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.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many outs do they have if they survive for 5 or 6 years, completely off the map, and go busted? So much for that degree. You could always try real estate, I guess.

There is much greater danger lying in wait for a winner than a loser. Go ask the brain dead boxers of the world if they can still compete at a championship level. You never know if you've got what it takes until you lose. Tyson? Ungar? This is a tough lifestyle not only to control but also to maintain. It's a true test of human adaptability, endurance, and determination.

[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

[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

[LImitPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
You clearly don't want to consider any evidence that goes against your beliefs

[/ QUOTE ]

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the past experiences of B&M Poker pros are irrelevant. 10-20 years ago what the B & M pros would say in regards to playing for a living would probably be gospel, not today.

If someone were to attempt to play poker for a living today solely in a B & M setting then the wisom of the B & M pros would still be gospel. If someone were to attempt to play for a living today solely online then you can throw that gospel right out the window.

Online poker has to many advantages:

Multitabling: someone who 4 tables of full ring will play 8x the amount of hands a live player will in the same time frame, consider the increase when you have an 8 tabler or a 6 max player.

Table selection: An online player can immediately change tables without having to wait an hour for a seat to open up on another table and when the seat opnes up there is no guarantee the new table will be any better

Note taking and Data mining tools : An online player has immediate access to accurate notes and playing styles he has made on players, even players he has never played against or seen before.

Rakeback: a person 4 tabling the 6 max games can make more in rakeback alone than a live pro playing 10-20 or 15-30

Downsings: A downsing in live play can take 3 months to play thru , online the same downsing will take 2 weeks.

Rake: much less online


There are so many other pluses to playing online that the past experience of B & M pro's don't apply to the online player.

A decent player who can manage his bankroll has a very good shot in making it as a pro online.

My 2 cents

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the past experiences of B&M Poker pros are irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to second that. Not only that but I'm sure that there are lots of people who have played B&M experienced a 10-20K hand upswing and figure they could go pro. They then hit their median and bust out, and then show up on some DVD on the internet.

seriously, 20K hands is 3 months of full time play. Someone playing 10 hours a week at a B&M would take a year to clear 20K hands. If they are playing through a high stakes upswing it would be very easy for them to think they could go pro.

How many times have you heard B&M players whine about how they cannot win online. I got news for you, if you cant beat online you arent a good live player.