Thoughts on how man hours we log...

ggbman · #1 09-13-2005, 03:03 AM

There was a thread about this a few weeks ago, and i want to say i think that it's definitly possible that the consensus in these forums about how many hours people can consistently multi-table could be wrong.

I am not presenting any of this as fact, merely opinion. The thing is, there are a lot of college kinds who get in 15-20 hours of playing a week and are full time students. I don't see how it's not possible mentally to log 30-35 hours a week. I guess if you take weekends off then its more difficult, but really 2 thee hours sessions 6 days a week would be 35 hours a week. I on't get how no one reports doing this.

It also seems amazing that O'doyle can log in 120,000 hands in 2 months when thats half a years worth for some people. The point here is to suggest people are lazy, merely to generate discussion about why we set these potenitally artifical boundries for ourselves, and if they are indeed correct.

7ontheline · #2 09-13-2005, 03:11 AM

I am shocked - SHOCKED - that you would suggest that a professional poker player in his 20s who doesn't want a regular job because he likes his freedom and has lots of disposable income could ever be the slightest bit lazy. Shame on you.

NLSoldier · #3 09-13-2005, 03:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There was a thread about this a few weeks ago, and i want to say i think that it's definitly possible that the consensus in these forums about how many hours people can consistently multi-table could be wrong.

I am not presenting any of this as fact, merely opinion. The thing is, there are a lot of college kinds who get in 15-20 hours of playing a week and are full time students. I don't see how it's not possible mentally to log 30-35 hours a week. I guess if you take weekends off then its more difficult, but really 2 thee hours sessions 6 days a week would be 35 hours a week. I on't get how no one reports doing this.

It also seems amazing that O'doyle can log in 120,000 hands in 2 months when thats half a years worth for some people. The point here is to suggest people are lazy, merely to generate discussion about why we set these potenitally artifical boundries for ourselves, and if they are indeed correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

i sort of agree, but it seriously is alot easier said than done. i have so many times where ill be playing a session and just totally start to see my game deteriorating and ill know that to keep playing would be probably -EV. also, the fact that we do our work on the internet where there are an infinate number of distractions (read:2+2), doesnt help either.

ggbman · #4 09-13-2005, 03:24 AM

I've never been tempted to post while i play, even while i was 4 tabling. When i 7-8 it would just be impossible.

Danenania · #5 09-13-2005, 04:18 AM

Just because someone is satisfied with the amount they make and would rather do fun things instead of making superfluous cash doesn't make the person lazy. Maybe he is writing a symphony or training for a marathon in the meantime.

MicroBob · #6 09-13-2005, 07:05 AM

I agree with much of your post....and admit to being lazy.
I also admit to posting too damn much on 2+2 when I should obviously be playing.

One consideration - there ARE players who put in significant hours online and are successful at it (and avoiding the lazyness).

We are less likely to hear from them though....precisely because they ARE playing....and not stopping off to feed their silly 2+2 addiction.

Thus, we are obviously MORE likely to hear more frequently from the less-than-25 hour a week types.

I know one player who logs his 1700 or so hands per day.
And another player who is probably in the 35-45 hour-week range.

Both are regular posters on 2+2 (not naming names because I haven't asked them)....just not every freaking day like some of us.

I don't know if it means anything that they are also both in their late 30's and early 40's (small sample-size!!).
One of them has a wife and 4 kids so certainly has a greater incentive to take it seriously and get his hours in.

David Ross would also fit into this group (and he is not one of the first two players I was thinking of).
He easily is getting his 35+ hours per week I believe.

I think for many of the young players there is a tendency to see that you have made enough money to pay the bills, and then to slack off.

I'm 34....but I'm not married and my expenses are minimal.
So I'm more in the 'young-guys' camp on not getting in as many hours as I would like.
I suspect that if I had greater responsibilities that I would be less lazy much of the time.
Slowly but surely I'm getting there.

Schneids · #7 09-13-2005, 07:16 AM

For me it's a matter of playing worse from hours 20-40 in a week if I try to put in those hours online. I know this, so, I keep the hours down and keep the freshness up. Plus, during the summer I like having a life outside of poker and during the school year there's hours to devote to that.

stoxtrader · #8 09-13-2005, 11:02 AM

I think it's different for everyone, being a function of a few factors, particularly need and resolve.

IF I were to play fulltime I'm pretty sure I would not have a problem logging 100k hands/month if I needed to. But I would likely end up in the 75k hands/month camp. I currently have a pretty busy life and generally am able to log 20-40k hands/month.

Justin A · #9 09-13-2005, 12:48 PM

A lot of us play poker so that we don't have to work 40 hour weeks.

ggbman · #10 09-13-2005, 02:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of us play poker so that we don't have to work 40 hour weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but seriously, if you played 40 hours a week for the next 5 years, you would probably be able to retire like 2 DECADES earlier factoring in interest, etc...