Cooke's, "Play to Live or Live to Play " article

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Thanks Mason and 2+2 for allowing the "nerd" in me to be expressed on the Poker table in the form of beating the uneducated..

[img]/forums/images/icons/diamond.gif[/img] Ditto that- and this is what it's all about boys....I think the competition in poker is more seductive than in many other areas. It's all about being the best you can be. And of course, the real pros have that one special edge. They LGPG....Babe [img]/forums/images/icons/heart.gif[/img]

[Fishy]

You're saying that for the same amount of effort, the top poker players are not earning nearly as much as top executives, movie stars, etc.

I don't think that is true, for the effort and intelligence needed to be a winning player is nothing compare to running and achieving success in a highly competitive industry. The economy is a HUGE game with millions times more players than poker, hence the huge variance in earnings is to be expected albeit for only a small minority.

The amount of profit made in business also is due to the large capital involve in those multi-million enterprises. If you think in terms of percentage expected value/risk, for a finite time period. I don't think poker is that low.

Even the best investor Warren Buffet only managed an average 24% annual rate of return compounded.

Also, in general your earning potential should reflect your skills too in the real world and in the real world, acquiring knowledge, information and business skills are easier in the sense that there are more available resources, literatures for study than poker, the business world has more symmetric information flow than the poker world. Then the greater competition should increase efficiency and bid down the value of these guys.

Those who do achieve the top levels you're talking about are due to monopoly of knowledge, luck, or greater input(effort/captital).