[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding, Al is talking about people that arent pro and chezlaw is talking about people that are already pro. Its not easy to become a pro online player, but its much easier than it was 10 years ago. In the other thread I estimated that the best case scenario would be 40+ hours a month for 1-2 years to go pro.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify, I wasn't necessarily talking about people who are already pro. One of the good things for online wannabes is that they can demonstrate a lot about the viability of going pro before they make the leap. This is probably impossible for live players as it would take too long.

I thought the hard bit would be making useful assumptions about the future as the games get worse (I think most agree that it is likely the games will become worse than they are now). For some reason we weren't able to make progress even if we assume the games remain good.

An objective measure that indicates likelyhood of success would be very useful. David Sklansky suggested an objective measure but IQ tests seem to upset people. I think it would be clearer to put it in terms of a level of success over a period of time/hands - at least most wannabe pros should understand that. If an IQ of 130+ is needed then all that is required is a level of success that indicates an IQ of 130+ (similarly for most other criteria).

If we can find an objective measure for viability given an earn of x/hr with the games as they are now then we can run viability projections assuming that x decreases over time as the game gets worse. Then we can estimate the risk of going pro and also see how many hands we should be playing now to avoid too big a risk of going broke in the future.

chez