Pro Poker Players as Job Applicants

[Dan Mezick]

Trading success and poker success are correlated. I agree with what you are saying.

Regarding "entreprenuer" I have to say this is a very ripe area for discussion. The basic premise that a truly winning player a)disciplines his mind to b)outplay less-focused and less-disciplined opponents by c) mostly exploiting their mistakes is just one strong premise (of many) for a very convincing opposing argument that winning poker players can win big in entreprenuerial small business.

I'll get to this one shortly.

I like the contra-points raised by this reply post, since it raises a discussion about just how transferable winning poker skills actually are. And to "where" specifically.

[Jeffage]

If everyone were like you, I'd give it a try for a year and come back to working if cards didn't go so well. Unfortunately, many employers would politely tell you to get lost with that big hole in your resume (as well as worries about your gambling, particularly if the job involves financial transactions).

Jeff

[Dan Mezick]

My reply to Dr. Al states that from 2003 to 2005 the image of poker has improved dramatically, that many people know the lingo, and a few really appreciate what it takes to develop a complete game since they may have tried to do so and found it aint as easy as it looks.

None of these trends can hurt the successful player in terms of selling those skills to an employer who understands poker, in the right spot.

[BarronVangorToth]

Dan, I agree with you 100%, however, as someone quite rightly said above, you are not John Q. Sixpack when it comes to the game and therefore your personal bias (whatever it is) comes into play. I think you'd agree that many hiring managers would not hold your viewpoint OR place such a premium on poker.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[Dan Mezick]

OK. Many hiring managers would not hold my viewpoint, I agree

But any decent player can turn poker from a liability to an asset by practicing good game selection when applying for jobs. Picking a small firm in a growing area of the economy is the first step, followed by a good amount of due diligence. Profile the players.

Now, I actually think that if I was looking for a job and used these guidelines, my goal would be to find an opportunity where the big boss likes poker and may even have a home game going. Playing in the bosses home game quickly after being hired is analogous to getting to play playing golf quickly with the boss. You have him isolated for hours and have access to him in a way others in the org simply DONT.

Most entreprenuers love poker, and they respect highly developed poker skills in young players. It says alot about the guy. Many successful entrepreneurs relate instantly to young, poker-skilled employees and may even identify with them, creating strong rapport and a huge edge work-wise for the new guy.

As the candidate, my goal would be to get into the bosses home game ASAP.

[jb9]

[ QUOTE ]
As a hiring manager familiar with poker, I have to say I would be very impressed by a college-grad applicant that explained a 2-year gap in employment like this:

"At college I learned to master aspects of the game of poker, and I successfully played poker for a living and continue to do so up to the present time. For various reasons I have decided to apply for this full-time, 'real' job."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm willing to consider explanations for gaps in people's work history, but I would not be too excited to hear this.

As FMThe2nd says, I would have concerns about the person's willingness/ability to work as an entry level team player taking orders from others after 2 years of being a self-employed decision maker who made a living being aggressive and outsmarting/deceiving everyone they interacted with and who didn't even have clients or customers to keep happy.

It can be difficult enough for people to make the transition from college to corporate, and I don't think tossing in 2 years as a gambler helps.

I wouldn't refuse to consider an applicant because they spent 2 years playing poker, but it wouldn't be something I would see as a positive. They would have to tell me a good story about why they wanted the position I was hiring for (and they would be wise not to use the phrase "real job" anywhere in their story).

Also, I would have to question the person's second level thinking skills for not expecting me to think the way I think and adjusting their story accordingly [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img].

[noggindoc]

[ QUOTE ]

Want to argue against these points?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Good job encouraging college poker "pros" to not worry about that gap in employment. I'm sure they can get letters of reference from the fish they take money from. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[MicroBob]

Your points are decent...but I think you are not properly differentiating between someone who is a 'good, responsible, talented poker-player' from someone who just SAYS they are a 'good player and have played for a living'.


In other words....MANY people who say they are (or have been) a professional poker player are exactly the type of person I would NOT want to hire.

A good poker-player has the discipline to do it.
A kinda lousy poker-player who THINKS he is good is probably more lacking in discipline than most people and likely has some sort of gambling-addiction.


Not that Dr. Phil is worthwhile...but someone mentioned that there was an episode with some guy maxing-out all of his wofe's credit-cards, etc etc because he KNOWS that online-poker is a beatable game.
This guy probably considers himself to be a 'professional' since it is how he is attempting to make his income.
The fact that he is a sucky player and keeps losing has nothing to do with his own declaration of his professional-poker-hood.


I've met some elder folk who claimed to be 'pro poker-players' back in the day.
Their personality nor their play at the tables particularly impressed me.


For someone who is hiring...I hold no grudge against them thinking that someone who has been 'playing poker professionally' is not much more than an unemployed gambling-addict until proven otherwise.

It's not unlike how when someone (friend or relative) tells me that they are 'pretty good at poker' I have serious doubts that what they are saying is true.
Because usually it evolves too, "No...I haven't heard of those poker books you mention. I just play by instinct and it seems to have worked pretty well for me so far."
and then later...
"Oh yeah....I have also figured out how to beat roulette. I'll have to tell you about that sometime because I'm SURE you would be interested. We could go down and play 'team-roulette' sometime and just tear them apart. I guarantee it works!!"



So if I was going to consider someone who did the poker thing I would be more impressed with the way you said it ("at college I learned to master aspects of the game of poker...blah blah blah") and if they couldn't speak in such terms or show me that they really have been winning all this time and not just losing money on their parents' computer in their basement THEN I would start to look at them more seriously.


I think much of the problem is not just the perception that others have of someone like you and me....but also the thousands of BAD poker-players out there with REAL gambling problems who create those perceptions in the first place.

Bad poker-players are the majority. If you are a poker-player then the chances are higher that you are part of this majority.

[bkholdem]

Yeah any poker player worth his salt (i.e. successful decision maker who outsmarted/decieved others for a living) would leave out the poker player gap and have solid references and an employment history free of gaps lol

[TStoneMBD]

what if you had filed 100k-200k on your tax returns for 2 years with your sole income being from gambling. would the employer then be impressed? i know that i would be if i was the employer. although many people have made good points here about how someone who has been selfemployed would probably not be a prime candidate for starting off at the bottom of the barrel. if you wanted to hire them as leaders they would probably be very well equipped if they actually had an interest in the company. you would also have to question why it is that they are leaving their 100k-200k income to come and work a job instead and unless they have a very good answer that is believable, i wouldnt necessarily trust them.