Should You Quit Your Day Job? — Part II

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I mentioned this DVD in our forum, but some people insisted it was irrelevant because the busted pros were all brick and mortar players.

[/ QUOTE ]

The objection was not simply that these players were bricks and morter players. The question is whether any of these players were ever winning players, earning enough to support their lifestyle and whether they had sufficient resources to handle the variance of the games they were playing in.

I don't intend to buy the DVD but maybe you (or anyone else who has watch it) could be kind enough to tell me.

chez

[Al Schoonmaker]

If you go to the website, pokerbustouts.com, you will learn that some of them supported themselves for many years, and at least one ran his bankroll to over $700,000. Others won major tournaments, including WSOP events.

You must face up to one reality: NOBODY with extensive experience in the world of poker believes it is easy to make it as a pro. We differ on how difficult it is, and what percentage of wannabes fail, but ALL of us know that most of them don't make it.

Regards,

Al

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If you go to the website, pokerbustouts.com, you will learn that some of them supported themselves for many years, and at least one ran his bankroll to over $700,000. Others won major tournaments, including WSOP events.

You must face up to one reality: NOBODY with extensive experience in the world of poker believes it is easy to make it as a pro. We differ on how difficult it is, and what percentage of wannabes fail, but ALL of us know that most of them don't make it.

Regards,

Al

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because someone supported themselves for a few years and/or did well in a few big tournaments does not mean they are winning players. Live tournaments are high variance and have lottery type wins so the illusion of being a winning player is, for many, just that an illusion.

Again, were any ever really beating the game for enough to support their lifestyle and have enough resources to handle the variance.

Its an important question because if they didn't then there only chance of surviving was to get very lucky. Compare this to the type of winning online pro I've been asking you about, who can statisically prove they are beating the game for enough over 100,000's of hands and who have enough resources to handle the much smaller variance.

Can you really not see the difference?

chez

BTW I never said it was easy.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Perhaps you didn't say it was easy, but one post in the earlier thread said that an individual with fairly modest qualifications had a 99% chance of succeeding. And several other posters took less extreme positions in that direction.

You clearly don't want to consider any evidence that goes against your beliefs. Some of the people on poker bustouts supported themselves for more than 20 years.

And you confuse 100,000s of hands with the total experience of the professional's lifestyle. I have stated in the current issue of "Card Player, " "Some young people have played more hands in a few years than the old-timers played in their entire lives."

But there is immensely more to survival as a pro than just playing hands and having a bankroll. That's one of the points Ed Miller and I have been trying to make.

As many young people have always done, you regard anything outside your immediate experience and beliefs as irrelevant. As a professor and parent, I am used to that attitude. I recognize that NOTHING I or anyone else can say to you will have any impact.

However, I know that some of the people here are more mature and open-minded. If Ed and I can keep some of them from making serious mistakes, our articles are worthwhile.

Regards,

Al

I think one of the dangers facing the younger crowd is that they sometimes make decisions with few outs. That is because they think they're passion today is their passion forever. My passions change every 2 or 3 years, so I am fortunate to have taken a path that has given me outs.

Take some scenarios:

Young person gets a degree (4 year) and goes straight to poker (no 9 to 5 office job first). If poker does't work out, then she has a decent amount of outs. She can get an MD, JD, whatever. She can try for an entry job.

Young person gets a degree (4 year) and goes straight to corporate job. She has more outs: JD, MD, (and now MBA, because of work experience requirement); move up within the corporation to better job; get a different job that pays more (because she has experience); or go pro in poker.

Young(ish) person gets graduate degree. Even more outs, and can go pro in poker.

Young person with no degree and is a poker pro. Few, if any, outs to work corporate. Most outs are jobs that don't require education or experience - min wage jobs.

[chezlaw]

You have me completely wrong. I don't know why you don't address the points instead of attacking me.



[ QUOTE ]
You clearly don't want to consider any evidence that goes against your beliefs. Some of the people on poker bustouts supported themselves for more than 20 years.

[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to think I'm questioning you because I'm close minded. You are wrong as you would find out if you actually persued any line of argument rather than introducing more seemingly irrelevent examples. Pro's with 20 years experience going broke might be relevent but this is the first time you've mentioned them.



[ QUOTE ]
But there is immensely more to survival as a pro than just playing hands and having a bankroll. That's one of the points Ed Miller and I have been trying to make.


[/ QUOTE ]
Ed Miller posts always seem well reasoned. perhaps he would like to comment for himself on the claim you found absurd.

[ QUOTE ]
1) Winning player. Someone having played 100,000's of hands beating the game for enough. Ring games not tournaments.

2) Well bankrolled. Something like 1000 big bets for their level and 6 months living expensis.

3) Assume the games remain good.

We can argue about precise definitions of 1) and 2) [by 'enough' in 1. I don't just mean enough to survive each month] . 3) is an assumption for the sake of discussion.

I reckon that anyone satisfying 1)-3) has an excellent chance of making it as a pro? If you insist this is absurd then can you give us the reasons why you think its absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

[I have changed a few of the words to make the quote clearer but I don't think I changed the meaning].



[ QUOTE ]
As a professor and parent, I am used to that attitude. I recognize that NOTHING I or anyone else can say to you will have any impact.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a bit silly isn't it? I think your mistaken and ask you for an explanation. You don't explain but tell me I should believe you because your exerienced, and you conclude there's something wrong with me!

chez

I believe no matter how good you play or how much money you make, if you don't have health insurance, you're not a professional poker player. If you don't contribute to a retirement plan, you are not a successful professional poker player.

[Al Schoonmaker]

I most definitely have never said that you should believe ME because I am this or that. I have said that virtually EVERYBODY with a lot of experience in the poker world says that the odds are against making it as a full time pro.

I don't think there is anything wrong with you except that you're young and think you know everything, and older people have been saying that about young ones for millenia.

One purpose of education is to develop the ability to learn from other people's experience. Hopefully, you will develop that ability someday. I very strongly suspect that your parents and teachers have made similar comments.

Perhaps you will succeed as a full time pro. I hope you do. But I will not waste any more time trying to educate you.

Regards,

Al

[chezlaw]

Sadly, one thing I'm definitely not guilty of is being young.

Clearly there has been a misunderstanding between us. you think you're imparting wisdom on those who need educating, and I was attempting to have a rational discussion between equals. Forgive me for my temerity.

chez

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I most definitely have never said that you should believe ME because I am this or that. I have said that virtually EVERYBODY with a lot of experience in the poker world says that the odds are against making it as a full time pro.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a fact that no one has long-term experience with making it as an online poker pro.

The B&M experience is relevant, but only in a general way. The life experience of professional sports bettors and stock market speculators is probably equally relevant.

Have you noticed that the more successful online players are predominantly people who previously had no serious stake in the B&M world? Why are wet-behind-the-ears kids running rampant in the new environment? Why aren't more of the seasoned B&M pros cleaning up online?

That's a very provacative overgeneralization and I'm sure there are a lot of answers. But one thing that strikes me repeatedly is that "online poker" is a very different game from poker. Many of the ideas that strong B&M players have brought with them truly do not apply online or at least need to be seriously modified.

The most successful online players are the ones that get that. Many are simply fresh eyes who react to what they see online and don't even realize they are trampling on dogma. Others are old line B&M players who truly embrace the most fundamental poker truth. Adapt or perish.

The players making the most money online are often not the ones with the best strategic understanding of poker. Multitabling, sophisticated monitors, software tools, data mining, reads based on stats, bonus whoring, rakeback, 15-minute table sessions, and many other new things matter very, very much.

So I don't blame the kids for being reluctant to listen. Slavish adherence to B&M advice is not what got them here.

Of course ignoring your elders is not such a clever plan either. Much B&M wisdom remains very relevant. The important thing is to listen and then think for yourself.

My view is that for online pros the B&M model is too restrictive. The problems these kids are facing are the same ones that afflict musicians, athletes, small business startups, and anyone living in an immature and undercapitalized industry.

Be realistic about your personal potential as a player. Save your money. Act like a professional. Develop your talent to the maximum. Keep informed. Be prepared for change. Bring a parachute.

Basic stuff for the NFL rookie, future rock star, or newly minted online pro.