Ed\'s Sept. article
 

It should be stickied in every freakin' section of the forum. Great, great article. Maybe some of the people we've seen post about "going pro" will listen to you, since they don't seem to listen to anyone else.

Great job Ed!

Re: Ed\'s Sept. article
 

I agree, the article was very well written and made alot of interesting points. Thanks!

Re: Ed\'s Sept. article
 

i agree 100%

actually it detered me from selling my camry and buying a beamer.

the picture is weird though [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Ed\'s Sept. article
 

I agree. Really the only "should you go pro?" article/post I've ever read and considered useful. He has two feet in reality AND he manages not to come across as preachy. Good work NPA.

Re: Ed\'s Sept. article
 

[ QUOTE ]
AND he manages not to come across as preachy.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, that's the hard part. I always come across as preachy. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Ed\'s Sept. article
 

While I think this was a good article, I would also like to see some discussion by older people such as Harrington and Robertie on when the golden age of backgammon money play ended.

Re: Ed\'s Sept. article
 

I think he is full of it. Am I the only one? I am sure the games will dry up a little when the poker boom dies down, but great players getting in 1500 hands a day are not gonna have to worry about making rent 5 years from now.

FWIW, I also found the article interesting and well written, I just dont agree with most of his points.

Re: Ed\'s Sept. article
 

[ QUOTE ]
great players getting in 1500 hands a day are not gonna have to worry about making rent 5 years from now.

[/ QUOTE ]

They could if they spend themselves to the very limit of their current income.

Re: Ed\'s Sept. article
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
great players getting in 1500 hands a day are not gonna have to worry about making rent 5 years from now.

[/ QUOTE ]

They could if they spend themselves to the very limit of their current income.

[/ QUOTE ]


I didnt mean to argue that good poker players should spend as much money carelessly and without regard. Like I said I also think the games will get a little bit harder in the future. But it seemed to me that Ed was implying a lot of the people that are doing very well on the internet now may be in trouble some time in the near future when the games start to dry up. I just dont believe it. There is still tons of room for poker to grow, especially overseas. I just dont think the better players have all that much to worry about.

Re: Ed\'s Sept. article
 

I liked the point about how unlikely it is for a young guy (but really it applies to anybody) is to be grinding it out at poker for 40 years in a row. Which leads to the question: When are you likely to be getting out of the game and what are you going to be doing then?

You have to be making really serious bank to put yourself in a position to not work any more, or even to have a really serious multi-year cushion. I doubt that anybody making merely pretty damn good bank to the tune of say 150k or so a year is going to put themselves in a postion of being able to retire from it, even 10 years down the road.

And quite frankly, what would you guess is the percentage of online players making a living at it right now that are still going to be making a living at it ten years down the road? I'd guess its a pretty small percentage even if you assume the games never get worse.

If you've been full timing it for two years (and how many can say that) you're probably only beginning to get an inkling of what a grind its going to seem like if you're still at it ten years from now. Not to mention 20 or 30.



--Zetack

Re: Ed\'s Sept. article
 

I agree with you. Give me 50-75 thousand dollars in excess cash from my normal living expenses which poker can do, and in 5 years of wise investing I will never have to work for my living expenses again. Give me 10 years and I will be very rich. Life can be good if you are smart.

Re: Ed\'s Sept. article
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you. Give me 50-75 thousand dollars in excess cash from my normal living expenses which poker can do, and in 5 years of wise investing I will never have to work for my living expenses again. Give me 10 years and I will be very rich. Life can be good if you are smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you're an investing god then, and my hats off to you. I'm not nearly that advanced. I don't think that if you gave me 250k right now and assuming that I didn't have to tap that but didn't put aside any saving from my job, that I could be in a position in five years not to ever work again, much less if I was only getting 50k a year to invest.

10% return a year after five years gets you to about 411,000.

--Zetack

edit:

Just for fun I looked at it as 75k (to give you the biggest benefit of the doubt) coming in a year with 10% interest. After five years you've got 503K. Retiring on that? Really?

Ok after 10 years, 1.3 million. Doable, I suppose.

If you split the difference between 50 and 75K a year you end up at just under $1.1 million.

Now if you can get 30 percent returns annually, your numbers do start to look very good. I just ain't that good an investor.

Re: Ed\'s Sept. article
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you. Give me 50-75 thousand dollars in excess cash from my normal living expenses which poker can do, and in 5 years of wise investing I will never have to work for my living expenses again. Give me 10 years and I will be very rich. Life can be good if you are smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you didn't read the article, because one of my main points was, "Take 50-75 thousand in excess cash and invest it in something other than poker."

EDIT: Sorry.. that came across ruder than I intended. Hopefully you agree with my premise that if you have a $200k poker bankroll and no other assets, you should take a significant chunk of that money out of your bankroll and invest it.

Re: Ed\'s Sept. article
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think he is full of it. Am I the only one? I am sure the games will dry up a little when the poker boom dies down, but great players getting in 1500 hands a day are not gonna have to worry about making rent 5 years from now.

FWIW, I also found the article interesting and well written, I just dont agree with most of his points.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think a great player will have to worry about making rent. I think a decent/good player who is making good money now needs to start planning, though.

For instance, you play ok, put in a lot of hours, and make $150k a year. You're single and 23. You are oozing money.

Now you're the same player, it's five years later, and you still play ok. You even still put in a lot of hours. You're married and have two kids. Because conditions aren't as ripe as they used to be, you make $100k a year.

Single and making $150k a year is WAY different than married with two kids making $100k a year. If you are smart when you are 23 and put a lot of that excess cash away, then you'll be fine when you're married with kids. If you piss that extra cash away buying toys and playing $50-$100 NL with David Williams (ahem) then you're heading for a major financial crunch.

That's the audience the article was intended for. The best of the best obviously don't have anything to worry about.

Re: Ed\'s Sept. article
 

[ QUOTE ]
Now if you can get 30 percent returns annually, your numbers do start to look very good. I just ain't that good an investor.

[/ QUOTE ]

The odds of success for an individual with the right skillset to make 50K+/yr playing 3/6 poker online, is roughly equavalent to the odds of that same individual making 30%+/yr return on up to $1-2 million equity in the stock market.

Re: Ed\'s Sept. article
 

Also, I should have mentioned that the money invested can be used as collateral to take out a loan of the equivalent money at low interest. I can then invest that as well, almost doubling my results. So your 10 year figures are actually closer to my 5 year figures. I have been leveraging like this for a few years now, and the results have been excellent for me. Taking on debt can pay off in the long run if you know what you are doing.

Re: Ed\'s Sept. article
 

Ed, you can call me a crack-whore mofo son of a bitch and I won't be offended because your books make me $$$.

And I like the fact that you encourage people in your articles by mentioning facts and not making professional poker sound like an impossible dream. I agree with Sklansky and Malmuth who wrote that one can make $100,000 a year gambling for a living if you apply yourself correctly. Maybe others can make more in other fields, but I am not a sheeple who will follow the conventions of a corrupt modern society and try to impress people with the number of letters behind my name. Ok, back to the Philosophy forum.

PS: If I had a poker bankroll of $200,000 and no other assets, I am moving to southern Ukraine which has the best looking women in the world, and where I can live the life of a King for 1/3 the cost of living an average lifestyle in America. Besides, the games here are loooooose.