Can we talk about religion, abortion, and tipping wait staff next!

[/ QUOTE ]

Never tip! <g>

[TrueBritt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But what if our poor player is so bad that there are no + or neutral EV 5-10 (let's say) games for him? What should he do? Drop down a level or two, of course! But he doesn't. If he did, he would no longer be a losing 5-10 player, but an even or winning player at some lower level. That's not who we are talking about.

Why doesn't he move down? Because the 3-6 game doesn't have high enough stakes to get him excited. So he stays in a -EV game despite the fact that he is destined to lose in it. He is choosing a -EV game because he wants excitement. In other words, he is, consciously or unconsciously, buying entertainment.

He had a choice to move to a + or neutral EV game, and he chose not to. He must now accept the consequences of that choice.


[/ QUOTE ]


My reaction, though, is that there is no reason why the higher stakes game has to be -EV. Were there no pros, the fish would simply inhabit every level, their choice depending on their bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that would be an ideal world for the fish, just as it would be ideal if we could buy other forms of entertainment for free. However, that is not the reality. The reality is that the fish attract the sharks, and the higher the stakes, the more sharks there are.

[ QUOTE ]

Sure, it's exciting to play higher stakes. But you don't need to sacrifice expectation to play higher stakes, or at least, not by definition. To continue the casino analogy, the EV of a roulette table is the same whether you're playing at the $5 or the $100 tables. The excitement comes from moving up to stakes that are meaningful for the bettor, but the casino doesn't start paying out 30-1 on the numbers just because the stakes are higher, as if that's the higher stakes "fee" gamblers have to pay.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where your analogy breaks down. It's true that the expectation at the higher-stakes roulette table is the same as the expectation at the lower stakes table, but that isn't true in poker. The higher the stakes, the lower the expectation (in bb/100). For example, our fish's expectation at different levels might look like this:
.5-1: 2 bb/100
1-2: 1 "
2-4: .5 "
3-6: .25 "
5-10: -.5 bb/100
10-20: -2 bb/100
20-40: -3 bb/100
30-60: -4 bb/100
etc.

That is much more realistic than the idea that he would have the same expectation at all levels.


[ QUOTE ]

That the higher stakes games are -EV is not what makes the game exciting, it's an unfortunate trade-off for the excitement that the fish would rather do without.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. And as I said before, in their ideal world that -EV would not be there. But in the world as it actually is, the -EV is real.

[ QUOTE ]

It's not "exciting" to be playing against better players: some TAG who lurks to your left, folds for 20 hands, raises to isolate you, and then grinds you down with aggressive play doesn't make the game fun. The stakes can be fun, but they will be considerably more fun if everyone is there to gamble and enjoy themselves. Someone who is there to suck up their money diminishes the experience considerably.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. And so the logical response to the presence of the TAG is to move down a level or two. If the fish chooses not to do that, then he is choosing the entertainment of higher stakes over the profitability of lower stakes. There will be financial consequences for that choice.

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
"Maybe when stay-at-home parents see day-cared kids speaking, reading, etc. at a level far beyond their own kids "

Site your source or be gone. I believe not a word of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since this is all off-topic and since I've gotten the distinct impression that I'm arguing about child rearing with a collection of childless, unmarried college students, this will be my last post in this thread. But anyway here's a link to get you started. As always, google is your friend.

http://www.utexas.edu/opa/news/01newsreleases/nr_200104/nr_daycare010418.html

[FlFishOn]

That study offers no causation only correlation and to me looks like garbage.

It also is not a study similatr to what you state, hme raised v day care but good day care v sh+t day care.

Your case remains suspect.

I'm guessing you have kids in day care. My child went to day care for a time as well. I will forever regret my decision. You will too.

[theben]

no way. this is great stuff. take care of the kids and play some poker on the side to earn a little extra spending cash. this way, you get to spend the mazimum time with your family and still earn a little extra money to help out

[JayCo]

[ QUOTE ]
I will forever regret my decision. You will too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, not only are you so omnicient as to know what is best for this (and every other) woman's child, now you can perfectly predict the emotional state of 2+2 posters far into the future. You sound more than a little arrogant, self-important, and intolerant in this thread, even to someone who agrees with much of what you are saying. I personally tend to agree with your premise that 40 hours of day care is, for most toddlers, not likely to be as beneficial long-term as being home with Mom and/or Dad most of the time with some daycare a small fraction of the week (say 2 or 3 days per week or a few hours per day).

However, the black-and-white opinions essentially stating daycare = Selfish Evil parenting, Mom at home = Good smacks of being a judgemental holier-than-thou know-it-all. None of the posters on this board know what's best for every family, do you think you might want to tone down the judgmental attitude that only a Beaver Cleaver model of family life is correct and tone up the tolerance and understanding a notch?

[FlFishOn]

"tone down the judgmental attitude that only a Beaver Cleaver model of family life is correct and tone up the tolerance and understanding a notch? "

That model is not 'correct' but superior in most every situation where it is possible.

I don't tolerate the touchy-feely, can't we all understand garbage. 90% of what a current student learns WRT family and society is junk. Not just wrong, but hurtful.

Some day when I type faster i'll be more supportive of my positions. As it is I'm hitting the high points only.

[ QUOTE ]
" Out of a lot of "random strangers" the laws of probability suggest that some should be rather adept at taking care of children. "

Some will also be pedophiles.


Enjoy!

[/ QUOTE ]

So will grandparents, uncles, teachers, pastors, brothers and cousins. The majority of abused people I have met in my life were abused by family members. Most of them religious btw. Pedophilia and anitsocial disorders are not advertised. It is probably less likely to happen in a structured environment. Do research on your day care and this will not be an issue. Most adults are not left alone with children, some daycare's stream video online so you can always check what is going on.

[FishNChips]

[ QUOTE ]

the guy who told you to play after your kids go to sleep and sleep 5 hours a night is a boob.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, that would be me. Except I never told her to sleep 5 hours a night. I told her what my wife and I were doing in our situation. I said several times that she should try to play at night but never said that sleeping 5 or 6hours was a good idea. I also told her that she was free to do as she chooses and that I didn't think she was a bad mom or anything, but I disagree with her use of daycare.

Bottom line : she asked for input and got some (both in support and opposed to her current plan).

I also think that at the end of our posts to one another there was a general sense of respect between the two of us. I could be wrong.

A large portion of the vitriol (from both sides by the way) came during the night shift.

FishNChips

[JayCo]

[ QUOTE ]

That model is not 'correct' but superior in most every situation where it is possible.


[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, that explains it. You weren't saying your way of raising kids is more "correct", just "superior". Guess I need to retract my statement that you're being arrogant and intolerant.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't tolerate the touchy-feely, can't we all understand garbage.

[/ QUOTE ]
Apparently "touchy-feely garbage" encompasses other people's life perspectives, feelings, opinions, or points of view. One of your posts implied that you are a religious person- last time I checked tolerance is a fairly standard Judeo-Christian value. Might even be good for your kids to see you excercise that skill, too.

[ QUOTE ]

90% of what a current student learns WRT family and society is junk. Not just wrong, but hurtful.


[/ QUOTE ]
Let's extend your logic a bit. Since 90% of what kids learn in schools or daycare about family/society is "wrong" and "hurtful" to them, then if you choose to put your kids in any school instead of home schooling them, does that make you a selfish, unloving parent too?

"90%"? Was that number up your arse long before you pulled it out?

That is of course, preposterous. Most, not all, MOST, teachers and day care providers are caring individuals who chose as their life's work to try to support, teach, and instill caring tolerant values in the kids they work with. Perhaps you weren't exposed to enough of these types of adults growing up.

[ QUOTE ]

Some day when I type faster i'll be more supportive of my positions. As it is I'm hitting the high points only.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some day when you can read, hear, and absorb ideas and opinions other than your own, rather than repeatedly spew forth concrete pre-formed spite-filled absolute "truths", maybe I'll take you off my ignore list.

I rather doubt this. The problem isn't so much the volume of fish; as most of us with thorough PT databases know, the net losers with either fish, LAG, or donk stats far outnumber the sharps. Search the world over, and you'll find at least 10 fish looking for a $200+15 SNG at any given time, the problem is how they're distributed, as they're inevitably distributed inefficiently. Were all the different sites conflated into one network, fish wouldn't have an problem finding each other, and the pros would be superfluous for "liquidity" purposes.

Now the "one network" scenario is extreme, of course, but more realistically, if you take the pros out of the equation, then the market would inevitably produce fewer sites. The value of pros for liquidity - and I would say that if they are valuable at all it's only to a small percentage of fish who play higher limits - is created only under current market conditions. Remove the pros, lose a small chunk of the player pool (even if that small chunk is a bigger chunk than their numbers would suggest, due to multi-tabling), combine a few sites and networks, and you're right back to where you started.

Having said that, that's not quite the point I was responding too, as TrueBritt was advocating the value of pros as providing "entertainment". Your reasoning resembles his, though, in that it's based on the benefits pros offer under current market conditions. What I think you're both overlooking is that if you remove the pros, market conditions change, and the fish can provide all the benefits you two have listed for themselves. Pros bring nothing unique to the table other than their finely honed ability to suck up a fish's EV.

[FlFishOn]

I've tweaked a full-blooded Lib. My day is complete.

[Drac]

This study in no way supports your claims that daycare leads to superior mental development vs. home care. It says "if you use a better quality daycare you will get better results". REALLY? Wow, what a great discovery! I can only hope federal dollars were used to conduct this great piece of research.

My comments have nothing to do with judging the OP on her choices in life. Every situation is very different. Daycare quality varies a great deal from place to place in the US. I imagine that, like many things, daycare in Europe and other parts of the world is quite different than here in the US so we may not be talking an apples to apples comparison.

I'm a stay at home father (playing poker with small children around is nearly impossible unless they are sleeping). My kids stay home full time until they are 3, then go to a Montessori "school" for three hours a day, five days a week. This is certainly not like your typical American daycare facility and is much closer to a school. My daughter (1st grade now) benefited greatly from the social aspects of being with children her age. As she had nearly exclusive adult interaction for 3 years she needed to learn how to deal with other kids. I find it hard to believe that her mental development was hurt in any way by staying at home with me. She is at the top of the heap in her class and is much more verbally/mentally advanced than any of the other kids we know that went to daycare. Maybe she'd be in college now if we had sent her to daycare. Damn!

Obviously I'm dealing with a very small sample size (and possibly a small level of bias /images/graemlins/tongue.gif) but I just don't believe that kids are better off on average spending all day in daycare vs. at home with a parent. I'd really like to see some of these studies that claim this is true. Clearly there are instances of terrible parents and terrible daycare. Let's take out the extremes and find some data to support these claims.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that would be an ideal world for the fish, just as it would be ideal if we could buy other forms of entertainment for free. However, that is not the reality. The reality is that the fish attract the sharks, and the higher the stakes, the more sharks there are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so we're down to what's realistic, and I think we both agree on the reality of how fish and sharks are distributed. The analogy I was making to the roulette game with different stakes is how the poker landscape would look without the pros, though of course that's not how things are laid out now.

The problem is that you seem to be justifying your existence by claiming that you exist. Are you providing the service of a higher stakes but lower EV game to fish? Sure. The higher stakes games are lower EV, as the players are currently distributed, so the value that you're claiming to add exists only because you do. You say that you're selling the service, but you're creating the service too, in its current form.

If we're going to evaluate whether professional (or even simply highly skilled) poker players offer a valuable service to less experienced players, there are a few questions we have to consider. What unique benefit to I bring in offering this service? If I wasn't around to offer this service, what would be the alternative? These are the relevant questions, and yes, they require the ability to imagine a poker landscape different than that in which we are currently working. So the "this is just how things are argument" doesn't wash: again, I exaggerate, but just because the mob was doing what it was doing and getting away with it doesn't mean that racketeering was a valuable service.

So, taking a look at the relevant questions; the unique value that pros bring to the table is their skill in seizing their EV from another player, which isn't a value to the other player at all. The skillful player isn't defined by the stakes he/she plays at, but defined by the amount of EV that he/she sucks up. A fish can play another fish - at .05/.10 or 50/100 - and have a neutral EV, or play a pro and have a negative EV. There's nothing unique brought to the table by the pro except for the EV loss, and that is not a valueable service; rather, it's one the fish would rather go without.

Secondly, in the absence of the pros, the service would be provided by other fish, and provided far more cheaply. If I sell a product, but in my absence that product - and a better, cheaper product to boot - would be supplied by the market, it's pretty clear that I'm not providing a valueable service. There's a definite measure of value: remove something, and is what remains improved, or diminished? In this case, what remains for the fish from removing the pros is at best unchanged, but certainly not diminished. Hence, no value.

[ QUOTE ]
If the fish chooses not to do that, then he is choosing the entertainment of higher stakes over the profitability of lower stakes. There will be financial consequences for that choice.


[/ QUOTE ]

And just to be clear, the choice of the fish isn't relevant here. We're talking about our choice: the impact that we, as skilled poker players, have on others. I've made a choice to profit off of the mistakes of others, and I don't feel badly about it at all. But I know that what I'm doing isn't productive, or valuable; rather, it's my benefit at the expense of others. That's pretty much the opposite. Barry Greenstein recognized this fact (and discusses it in his book), and so tried to bring some tangible good out of what he was doing through charity work. I'm not the least bit concerned with the choices others make, but problems can arise when individuals lose sight of the effect that their actions have on others.

[OrianasDaad]

Seven and a half years ago, when my daughter was born, my wife and I started working alternate shifts to keep her out of daycare. I worked at night, and she during the day. We didn't see much of each other, that's for sure! I started playing poker full time during her first-grade year. I don't play during the summer. It's working out pretty well.

The few times she had to go to a daycare provider, she went to the "neighborhood lady" who watched my brother and sister every day growing up. She's family. Cheap too. We still vist her from time to time.

The other time she went to a daycare provider was when my wife got a job with one. My wife quit after a short stint there, for various reasons. I won't go into detail, but it was the experience that proved to my wife that day-care was not a good option.

Long story short - kids grow up fast. While discussing your situation with my wife, we decided that there will come a time when Oriana (that's our daughter) isn't as interested in hanging out with her parents anymore. We want to get in as much time with this amazing person while we can.

As far as social interaction, school will provide ample opportunity for that. These years are for you to instill a set of core values for your child. Don't give up this right.

As far as increased learning, I can only say that my daughter (2nd grade) reads at about a 4th grade level, and is at the top of her class in almost all subjects. She attends a private school.

[ QUOTE ]
I sometimes feel guity spending all my time playing cards instead of doing some real work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check your premises. There's a reason that you feel guilty for sending your child to daycare so you can do something that you don't consider as "real work". Once you understand where this feeling comes from, then you'll have a better time making your decision.

These years cannot be regained.

[JayCo]

[ QUOTE ]
I've tweaked a full-blooded Lib. My day is complete.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yet another eloquent dissertation worthy of a Bill O'Reilly. Of course I just have to be a bleeding heart liberal to support pre-school or to find posts and attitudes like yours ignorant. But it is possible you've made (yet another) bad assumption regarding my politics- I'll be lobbying for McCain in 2008.

[Drac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've tweaked a full-blooded Lib. My day is complete.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yet another eloquent dissertation worthy of a Bill O'Reilly. Of course I just have to be a bleeding heart liberal to support pre-school or to find posts and attitudes like yours ignorant. But it is possible you've made (yet another) bad assumption regarding my politics- I'll be lobbying for McCain in 2008.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, to drag this waaay OT now. How the heck can you support McCain after he caved in to pressure to support Bush? That crap they pulled on McCain in 2000 was absolutely disgusting. Then McCain turns around and kisses Bush butt in 2004? I lost all respect for him when he did that.

[JayCo]

[ QUOTE ]
How the heck can you support McCain after he caved in to pressure to support Bush? That crap they pulled on McCain in 2000 was absolutely disgusting. Then McCain turns around and kisses Bush butt in 2004? I lost all respect for him when he did that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm quite incoherent since it's 3am, but here goes...

I can still back McCain mainly because I think he's a man of integrity who also possesses a brain. IMO his party loyalty / support of Bush in 2004 came from his belief that it was in the country's best interest to do so, and he put aside his personal political interest to serve that. (He also avoids participating in and reacting to negative campaigning better than most, IMO- he came out strongly against the group trying to smear Kerry's Vietnam service record even while casting his support for Bush.) Having said that, it sounds like you & I agree that McCain was misguided in his support for Dubya then. However, he does strike me as a pragmatist who seems unafraid to diverge from blind adherence to the party line or to criticize this administration or his party if he feels it is merited (e.g., his public & active lobbying that Cheney is dead wrong to oppose an anti-torture amendment, his ongoing championing of campaign finance reform, a willingness to go across the aisle and work with Democrats on occasion, etc.).

Like any politician, he's far from perfect, but I believe he acts more out of conscience and a coherent, thoughtful perspective of issues. His actions generally strike me as attempt to actually get something accomplished rather than just acting out of blind party loyalty and/or political expediency. I have been periodically disappointed in his support of W (since IMO W's administration has taken the Republican Party and the country as a whole giant steps backwards), but as of today I see no other prominent politican I'd rather see in the Oval Office than McCain. While virtually every prominent member of the GOP openly critical to Bush's policies has become more or less silent or has been quietly pushed aside (Powell et al), McCain remains vocal and active in moving agenda items he feels important forward, oftentimes in contrast to White House public stances. (Let's not forget his classic Daily Show bit looking under the couch cushions for the elusive WMDs.)

I'm registered as an independent, but I'd be shocked if in 2008 I didn't end up voting McCain both in the Republican primary and final election.

[Zetack]

I'm somewhat skeptical of day care, although I'm sure there are some good one's out there. Pre-school, however, I feel is so valuable that even full-time stay at home parents ought to consider sending their kids. They do, however, tend to run 4-5 hours a day, not all day.

Let me throw my biasis out there though, cause they may have an affect on my opinion. My Mom was a stay at home Mom who didn't start working till I was a teen. But she thought so highly of pre-school that she actually helped to found one so I could go. (She'd been unable to find a montossori type program in our area when I was a kid and thought that was an important type of experience). and she was really commmitted to being a full time Mom. Educators run in my family and I have a huge bias towards that kind of thing.

I have a stepdaughter in kindergarden. My wife pur her in pre-school when she got divorced, the Grandparent's picked her up after pre-school and kept her till my wife got off work. When my wife moved in with me and quit her job, we made the conscious decision to keep sending her to pre-school because we thought it was so valuable. My wife did sub at the preschool and probably ended up being there once a week or so, including sometimes in our daughter's class so there was some interaction there.

Results? According to her kindergarden teacher she's the most advanced in her class in pretty much all areas. She blows me away with what she can do, writing, reading, math, computer skills... She's also bright, curious, full of life and energy--pretty much downright wonderful (OK, for you parents, yes of course she is five, she has the temper tantrums, the whines the...well you know the list--just like every other five year old). Now she's an incredibly bright kid, but pre-school was a very imortant part of her development, and for an only kid the social interaction just can't be overstated.

I also like pre-school, because many parents seem to be absolutely clueless when it comes to raising kids. My wife is now full time at the pre-school and its simply unbelievable what some of these parents think and do. Give the kid a little early sanity in their lives at pre-school eh?

Anyway, I'm skeptical of day care generally, as I said. And the joy of poker is the incredible flexibility it offers. If I were the OP I think I'd strive for a little more balance. Try a pre-school, have the child home a little more and then juggle the playing time so you still get the hours in that you need.

Just my take on it.

--Zetack

[boscoboy]

"I'm registered as an independent, but I'd be shocked if in 2008 I didn't end up voting McCain both in the Republican primary"

this is gonna be hard for you to do

[Drac]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO his party loyalty / support of Bush in 2004 came from his belief that it was in the country's best interest to do so, and he put aside his personal political interest to serve that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the only reason he backed Bush was because the Republican Party told him he'd never get their help in 2008 unless he did so. Therefore, it was ONLY his personal political interests that led him down that road. I haven't completely written him off as he does a lot of things I really like but it's going to be hard to forget how he caved.

[JayCo]

[ QUOTE ]
"I'm registered as an independent, but I'd be shocked if in 2008 I didn't end up voting McCain both in the Republican primary"

this is gonna be hard for you to do

[/ QUOTE ]

I should have been clearer - I'm not registered with the Independent Party (with a capital "I"), I am simply not registered as a Democrat or a Republican. I can therefore choose which primary to vote in for any given presidential election. (On top of the fact that I have major problems with both parties, this is the main reason I'm registered with no party - I can choose which primaries to to vote in where my vote has a small chance of mattering more.)

[MarkL444]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would assume people on this board won't consider poker as gambling?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ed Miller says it is gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

its only gambling because you cant control what happens. you are taking a risk. do casinos gamble?

[JayCo]

[ QUOTE ]

I believe the only reason he backed Bush was because the Republican Party told him he'd never get their help in 2008 unless he did so. Therefore, it was ONLY his personal political interests that led him down that road.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. Playing devil's advocate though, if he really believed despite his distaste for the Bush 2004 campaign that his party and the country was better off A) more united behind the president who was an odds-on favorite to win the nomination and B) also better off with him as president in 2008 (instead of say, Jeb?), then even personal political ambition can be written of as trying to do what he believed is in the country's best interest.

I do agree with you though that it is disappointing / frustrating to see people of conviction like a McCain often be more or less forced to "go along to get along" in order to remain electable. At least he's still willing to speak out even when it's not particularly well-liked by his party and the administration.

Anybody know where McCain stands on gambling / internet gambling? I haven't seen any evidence of him backing that other jackass.