|
|
#11
07-31-2004, 02:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Amateur & Professional: what is the difference in Poker?
[ QUOTE ]
Please explain. I would think that 80% of all players are long term losers. So roughly half of the final table players would be long term losers (maybe not much), and I doubt most have won more than 10k lifetime. [/ QUOTE ] my head just exploded as i determined whether this was sarcasm or not. 
|
|
#12
07-31-2004, 02:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Amateur & Professional: what is the difference in Poker?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Or heard Vince Van Patten endlessly refer to players as the hair-dresser or the car salesman or... [/ QUOTE ] That is so misleading. Mel Judah "the hairdresser", has been playing in the WSOP since the late 80's I believe and Dewey Tomko "the kindagarden teacher" owns (or runs) a freakin vegas casino... The WPT broadcast try to make the players seem more like MM than they really are. [/ QUOTE ] he also owns a golf course in Florida and has like 2-3 WSOP bracelets. *Dewey*
|
|
#13
07-31-2004, 03:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
i, personally, think it\'s hard to determine if these...
amatuers are losers in the long run. some of these so-called
"amatuers" are actually good poker players who just happened to get noticed because they made a final table of a big event that just happened to get shown on TV. take Greg Raymer, for example. the guy is a patent lawyer who's been playing poker a long time. although i don't know the guy to say he is a fulltime "PROFESSIONAL", the first time i heard of him was in these forums and when he won the WSOP Main Event. with that being said, that does'nt mean because i had never heard of him up until this point, that he's part of some 80% of players who lose in the long run. i've heard the guy CAN PLAY, amatuer or otherwise. likewise, there are alot of other "amatuers" who have been playing successfully for a long time unnoticed until they made that one BIG FINAL TABLE. now he's all of a sudden some inexperienced novice under the bright lights.
|
|
#14
07-31-2004, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: i, personally, think it\'s hard to determine if these...
an amateur is NOT a loser in the long run. an amateur is just someone who plays part time, in other words someone who does not derive most of their income playing poker.
a professional is one who DOES derive most of his income from playing poker. they are 2 words with clear definitions, yet you'll always find people who want to mess it up.
|
|
#15
07-31-2004, 05:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: i, personally, think it\'s hard to determine if these...
[ QUOTE ]
an amateur is NOT a loser in the long run. an amateur is just someone who plays part time, in other words someone who does not derive most of their income playing poker. a professional is one who DOES derive most of his income from playing poker. they are 2 words with clear definitions, yet you'll always find people who want to mess it up. [/ QUOTE ] I agree. there are tons of long term winners that are amatuers.
|
|
#16
07-31-2004, 05:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: i, personally, think it\'s hard to determine if these...
[ QUOTE ]
they are 2 words with clear definitions, yet you'll always find people who want to mess it up. [/ QUOTE ] This is the point of the original post. In most cases it IS very clear cut. In some competitive fields it is extremly clear. I cited golf as a perfect example. The distinction is that pros are barred from amateur competitions, and amateurs may play in some pro events but are not permitted to accept a prize. To regain amateur status after accepting cash as a prize or as a reward for professional services, such as lessons, is not easy. My point is that I can see no such clear definition in poker. And the time-spent-playing doesn't hold up: who measures it, and what's the point of maintaining it if there are (apparently) no restrictions on entry? Does anyone actually know the answer to the question? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
|
#17
08-01-2004, 04:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: i, personally, think it\'s hard to determine if these...
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
My point is that I can see no such clear definition in poker. [/ QUOTE ] oops, wrong again. must be tough to go through life with such an inability to think properly. oh well. easy: do you play poker as your main source of income? if yes, then you are a professional else you are an amateur. ty, come again.
|
|
#18
08-01-2004, 06:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: i, personally, think it\'s hard to determine if these...
The term "Professional" is definitely subjective when it comes to poker. In Golf you have to go through Q-school, in the other major sports you basically have to ink a contract. Then you always have the semi-pro spin-offs, where players make a negligible amount of money. I guess these guys aren't really "pro's", but just fringe with a hope and a dream. Like Kurt Warner who is bagging groceries one day, then NFL MVP a couple years later. He is the NFL's Moneymaker.
"Professional" is used as a romantic term by TV announcers to add color and spice. They love to talk about a player like Tommy Maddox who was out of football and selling real estate, or whatever. Next thing you know, he is one of the hottest players in the game. It is a "feel good" story, which maybe makes the action seem a little more accessible to the viewer. The point is to draw you in. It works. Now any sucker who can stack chips thinks he can play poker and beat the pros. So, the answer is that there is no answer. "Professional" is just a gimmick to advertise the wonder of poker. Moneymaker is a story that sells. Same with every other rags to riches story you have ever heard. People eat it up. So, they'll keep selling it, as long as people keep buying it. --Cents
|
|
#19
08-01-2004, 06:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: i, personally, think it\'s hard to determine if these...
|
|
#20
08-01-2004, 06:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: i, personally, think it\'s hard to determine if these...
uh, what's a dictionary?
--Cents
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
