how much can you make and misc thoughts

[Turning Stone Pro]

I was considering someone playing an average work week-type amount of time (40 hrs per week). $60/hr X 8 hrs/day = $480 X 5 days per week = $2400/wk X 52 wks = $124,800/yr.

I suppose if the top 30-60 players in Vegas decide not to play this amt of time, they would fall short of $100k. But, I was basing my figures on the average working stiff like myself.

Also, math was never my strong suit, so I apologize in advance.


TSP

[andyfox]

One thing to consider is that a lot of players aren't truthful about how well they do. If somebody says they're making $200,000 on the net, or $1,000,000 at Commerce, I think those numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt. Not that it doesn't happen, but I suspect it happens far less often than simply taking people's words for it would indicate.

Also, your original post was talking about how much somebody "could" make. It's one thing to consider a hypothetical and another an actual, which is I think the point you are making. Many players are only about half as good as they think they are and I would suspect they probably only make half as much as they could, or would were they truly as good as their impression of themselves.

[Softrock]

Amazing to me how this happens all the time with new players and seems to be forgotten. When I first moved up to 10-20 I rolled over the game (this back in 1988) but after about 18 months of running extremely good the cards started breaking even - took me a good five years to unlearn all the bad habits I'd acquired during that initial running good period.

[snakehead]

have you ever heard of a player called neverwin?

[slavic]

One thing to consider is that a lot of players aren't truthful about how well they do.

Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner.

Look I know most posters here are unprofitable, it would be wrong to believe that most braggerts are ultraprofitable.

My winrate looks good this year, but my 3 months hospital trip and returning to school full time means I played relativly few hours. There is no way I can extrapolate my numbers to make up for the half a year of playing time I missed.

Sorry I know I'm not adding much, but like GOT I have to say everytime Snakehead pops out to speak I perk up my ears.

Thanks,
slavic

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
"Many if not most of the players I've come to know online, especially the younger ones, vastly underestimate the degree of luck in this game and how long the long term really is when it comes to making money at the game."

im not sure if that's true. if theyre beating something like 15-30 between 5-8 tables for that much over a year of consistent (30+ hours a week) online playing that's like 3-5 years or more of my live play. so it's like theyve already reached the long term, at least what my long term will be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree.

This talk of online interests me, especially given I have the computer hardware to multi-table. But I wonder if the games will toughen up faster than they do in B&M. Would I be getting in just at the wrong time?

~ Rick

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
They're not going to go bust, they're just going to regress to the mean and become breakeven players, especially as the games continue to get worse. If they beat the game for $200K in any year they are not losing money players and probably never will be.


[/ QUOTE ]

The statement that losing players can't make $200k online in a year is silly. I know of a few. The statement that slightly winning players who play an overaggressive style and make well over $200k can't easily go bust is even more silly. You vastly underestimate how quickly things like complete lack of game selection, playing too high, playing on tilt, and other factors like that can decimate a bankroll. There are a number of kids who have taken $1k-ish rolls to $100k or $200k or more in the last year or two and then back down to zero.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Would I be getting in just at the wrong time?


[/ QUOTE ]

I started playing online in Sep '03. Time and time again, I say to myself "this is about as good as these games can ever get." Since then, the games (I've played just about everything offered online up to 30-60 limit and 5-10NL with occassional forays into bigger games) have continued to get better and better. The only game that I've seen get kind of bad is the Stars 5-10PLO game. When they added 75-150 O8, the Omaha gamblers all seemed to jump into that game instead, leaving the 5-10PLO game to get pretty crappy.

I've avoided playing some of the bigger games (75-150 O8, 80-160/100-200 HE, 25-50NLH) much in the past because they just weren't good enough of the time. Lately, even these games have been good quite often.

I'm sure online will get tougher at some point. But right now this industry is definitely still on the upswing and things continue to get better and better. A well-known sportsbook recently bought Paradise Poker. PartyPoker will likely go public in the very near future on a European exchange. These types of events adding legitimacy to the industry will probably help it even more.

That was the long answer.

Short answer - you definitely wouldn't be getting in at the wrong time.

[partygirluk]

Or the glass is half full and you have been running bad.

[ QUOTE ]
great so what that means is i could just be running good the past 5 years live games.

[/ QUOTE ]

[SomethingClever]

El D: Can't it be statistically shown with 99% or greater confidence that most of these players are winners after 100Kish hands? If they have a winrate of around 1.5 BB/100 or so?

I don't have the formulas in front of me to do the math...