Should You Quit Your Day Job? — Part II

There are many endeavors that might require a 130 IQ (structuring of exotic derivatives products, nuclear engineering, and so forth). Poker is not one of them. Poker is a walk in the park compared to, say, econometrics or structuring interest rate swaps. Sure, poker requires some study, practice, and a knowledge of statistics located in Chapter 1 in a Stats 101 textbook. But 130 IQ? Nah. Heck even us lawyers allegedly have an average IQ in the 120s. And the study of law is much harder and more involved than that of poker.

Not trying to not poker but I think 130 is a bit high.

[David Sklansky]

I said a 130 is about how high an IQ you would need to have a 50% chance of successs if you did everything else right. I didn't say lower IQs are drawing dead.

[ianlippert]

From the article:

[ QUOTE ]
For example, several months ago a poster reported that he had gone from $15,000 per month to busted

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not what the poster wrote. This player posted about winning $15K in one month and then losing $9K. Considering the limits he was playing this would be normal variance. This poster was not a winning player as defined by chezlaws earlier post. Al complains that we dont want to listen, but I'm afraid that it is Al that chooses to ignore advice from seasoned online players. Forget about your age Al, how much online poker do you play? Do you multitable 4+ tables? What limits?

I have read in other threads that it is possible for a winning player to experience a 20K hand break even streak. In a B&M casino this is a little over 3 months of full time poker. I dont think there is a player in the world that could have the psychological make up to avoid tilting or adjusting their game to a weak-tight mode of play. Its no wonder B&M 'pros' bust out.

To illustrate how much the internet has changed poker, an online pro 4 tabling can clear that in 2 weeks of fulltime play. I would argue that we as a playerbase didnt appreciate the true nature of variance until we started using tracking software.

So please Al, given chezlaws criteria (I feel like you have chosen to ignore it), why is a pro destined to bust out. A pro is not someone who hits a card rush for a 1000 hands and then quits their dayjob, only to bust out a few weeks later. The majority of players do underestimate the variance involved in poker and shouldnt go pro, but there are many online pros that have their act together and should be able to support themselves for a long time.

[Jorge10]

[ QUOTE ]
The majority of players do underestimate the variance involved in poker and shouldnt go pro, but there are many online pros that have their act together and should be able to support themselves for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

A long time...I wonder where is this money going to come from, there is going to be a point when there will be more pros than money, thats pretty much the case at everything in life. I mean in the 80's everyone wanted to be a standup comedian so it sort of died off, right now its real state and poker, but everything has to end. I can see people online who are winners right now, but when push comes to shove, I am better than them and I will have to break them when there is less money available, I can see there are flaws in their games, its obvious, and im sure more than 1 is a pro.

The question no one has asked is, where is this money going to come from? I mean does money magically appear out of nowhere? Someone has to be working for it no? What if poker stops being popular? This has happened before by the way, a lot of pros went broke in poker before and only the best survived, its coming again and only the best will survive this time again, there is no doubt about it, a lot of pros that are borderline when it comes to skill level will go broke and thats what Dr. Al is trying to warn people about.

He is basically the voice of reason, so you had a good year, big whoop doesnt mean your going to snap give the finger to your boss, quit your job and rely on paying all your bills with poker. The reality is most people arent going to make it, even some that are making it now. I consider myself pretty much above most good players at my game, but even I dont quit going to school and wont quit till I finish, because I gotta have an out. Dr. Al is just trying to warn people about the future thats all.

[ianlippert]

That was one of chezlaws criteria, as long as the games stay good. There are lots of players that dont want to take the time to learn the game, but will continue to play. Not everyone is out to become pro, there are lots of casual players.

I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding, Al is talking about people that arent pro and chezlaw is talking about people that are already pro. Its not easy to become a pro online player, but its much easier than it was 10 years ago. In the other thread I estimated that the best case scenario would be 40+ hours a month for 1-2 years to go pro.

In the other thread someone said that it was 99% likely for someone that met certain criteria and Al jumped all over this guy. Well, given a certain criteria you could say its a 100% likely or you could say its 2% likely, you could chose whatever criteria you wanted to come up with the numbers. For the average player the odds are against them, but the main reason they are unlikely to make it is because the average player is a terrible player and underestimates the type of bankroll you need.

So lets get this conversation on the same level. Are we talking about an average player, or are we talking about someone who has had positive results for 6+ months and understands bankroll issues (including 6 months of living expenses).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding, Al is talking about people that arent pro and chezlaw is talking about people that are already pro. Its not easy to become a pro online player, but its much easier than it was 10 years ago. In the other thread I estimated that the best case scenario would be 40+ hours a month for 1-2 years to go pro.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify, I wasn't necessarily talking about people who are already pro. One of the good things for online wannabes is that they can demonstrate a lot about the viability of going pro before they make the leap. This is probably impossible for live players as it would take too long.

I thought the hard bit would be making useful assumptions about the future as the games get worse (I think most agree that it is likely the games will become worse than they are now). For some reason we weren't able to make progress even if we assume the games remain good.

An objective measure that indicates likelyhood of success would be very useful. David Sklansky suggested an objective measure but IQ tests seem to upset people. I think it would be clearer to put it in terms of a level of success over a period of time/hands - at least most wannabe pros should understand that. If an IQ of 130+ is needed then all that is required is a level of success that indicates an IQ of 130+ (similarly for most other criteria).

If we can find an objective measure for viability given an earn of x/hr with the games as they are now then we can run viability projections assuming that x decreases over time as the game gets worse. Then we can estimate the risk of going pro and also see how many hands we should be playing now to avoid too big a risk of going broke in the future.

chez

Btw, I read (and re-read) TOP recently. That's one of the best books I've ever read on any subject. Great job.

[Jacques]

Any of you guys who left a good job for poker had a wife or kids?
I could picture myself going pro if I were single but right now I would need enough money to retire before leaving my job to play poker.

[PokerHorse]

Okay let me get this straight. making 50k a year is no big deal on the internet 3-4 tabling 3-6. You dont have to be a great player. yet with a 130 IQ you only have a 50-50 chance of making it as a pro.?? You must be talking about B&M or high limits right?

[PokerHorse]

i dont know if i'll measure up....so i better buy more books. lol now ive done it. nice post.