college campus

[mctommy015]

Where do you go to school obsidian?

[obsidian]

Illinois State

[KKbluff]

Purdue University.
1. Id guess anywhere from 30-60%
2. Long term probably around 10-15% (exculding bonus money won etc..)
3. I know of only 3 guys that make over $1000/mo at Purdue from Party and I am one of them.
The other guy lives down the street from me and he won the party cruise but wasnt 21 at the time so he had to settle for the cash (he does pretty well or so i hear).
The 3rd guy i know of I met at the bar along time ago, he was making almost enough to go pro (well over 1k/mo).
I actually know of one more Boilermaker that makes over $1000 a month, but he is a grad student so he doesnt count [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Btw there are about 44,000 people at Purdue so I obviously dont know ALL the good card players, but I know many.

[drudman]

I wrote this editorial response in the UMass daily newspaper.

PLEASE NOTE: The fourth paragraph originally read, "Online poker, which moves fast, allows an individual to play approximately 80 hands per hour. In a casino, this rate is approximately halved. Without the aid of a dedicated dealer, the individual would be lucky to see 30 hands per hour (at least this has been the case in my now four-year career of playing at UMass)."
Unfortunately, the editing staff are complete morons and printed it as you see on the site, rendering my calculations seemingly incorrect. I sent them a scathing complaint.

Daily Collegian Article

Among the 10 UMass Students I referred to are Daryn, TheBruiser, Eugeneel, myself, and a handful of other guys whose handles I don't recall on these forums.

One thing I know for sure is that UMassPoker.com is the largest college poker community in the world. Bongggggg.

EDIT: Now reading some of the prior responses to this thread, it sounds like some of you are exactly the type of player my article addresses. Not all of you, but some.

[SoCalRugger]

I didn't see the original article, so I have no idea what you're basing your article on. But what's up with this?

"We'll be generous and assume that the individual in question plays in a 50-cent/one dollar game. "

How is that being generous? Unless that is the limit specifically mentioned in the original article, that seems like a pretty poor choice to base your example on.

Then you come up with the conclusion "Our average-to-good player would therefore need to play 20 hours a week to make an average of $120." That's a pretty low-ball estimate if you ask me.

I just don't see how you can call $140/week unreasonable, when it's a pretty low winrate for anyone playing small stakes limits (2/4 +).