[MicroBob]

I primarily consider myself 'pro' because it is my sole-source of income.

But a couple of people claimed something like "multi-tabling for a zillion hours on 3/6 does NOT make you a professional."
Evidently, if you regularly bounce around from one big MTT to another you can call yourself a pro even if you suck and are losing a ton of money.

IMO, if you are down to your last $10k and use it all to buy-in to some big MTT you are not behaving very 'professionally' with your money.

Others have argued that the girl at Starbucks who gets your coffee or the dude that rings-up your groceries aren't normally considered "professional" coffee-getters or "professional" grocery-baggers just because they get paid to do it. And certainly, for some who have these occupations it is a sole-source of income and not just a part-time job.
I think it's a reasonable argument but am not sure exactly how much weight to give it.

I'm making money, it's my sole-source of income, I approach it very professionally. Also, on my taxes I will be filing as a 'professional gambler'. It is obvious that I am not the 'other' option being 'recreational gambler'.

But to avoid too much contraversy I just say that I am 'playing full-time for income.'


Interestingly, if I qualified for the WSOP via a Stars-satellite or something, I'm sure I would be referred to as an 'amateur' or 'online-qualifier' which sometimes implies 'amateur' even though many of the online-qualifiers are pretty good AND some of them also play full-time for income.


All in all, it really doesn't matter what the definition is.
If you are a winning player then you are a winning player. And if you are a losing-player then you are a losing-player.

I have much more respect for someone who doesn't consider themselves 'pro' but who can consistently beat the game then I do for someone who says they are a 'pro' and 'look at me, I play 40/80 and higher' but they are deep in debt.