Pro Poker Players as Job Applicants

[VBM]

i don't think anyone is saying poker players can't be hired for anything ever.

for some jobs, where all prospective candidates are likely to be coming in roughly equal, i.e none are likely to have salient work experience, sure.

e.g. if i'm hiring a car salesman and none of my candidates have car sales experience, i might give an extra edge to the poker player over say, the guy who's been working in retail.

but, if i'm hiring for a more specialized profession & my choices are between:
1. a 2-year removed college grad who has been playing poker successfully and
2. a 2-year removed college grad w/ a successful 2 year track record in the job or field i'm hiring for

unless there's some compelling external factors, i'd likely go with 2. if 2 has been successful, there's likely less ramp-up time to adjust, there's some verifiable track record, and less likely to be a change in work/lifestyle for the hiree to adjust to.

doesn't mean 1. won't or can't be a home run. but you're just more likely to have some-degree of successful quantity with 2.

[vexvelour]

First, can I get a job, then?

Second..only kidding. I don't know about all of you, but I agree with Dan. I think for the most part poker players would make incredible employees. Bright, adaptable, quick. There is a mile-wide gap between a poker player and a gambling addict. Addicts are desperate people and probably would give themselves away in a heartbeat to any right-thinking regular poker player in a personal interview. I also find it a great thing that hiring managers are open to employment gaps for personal growth. [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[USGrant]

I think an overwhelming majority of people in the corporate world have not caught on to the "poker craze" and don't watch or care about televised tourneys. As poker players who play and watch the game, we probably overestimate just how much the game has gone mainstream. It definitely is fad-ish (I walked into a KMart yesterday and saw a promotional display selling those cheap, flimsy Hold Em sets in a metal lunch box-looking thing), but that doesn't mean that 98% of hiring managers for companies haven't maintained the deeply ingrained image of pro poker players as kind of seedy, balding, Sateen jogging suit-wearing men in their 50's with serious compulsive gambling issues -- that's if they had ever heard of the concept of a pro poker player to begin with. Let's face it, poker players are gamblers and everyone is nervous about dealing with gamblers.

[Dan Mezick]

To All:

I will respond to other contra-arguments on this thread by the end of the week. I'm choosing to respond to Dr.Al here and now.

Dr.Al,

Here you go:


"You forget one extremely important difference between you and most hiring managers: You play poker, and they don't."

That's changing... and that's my main point. Poker has been a subculture; it is now part of American pop culture via TV. This increases the respectability of excellent poker players who may also coincidentally be job applicants.

Business owners have been enjoying cards for decades in America. These are the type of hiring people that will appreciate the incredible range of skills a truly good player has worked on and mastered to be successful at the game. Indeed, a poker discussion with a real poker fan who also runs a business and hires people can be a great icebreaker. This can turn a percieved liability (poker) into a winning asset that gets the job. How? By connecting with the boss in a way that other applicants cannot even imagine or think.



"You understand what it takes to play winning poker, and you respect those qualities. As I argued in "Nobody Understands Us," most people don't differentiate between poker players and other gamblers. You can read it at cardplayer.com; click on magazine, writers, and my name."

I examined it, and I see all your articles, here:
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_maga...an_Schoonmaker

You make some very strong points, but less strong as of 2005. Again, each passing day, that's changing. Poker is now mainstream. A certain percentage of new players actually understand the incredible range of skills required to play well. Also, they have come to understand the extremely high emotional maturity and corresponding "EQ" winning players MUST have. These personal characteristics are highly desireable in any team effort.

As for the interview itself: any good player is going to probe. Any good applicant is going to try to guide the interview. Casual use of a few poker terms in passing can accomplish both goals. If the manager doesn't take the bait, ditch the poker discussion idea. If he signals some understanding, a little more poker talk can be a great icebreaker and prove you are absolutely in the right interview.




"Even if someone does not have a negative stereotype, he will want RELEVANT experience for any significant job. How does a poker player prove that his experience is relevant to most jobs?"

The applicant does it by demonstrating how he can solve complex problems on the fly with incomplete information. And this is my MAIN point: any winner player can generalize his hard-won poker skills to apply them to almost ANY situation. Instantly, because the skills are highly developed and internalized from habit and constant use.

Interviewers want to know the THINKING behind getting a solution, not just the correct answer. It's safe to say a winning player is going to listen far better, ask far more incisive and perceptive questions, and demonstrate way better overall analytical skills than the average applicant. There really is no contest here.

This poker playing guy is exactly the kind of person you want to bring in on an existing team. You want someone who is going to size things up fast and adjust to what's actually going on, now.

Dr. Al, you yourself have said elsewhere in a 2+2 post that poker is about power.

The winning player understands power, and he fits in fast. He does not deny reality. No. He embraces reality. This makes him very adaptable and perhaps even more conscious than the average person. Again I'm talking *winning* players here, the top five percent. These are the very same people that will have a very real 2-year gap on the resume.

So the way the applicant proves that his poker experience is relevant to most jobs is to leverage his full range of perceptive powers and skills during all phases of the job-find process, but especially during the facetime interview, where he has intentionally isolated his prime target, the hiring manager with at least "no judgements" about poker.

If poker is about anything, it's about understanding others. Individuals focused on understanding others tend to do very well indeed, wherever they work, and whenever they interview.

Lastly: I believe long-term winning players are business people... who simply don't yet realize it yet.

I believe learning to play winning poker is the greatest practical training anyone could ever receive about running a business.

Business is, after all, a people game. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Al Schoonmaker]

Dan,

I agree with your general points about "game selection," but must take exception to one point you made.

You used the word "team" in your reply, but poker players are TERRIBLE team members. Our game is extremely competitive, all against all. In fact, if you play as a team, it's called "collusion" and "cheating."

If a hiring manager is looking for highly individualistic, ruthlessly competitive people, poker players are worthwhile. If he wants a team player, don't even consider poker players.

Thanks for raising an important subject.

Regards,

Al

[Kellermann]

Al wrote [ QUOTE ]
You forget one extremely important difference between you and most hiring managers: You play poker, and they don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has simply to do with the fact that most people value people like themself high.

I like to use the term "metaskills" when talking about fields of expertise. Bankroll management and discipline are what I call metaskills of poker. E.g. not only beating other people out of their money. However it takes a fellow rat to acknowledge those skills.

If Al was to hire someone for a job he would also know what kind of person a ph.d. in psychology is and what metaskills are related to that education. Again - he would see through the university degree and know what other skills the applicant possesses.

So make sure your hiring manager has the same background as you [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Another classic example is military. You not only learn exciting new ways to kill people but also widely respected metaskills like discipline blablabla related to it.

bottom line: most hiring managers will tell you to [censored] off if you tell them you are a pro poker player.

[sumdumguy]

You can convince me if you can come up with a "real" job where a poker player is better qualified. With these guidelines:

1. Name a company, organization, or profession
2. Name a job opening (title)
3. Provide a job description
4. List minimum education (degree/certification)

Describe our candidate poker player's age, employment and education history as follows:
1. Current Age
2. Age completed degree/certification
3. Past work experience
4. Number of most recent years playing full time poker
5. Explain how he is best applicant for position in 2 SHORT paragraphs maximum

For example,
Age: 30
Education: completed BA economics at Age 22
Work Experience: 1 year gas station attendant, 6 months babysitting.
Poker: Spent last 10 years playing poker.
Description: I am best applicant for job because...

I am conceding you the benefit of choosing the company, organization, or profession, job title, and of use of your best personally tailored candidate to apply for said job. Now, convince me!

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I think for the most part poker players would make incredible employees. Bright, adaptable, quick. There is a mile-wide gap between a poker player and a gambling addict. Addicts are desperate people and probably would give themselves away in a heartbeat to any right-thinking regular poker player in a personal interview

[/ QUOTE ]



Go to any poker-room in the country at any time of day and tell me how many players in there fit the 'bright, adaptable, quick' image and how many fit the 'gambling addict' image.

I suggest that the majority convey an image closer to 'gambling addict'.
if you narrow it down to 23-30 year-olds in the poker-room you might do a bit better.
And still better if you narrowed it down further to 23-30 year-old college educated individuals.

But, in general, the perception one can get of the 'typical
poker-player from just looking around the room is NOT one that would likely be attractive to many employers.
And I think this is the image that still persists (and, in many cases, rightly so).

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Hi,
I have been quite successful in business. Now I have taken a break from working, just playing poker for a living. What I am noticing is that the logic of the poker game is similar to that of business. It is the kind of fuzzy logic: a player bets on a k-high flop means dependant ont the player a certain % chance he has a king, a king on the turn reduces the chance he has a king even before he conducts another action. I have come to the conclusion that the huge majority of my opponents in both business and poker does not understand this.

Thus, I think that if you manage to convince the employer that poker has proven to you that you have the ability to make good decisions in an environment full of uncertainty and lack of information and this has resulted in substantial profit, some will be impressed.

Remember, you played poker because you wanted to test yourself in a competitive environment and you like a tough challenge (not because it is nice to sleep 3 hours extra [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]).

[Dan Mezick]

The whole foundation of my argument is that *winning* players are the desireable candidates.

This would amount to 3 to 5 percent of all the players in a typical poker room on any given day.

A very small subset of the player population.