[ohnonotthat]

[ QUOTE ]

Anyone who averages $4000+ per month at 3/6 without playing some absurd number of hands should be moving up pretty quick. So what you will find is that no one who is good enough to prove this claim will actually stick around long enough to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow - they censored $lut ?

- It was just a Christmas gift to those who hold fond memories for the REAL "Saturday Night Live".



I have several friends who earn ~ $4,000/month playing 2-4 thru 5-10 and several more whose win rates would equate to 4k/month if they played full time.

Of the former group, two are stay at home Moms, one is a stay at home Dad, two more are [semi] professional writers, one is finishing his thesis and one simply has no ambition whatsoever and will never move beyond the lower limits. (The brackets surounding "semi" are meant to acknowledge that despite their talent neither has ever nor likely will ever make a living with their keyboard).

The second group is composed mostly of college students and the like who for one reason or another are either not good enough to move up (not everyone adhere's to the Peter Principle) or are unable or unwilling to stash away enough to fund a leap to the next level.

- There are more than a few out there who succeed, flourish or even excel at the [mechanical] nature of 2-4/3-6 but who fall flat on their face when they attemt an attack on the higher limits where the games are typically played at a much faster pace.

It's more or less accepted wisdom that there are those who make names for themselves in big games but lack the ability (or more often the patience and discipline) to beat the smaller ones; why should it be so difficult to accept that there would be [many] more of the opposite ?