Should You Quit Your Day Job? — Part I

I'm cross-posting this from the Psychology section at Alan's suggestion.

I have been corrupted and destroyed by my addiction to poker. I have no job, nowhere to live after next week, and not the money even to buy my dinner. I am 27 years old.

I am ruined for work, for honest labour, corrupted by the quick reward of the big win, but I know I can’t make money out of poker. However much I might win one day, I will lose the next.

I never touched a pack of cards until about ten months ago. I'd had problems with alcohol, drinking to blackout, until I got myself to AA. I went to meetings for six months, and stayed sober for nearly two years. I'd lost a lot of friends through my drinking. It was wonderful to discover I didn’t need to be a drunk, and that people liked me.

I did nothing to address all the problems I had with my self-image and my background that led me into trouble with alcohol. My life got better in so many material ways, but I didn’t tackle my self-loathing. In addition, I’d always had an immature attitude to money, feeling it terribly unfair that I wasn’t born wealthy and would never be rich. Then these new friends introduced me to poker, and I learnt what it means to be poor.

We’d play home games once or twice a month, for a £20 buy-in or a couple of times £100, the most I won being £50 and the most I lost £250. These games however weren’t to be my downfall. It was the Internet sites. Since the start of the year every penny I earned in my job I lost at online poker. Often I’d lose the entire month’s pay packet on the day I got it.

I went a couple of times to Gambler’s Anonymous meetings, both after going bust and thinking it a good place to bum cigarettes. I listened to their stories and felt vaguely superior – after all, wasn’t my game, no-limit Texas hold’em, “the cadillac of poker”? I didn’t take in anything that I heard.

My every waking thought was and is about poker. I read Brunson, Krieger, Alvarez, Holden, Yardley, Sklansky, Helmuth, Caro, Harrington and so many others. I read on game theory and probability. I thought about mathematics for the first time since school. I got much better as a player, but the problem was with my psychology, with the gambling fever that controls me. I’d always want to play for the maximum amount of money I have available. I’d use my entire bankroll in a game. If I had £3000 I’d want to gamble it all at once, not play at £100 tables. It’s been my ruin but, being who I am, I couldn’t have done anything else. I’m not the cold, clinical player calculating hourly win rates. I want the cocaine-like rush of the big win.

A month ago I quit my job before I was fired. It was a clerical job working for a lady’s home-run company. It paid well, more money than I needed, but the hours were long and I got very bored. I worked in my own room so could easily just play poker when meant to be working. I am also an English literature PhD student, though a combination of trying to work full-time through lack of funding and my addiction to poker has meant I’ve neglected my studies. I’ll lose this soon too. An irony is that many of the people I was studying, my literary heroes, were all successful and slightly obsessive poker players.

Just before I left my job I’d had a good half-week, winning £1100 overnight playing £1/2 and £2/5, then £400 playing head to head against one of these new friends who finally realised however much he re-bought, he couldn’t beat me. My game really was getting better. Then the day after I quit my job, I put all £1500 into a £10/£20 games and won a £3572 pot after someone made a very bad all-in on top pair against my low trips. I cashed it out and thought I was made. But it didn’t matter how much money I had, as I could do nothing but gamble with it.

I lost all that money later that week as soon as it went back into my account. The next morning, slumped against a tree in the park, I realised that my entire self-esteem was now bound up with my daily wins or losses. A few days later I extended my credit card limit so that I could buy in again. I put in £900 and got it up to £3500 and cashed it out. So I was able to pay off my credit card and had £1400 in the bank. I put £1000 of that in, turned it into £3000, and thought I was invincible, although I saw I could never maximise my winnings because I’d always want to keep playing until I lost my original buy-in. I didn’t play every day and didn’t play for more than 20 hours a week, because the stakes were so high. I just had to win or lose as much as I could as quickly as I could.

I won a thousand more one night, then the next morning feeling very tired I went to play again. I didn’t have any cash so took half a dozen CDs to a famously tight second hand music shop and pleaded with them to give me 10p more than they’d offered so I’d have enough for the Internet café. Then I lost the thousand. When I play well, I switch tables after I win any big pot and cash out the profit. When I’m losing, I never think to cash out even when I’m briefly ahead.

On Monday night just gone I lost everything. I had £3000 in the bank and a blank credit card. I could have gone travelling, or put down rent and deposit on an apartment. I could have replaced my shoes since they have holes in them, or bought a pair of trousers that weren’t ripped, or had my hair cut for the first time in months. I could have done anything. Instead I lost all that money, and £2000 on my credit card too. What makes me so sad now isn’t thinking of the money I’ve lost, or what it might have bought me, but a hand I misplayed where I’d have won a £5000 pot, regardless of the river, if I’d not folded to my opponent’s huge bet on the turn. At the very worst time, in that instance I became scared of the money.

The players I put myself up against on the £5/£10 and £10/£20 tables have so much money, the poorest with bankrolls of £10,000 and some over £100,000. I have seen people win £15,000 in a day’s play, all of it tax free. They can take risks, going all-in on flush draws or top pair, which with my bankroll I just couldn’t do. I should never have been playing with them.

Like every other compulsive gambler I read and grandiosely identified with the narrator of Dostoevsky’s The Gambler, of whom it’s said:

"You have not only given up life, all your interests, private and public, the duties of a man and a citizen, your friends (and you really had friends) - you have not only given up your objects, such as they were, all but gambling - you have even given up your memories. I remember you at an intense and ardent moment of your life; but I am sure you have forgotten all the best feelings you had then; your dreams, your most genuine desires now do not rise above pair, impair, rouge, noir, the twelve middle numbers, and so on, I am sure!"

Even in this, I’m deluding myself. This character was a Russian aristocrat playing high stakes roulette in c19th casinos. I’ve been nowhere more exotic than an Internet café.

[Al Schoonmaker]

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

No, I said that conditions have improved substantially since the time I wrote: "Don't quit your day job." Because conditions have changed, I said, "Don't quit unless you have certain qualifications."

Part II of this series will be published soon, and it will discuss the steps you should take AFTER deciding to become a full-time pro.

Since some of my closest friends are pros, I obviously don't believe that nobody can make it. I believe that turning pro is an extremely important decision that should be taken with a full understanding of:

1. The odds against making it.
2. The rewards and costs of becoming a pro.

All good poker players calculate EV and base their decisions on the odds or various outcomes and the rewards and costs of each outcome. I am absolutely convinced that many people are making an extremely important decision based upon:

1. An extreme underestimate of the probability of success.
2. A naive, nearly childlike perception of the rewards and costs of success and failure.

I have recommended a DVD, "Poker Bustouts." Some people said it did not apply to them because all the bustouts are B&M pros. I urge you and others to go to the Psychology Forum and read a new thread, "re: Dissolution of a poker player." He and other posters have reported making lots of money online, but ending up broke, depressed, and disillusioned.

Regards,

Al

[magates]

[ QUOTE ]
I have been corrupted and destroyed by my addiction to poker . . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why Alan wanted you to post this here. What does this story have to do with playing poker professionally?

[chezlaw]

I am baffled by your unwillingness to defend your specific points or accept that many don't apply to winning online players. Here we go again - Jim Dixons post is very sad but it's nothing at all to do with whether or not a winning online player can make it as a pro.

Can you give any reasoned argument to support the view that, if the games remain good, a well bankrolled winning online player hasn't got an excellent chance of making it as a pro? If not that just leaves the chances of the games becoming bad, which we can all discuss happily.

chez

[PokerHorse]

I cant argue with you. my problem with the whole deal is that so many are caught up in the Math and not the mental aspects of it. many of us can become decent players, and rather quickly nowdays, but most of us are not equiped for evrything else that poker brings.

[ QUOTE ]


I have recommended a DVD, "Poker Bustouts." Some people said it did not apply to them because all the bustouts are B&M pros. I urge you and others to go to the Psychology Forum and read a new thread, "re: Dissolution of a poker player." He and other posters have reported making lots of money online, but ending up broke, depressed, and disillusioned.

Regards,

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

Al, no offense, I've read this entire post from start to this point and now you're just reaching for straws to defend your arguement. if you read that post by the disillusioned guy you would realize that he was not a poker pro, but an addictive personality who quit drinking and then got hooked on poker and played far beyond his bankroll and skill. I believe he even said he would play his entire bankroll in tournaments over and over again. This isn't some guy who diligently built up his bankroll and then lost it to a -300 BB swing.

As for the analogies comparing poker to other economies, we have to be honest and realize that poker is more like doing drugs than playing the stock market. It's addictive. The nature of the drug industry is not as cyclical as the stock market. Reading the disillusioned guys post will make the addictive nature clear.

[Al Schoonmaker]

You wrote: "I am baffled by your unwillingness to defend your specific points or accept that many don't apply to winning online players."

I explicitly stated several times in the article that some of the points in my "Don't quit your day job" do not relate to winning online players. However, I and many other people with far more experience than you -- including successful middle limit pros and two world famous players -- have stated that the odds are against making it as a pro.

Alas, it is absolutely impossible to prove ANYTHING about the future. All I can offer is the opinion of people with a great deal of experience. Several of the people who have posted here have extremely naive expectations, and I am convinced that some of you are heading for life-damaging disasters.

You wrote: "Can you give any reasoned argument to support the view that, if the games remain good, a well bankrolled winning online player hasn't got an excellent chance of making it as a pro?"

The words "excellent chance" are absurd. They imply that the odds of success are greater than 50:50 or even 75:25. I doubt that you can find any knowledgeable, experienced person who would agree that the odds are favorable for someone whose only qualifications are being a well bankrolled winning player.

However, I also state in Part II of this series that for certain people becoming a pro can be a good career choice. In other words, I am willing to admit that my advice does not apply to everyone, but they had better be MUCH better qualified than just being a well bankrolled winning player.

Regards,

Al

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the analogies comparing poker to other economies, we have to be honest and realize that poker is more like doing drugs than playing the stock market.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually playing poker and playing the stock market (meaning short-term trading, not investing) are very much alike:

1. If you are very talented, hard working, and don't mess it up in any of various ways (e.g. tilting) you can make a lot of money by exploiting edges and outplaying the fish.

2. The variance is very high.

3. Rake/commissions.

4. Many people think they are winners but few actually are.

5. Gambling addiction is a major problem in both areas. Trading is just another form of gambling. That society doesn't recognize this just makes it harder for compulsive stock market players to get help. Otherwise there is no difference.

[chezlaw]

Hi Al

Maybe we're close to getting to the heart of the matter.

1) By winning player, I mean someone having played 100,000's of hands beating the game for enough. Ring games not tournaments.

2) By well bankrolled I mean something like 1000 big bets for their level and 6 months living expensis.

3) We're assuming the games remain good.

We can argue about precise definitions of 1) and 2) [by 'enough' in 1. I don't just mean enough to survive each month] . 3) is an assumption for the sake of discussion.

I reckon that anyone satisfying 1)-3) has an excellent chance of making it as a pro? If you insist this is an absurd then can you give us the reasons why you think its absurd.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I and many other people with far more experience than you -- including successful middle limit pros and two world famous players -- have stated that the odds are against making it as a pro.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't rely on claims of experience. I expect I have you and mnay world famous players, who play live, heavily dominated and it means diddly-squat.


chez

[Megenoita]

Chez, why does your experience mean diddly squat?

M