Should You Quit Your Day Job? — Part II

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The internet hasn't changed the underlying premise of being a succesfull pokerplayer: the percentage of winning players are still the same. The only change is that the influx of players have provided so much money that you now have a higher percentage of players winning enough to actually make a living. Once the player base declines some of these are going to bust.

Yes the stats and the pace of play gives you information about your ability sooner via internet play than BandM, but only for the game you are currently in. This might not be good enough 5-10 or even 2 years from now.

If you just plan to be a pro for a year or two then fine. If not you should heed the advice of Al and Ed (put money aside, make sure you have outs in the form of education and job experience etc.).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The internet hasn't changed the underlying premise of being a succesfull pokerplayer: the percentage of winning players are still the same. The only change is that the influx of players have provided so much money that you now have a higher percentage of players winning enough to actually make a living. Once the player base declines some of these are going to bust.

Yes the stats and the pace of play gives you information about your ability sooner via internet play than BandM, but only for the game you are currently in. This might not be good enough 5-10 or even 2 years from now.

If you just plan to be a pro for a year or two then fine. If not you should heed the advice of Al and Ed (put money aside, make sure you have outs in the form of education and job experience etc.).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with all of that. The problem with the articles and discussion was not the advice about preparing for harder times but the overestimate of the risk of hard times for well financed proven winners.

chez

[David Sklansky]

"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?"

No. You are misinterpreting my words "no big deal". I'd say the same thing about running a three hour marathon.

[PokerHorse]

okay, so its tough but overall for a smart player its no big deal. Obviously i havent quit my day job.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
"If you have an IQ above 130

That standard seems a little high to me, I think less than 3% of people would fall into this range.

118 + a little common sense and you're golden."

I'm guessing that more than 25% of the registered users of this forum have IQs above 130. I'm guessing a 118 IQ would make you an underdog to succeed regardless of your dedication.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be willing to bet that it's significantly lower than 25%.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Look at David Sklansky's post. He wrote: "If you have an IQ above 130, know how to do probability problems, are not psychologically challenged, and you read all our books and this website, you have a better than 50% chance of being able to grind out at least $1000 at least a week."

About 3% of the population has an IQ of 130 or higher.

Less than half of the wannabes with that IQ have all the other criteria he listed.

The remaining 1-2 percent have only "better than a 50% chance" of making at least $1,000 per week, which is not a very exciting income. In fact, anyone with that IQ and those other attributes could probably make considerably more at many other occupations.

To answer your specific questions:

I don't play a lot of online poker, and I have never played four tables. I don't think my lack of direct experience is particularly relevant. Lots of men deliver babies, but no man has ever had one.

I have never said that a wannabe is "destined to bust out." I have just made the same point as David: The odds are against succeeding.

Mason's position is a more relevant criticism than yours. You might enjoy playing for a living more than working at some other occupation. I certainly believe that people should enjoy their work.

Regards,

Al

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't play a lot of online poker, and I have never played four tables. I don't think my lack of direct experience is particularly relevant. Lots of men deliver babies, but no man has ever had one.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing the whole point of multitabling. Some ppl will never beat 5/10 and up, but they can beat the fairly soft 1/2 or 2/4 games and can play multiple tables. Some people can play up to 8 tables. By 4 tabling 2/4 for 2BB/100 a part time player can clear 20K hands in a month for $1600 a month. As a part time job thats an decent amount of money.

Now if you play full time double it.

If you can play 8 tables double it.

If you can play higher limits double it.

I hope you get the point, there are many avenues to making good money in poker. Each player that wants to go pro can do it through different means. I dont think its easy, and I dont think a person should quit a secure well paying job, but depending on a persons circumstance going pro is entirely feasable.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
By 4 tabling 2/4 for 2BB/100 a part time player can clear 20K hands in a month for $1600 a month.

[/ QUOTE ]

.. and don't forget the $1600/month that 2/4 player is getting in rakeback/bonus; which also increases/multiplies with higher time, tables and/or limits.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
About 3% of the population has an IQ of 130 or higher.

[/ QUOTE ]
David Sklansky estimates that 25% of your audience have IQ's of 130+


[ QUOTE ]
Less than half of the wannabes with that IQ have all the other criteria he listed.

[/ QUOTE ]
As they are 2+2ers and have IQ's of 130+ it is likely most of these 25% know how to do probability problems and also read the books and this website. That just leaves the psychologically challenged.


[ QUOTE ]
The remaining 1-2 percent have only "better than a 50% chance" of making at least $1,000 per week, which is not a very exciting income.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or, being a bit less pessimistic: up to 25% of your audience have at least a 50% chance of making a minimum of $1000 per week.

chez

[David Sklansky]

"Look at David Sklansky's post. He wrote: "If you have an IQ above 130, know how to do probability problems, are not psychologically challenged, and you read all our books and this website, you have a better than 50% chance of being able to grind out at least $1000 at least a week."

About 3% of the population has an IQ of 130 or higher.

Less than half of the wannabes with that IQ have all the other criteria he listed.

The remaining 1-2 percent have only "better than a 50% chance" of making at least $1,000 per week,"

My words can not be used to argue your position that strongly. Three reasons:

1. A decent percentage of those I named will make a lot more than $1000 a week.

2. An IQ as low as 115, along with the other attributes, has a reasonable chance, perhaps 25%, of success.

3. None of the helpful attributes are as strong an indicator of success as past success. Anyone who is more than three standard deviations above their required hourly rate in day to day typical grinding games or multiple online games (including sitn gos) is well above 50% to continue along this path unless games start getting significantly worse.