Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Two Plus Two > Two Plus Two Internet Magazine

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 12-12-2005, 04:14 PM
avisco01 avisco01 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 112
Default Re: I Quit My Day Job

Let me preface this by saying that I am not a winning player, and have no intention of quitting my "day job" to play poker for a living (good thing considering I can't beat the game). I think a lot of what is being said is rather obvious, in that there are positives and negatives to going pro (as with all things). Most people who are critizing the article regarding the negatives involved with going pro seem to be in a sense taking offense to what the author says. Putting your personal feelings about the subject aside for a moment, I'm sure most will see the benefits that this article should have on the "wannabe" pros out there. I know a lot of these types myself, in fact, a few close friends of mine fall under this heading. The poker boom has created a situation, in this country especially, whereby a lot of our youth actually believe that the "Moneymaker scenario" is not only possible, but in effect easy to accomplish. These are the "glory-hogs." I'm not saying that the majority of 2+2'er's think this way. I'm sure most of the contributors to this website are serious, winning players who can handle playing poker for a living regardless of the apparent drawbacks. I think the author was simply alerting the young aspiring pros that poker is hard work. I don't think that is necessarily a bad idea considering that everywhere you look nowadays, you see kids in high school, and sometimes grammar school, playing poker for money. This is a phenomenon that may prove dangerous to those who think they can beat the game, and that doing so is easy, especially at a young age. Lets face it, young people are, and always will be, very impressionable. They're watching ESPN, and they're seeing people making money playing a card game. What could be more appealing? They see people playing a game, having fun, and winning millions of dollars! They see the gifted young players, some not much older than themselves, going out there and doing it. They may think, "Hey, they can do it, why not me?" They see it as an easy way to be "famous" and to live a dream. Why bother studying in school, educating themselves, and thinking of actual career goals when they can "EASILY" make money playing cards? In TOP, Sklansky says early on, to think of poker as a glamourous thing is a very very bad idea. I don't see anything wrong with the author of the going pro article stating that. And you know what, if you don't find the article helpful, or relevent, then simply move on. Just because you don't like a particular article, doesn't mean it doesn't have value to someone else. I applaud the author, and 2+2 magazine for that matter, for publishing articles such as these. The fact is, poker can be as fulfilling as anything else, but it depends on the person doing the playing. This article is basically cautionary, or I suppose, precautionary, and there is nothing wrong with that IMO. That being said, its like anything else, its all relative. Going pro, for the author of this article, is a unique situation to him, and will be different for anyone else. Going pro would be different for me, and for one of my wannabe friends, and for my neighbor, and for my colleague, and for whoever. It all depends on the individual, and the author basically tells us in his conclusion that he just wanted to share HIS experience, and I thank him for it. It puts into perspective just how difficult it is, and I think that subject deserves to be acknowledged.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-12-2005, 08:05 PM
ohnonotthat ohnonotthat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey - near A.C.
Posts: 511
Default Re: I Quit My Day Job

If you can't beat the game it must be because the game is rigged.

If you can beat the game but cannot beat it for more than "X" it's obvious that anyone who claims they can beat it for more than "X" is lying about their success(es).

If the "liar" shows you indisputable proof that backs up their claims they are obviously cheating and/or unbelievably lucky.

If you watch them play long enough to see that they are clearly not lucky it's obvious that you are unlucky.



I have finally decided that the only way to deal with the naysayers is to tell them they are "probably right"; I have no skill - well, none to speak of, and neither do any of the 1,000's of people who earn all or most of their income from poker.

It's OK; I don't mind being seen as a "lucky SOB".

The money spends as well as it did when I was doing something more cerebral.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-12-2005, 09:55 PM
ohnonotthat ohnonotthat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey - near A.C.
Posts: 511
Default Jane - you ignorant [censored]

[ QUOTE ]

Anyone who averages $4000+ per month at 3/6 without playing some absurd number of hands should be moving up pretty quick. So what you will find is that no one who is good enough to prove this claim will actually stick around long enough to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow - they censored $lut ?

- It was just a Christmas gift to those who hold fond memories for the REAL "Saturday Night Live".



I have several friends who earn ~ $4,000/month playing 2-4 thru 5-10 and several more whose win rates would equate to 4k/month if they played full time.

Of the former group, two are stay at home Moms, one is a stay at home Dad, two more are [semi] professional writers, one is finishing his thesis and one simply has no ambition whatsoever and will never move beyond the lower limits. (The brackets surounding "semi" are meant to acknowledge that despite their talent neither has ever nor likely will ever make a living with their keyboard).

The second group is composed mostly of college students and the like who for one reason or another are either not good enough to move up (not everyone adhere's to the Peter Principle) or are unable or unwilling to stash away enough to fund a leap to the next level.

- There are more than a few out there who succeed, flourish or even excel at the [mechanical] nature of 2-4/3-6 but who fall flat on their face when they attemt an attack on the higher limits where the games are typically played at a much faster pace.

It's more or less accepted wisdom that there are those who make names for themselves in big games but lack the ability (or more often the patience and discipline) to beat the smaller ones; why should it be so difficult to accept that there would be [many] more of the opposite ?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.