Should You Quit Your Day Job? — Part I

[Jacques]

If someone is in school or has a job with any prospect at all, I think they would need to make at least $200/hour today to start considering going pro.

This way you can save some and invest in a low risk business when these ridiculously good conditions go back to a normal level.

I play around 15 hours per week and I have a full time job. How long will I play if I didn't have a job? Maybe 35, maybe more but risks of burn-out must be high. That's $200K a year more at the above rate. Let's say you make $100K at your job. So you increase your earn by $100K, 65K after tax.

That's still not enough to compensate for the loss of long-term prospects. It makes sense only if you have a clear plan for after poker boom.

If you think that the quality of life playing poker compensates for the rest, maybe you are right for the first few months.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone is in school or has a job with any prospect at all, I think they would need to make at least $200/hour today to start considering going pro.

This way you can save some and invest in a low risk business when these ridiculously good conditions go back to a normal level.

I play around 15 hours per week and I have a full time job. How long will I play if I didn't have a job? Maybe 35, maybe more but risks of burn-out must be high. That's $200K a year more at the above rate. Let's say you make $100K at your job. So you increase your earn by $100K, 65K after tax.

That's still not enough to compensate for the loss of long-term prospects. It makes sense only if you have a clear plan for after poker boom.

If you think that the quality of life playing poker compensates for the rest, maybe you are right for the first few months.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a personal decision, maybe you like a conventional job and don't recognise how much some of us find it a burden we only put up with because we had no option. I don't think anyone can really advise others on that front but, for me at least, you are dead wrong about the quality of life - believe me you have never been more wrong about anything.


I tend to agree about the financial bit, tough being a pro if you're not making enough to invest a significant amount in your future. I wouldn't have felt able to go for it if I wasn't expecting to earn a decent amount more than I need.

chez

[stoxtrader]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of The people who are doing well today just don't get it. They think that the economic rules that have guided humans for centuries don't apply to poker. Poker is NOT different, and it is foolish to deny that reality.

Regards,

Al


[/ QUOTE ]

I fixed your post in order to fight "fuzzy thinking"

I wouldn't even point it out except that you were so tough on the poster who made a similar slip earlier by using "infinitely" easier.

[swarm]

I can see two sides to this argument, to me it all comes down to how much new money is put into gambling pool per year and how it is divided up amongst the gamblers and casinos.

1)Poker is a fad that has increased gambling expenditures by average joe on an annual basis and the boom will end reducing the amount of money pumped into all gambling outlets back to the norm.

2) Poker, especially online Poker has created a market shift in the Gambling economy.

Gambling in general has been on a steep and steady incline in our country. However, the younger generations are steering away from the traditional cash cow casino traps such as slots and table games (casinos have been complaining about this for years) and moving twoard games such as poker. Now the pro gambler/player for the first time gets more take than the casino out of the overall gamble pie. To further that the younger generations are playing from their homes and not their local B&M's. Big locales such as Foxwoods and Vegas are still attractions but the local B&M is deemed less needed. Maybe small time Indian Reservations and Riverboats become the Horse Tracks of yesteyear.

The new wave of games are supplied by online casinos that provide a profitable setup of table games that pits gamblers against each other where the casino has no edge but just a small % hosting take. It's now profitable for this type of casino model because of the exponentially incrased volume of hands that can be transactioned and reduction in overhead costs.

Poker had educated the gambler on the importance of odds. How many converted poker players will ever play stacked games such as BJ or Roulette for any serious amount of cash realizing how -EV the games are?

The poker boom will end, no questioning that, but what type of games will poker money filter into at the end of the boom? Will people really go back to playing house stacked game for their gambling fix or will new created games of skill be supplied?

[4thstreetpete]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm more worried about sites putting a stop to rakeback than the games going bad. I'm more worried about losing my bankroll to a hacker than to a downswing. I'm more worried about the donks in the legislatures around the U.S. than I am about the fish leaving.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's about right, I feel the same way. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[PokerHorse]

ok

[PokerHorse]

Although the idea that the games are going to get tougher is one reason not to just jump into this, there are other reasons.
First i have to say that the game getting tougher isnt relevent imo, because of a couple factors. the game itself is already tough. with any kind of players, the standard deviation is high enough to tweek heads period. this is my basic argument against the multitablers playing over 3 games, especially 6maxx. Passive calling stations will of course make you money but they also raise your deviation as tthey call you down with the most improbable hands, and get there much more than we like. then you have the trash players who are aggressive. These, are very dangerous players and there are many of these guys around.
With these players it gets more difficult to play many types of flops ,for example, you have aj and the flop comes
j77. you bet and get called in 2-3 spots. how do you proceed?With these players its much harder in situations like these to know where your at.You lose much hand reading ability. Add this to playing 4 tables or more and it gets difficult(yes, i realize that as you play more tables your deviation is supposed to level out some, but in reality i dont think its as much as people think.)Reason#1 Lesser ability to read hands, #2 less opportunities for bluffing. Both very important to long term winning.
And these are the bad players! Sure , you have a long run statistical edge, but again its how you handle the big downswings, with all the crazy beats that your going to face that makes the difference. No one is immune to this because we are simply wired for results. but evryone thinks they can handle it. Its not enough to have played 50k hands on the internet. You must have faced a large downswing, and more than 1 and been able to come out of it by recouping,(not reloading). if you have really already faced adversity and come back through your good play then i say go get
em.
Games getting tougher needs to be defined. Before the big boom players from all over were having trouble beating loose and crazy games. there was alot of inquiry on how to beat these games. This is exactly the reason for Ed Millers book, and the added sections in HFAP 21st century.
Holdem is paradoxical. the games are all "GOOD" and have been for some time, yet the game itself is very hard, even so. Please keep this in mind before you commit yourself. Also I'm happy for Ed Miller quitting his job and making Poker his career, but keep in mind that he derives significant income from his writing and teaching.That is of course fine, but the vast majority of us arent able to emulate that.
good luck

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
yes, i realize that as you play more tables your deviation is supposed to level out some, but in reality i dont think its as much as people think.

[/ QUOTE ]
10000 hands of single-table 20/40 and 40000 hands of 4-table 5/10 take approximately the same amount of time to play and provide about the same amount of action. If you are making 2 BB/100 you can achieve the same hourly rate either way.

But the 20/40 approach has approximately double the standard deviation and requires four times the bankroll compared to multitabling 5/10.

The option of playing more tables at lower limits instead of one high limit table has greatly reduced the pain of variance for many players. I'm not saying that variance isn't still a big problem, but it should be recognized that using multitabling to increase your hourly rate instead of playing higher games helps a lot.

Of course many players who do well at 4-tabling 5/10 probably cannot beat 20/40 at all. And no doubt there are a few good high limit players who just can't multitable. This just emphasizes the personal nature of this whole going-pro problem.

Many of the same arguments in this thread have been made for generations about many high-risk, high-demand occupations. Don't try to be a pro athlete, an actor, an artist, or a ballet dancer. You won't make it. You'll have no security. You'll ruin your life.

Happily I look around and see that some very talented people didn't listen. Otherwise the world would be a poorer place. The reality for entering all these professions including poker is that talent, character, circumstances, and even luck determine the outcome. The right decision can only be made after considering everything about yourself.

Should you turn pro?

It depends.

[Bankuri]

[ QUOTE ]

Many of the same arguments in this thread have been made for generations about many high-risk, high-demand occupations. Don't try to be a pro athlete, an actor, an artist, or a ballet dancer. You won't make it. You'll have no security. You'll ruin your life.


[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't quite correct. I don't think anyone is saying don't do it because you won't make it. I think people are saying you need to be aware that many people who try it will fail. I, for one, would not advise someone to not take a shot at doing whatever is in their heart as long as they understood the risks they were taking. All I ask is that people make informed decisions. The major posters in this thread (e.g. chezlaw) are aware of these risks. The rest is a debate over what the risks actually are.

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Many of the same arguments in this thread have been made for generations about many high-risk, high-demand occupations. Don't try to be a pro athlete, an actor, an artist, or a ballet dancer. You won't make it. You'll have no security. You'll ruin your life.


[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't quite correct. I don't think anyone is saying don't do it because you won't make it. I think people are saying you need to be aware that many people who try it will fail. I, for one, would not advise someone to not take a shot at doing whatever is in their heart as long as they understood the risks they were taking. All I ask is that people make informed decisions. The major posters in this thread (e.g. chezlaw) are aware of these risks. The rest is a debate over what the risks actually are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most posters are talking in this manner, yes, but Dr. S's tone was more like, "don't try it, you will fail".

M