Darwinian question for full-time poker players

[coolhanded]

As a guy who started playing poker seriously about 6 months ago-----not full-time, but with a notion that this could be like a part-time job to earn extra income------I can't seem to get comfortable with the idea of how so many full-time poker players can generate a "good living" (when considering the opportunity cost of not having a traditional day job) strictly on poker profits, and that this is sustainable.

These days, seems like everybody wants to play money poker and a lot of people think they're good enough to score a decent hourly rate doing it. In order for so many to be able to sustain a positive hourly rate, there must be losers, and for the winners to consistently win, there needs to be a steady supply of either (1) losers who just won't quit, or (2) a steady stream of new players, among which many will show negative P&L and then either quit or fall into category (1).

Right now, it appears clear that the supply of category (2) players is more than adequate to sustain professional players out there, both veterans and new full-timers who want to play for a living. But at some point, the supply of newbies should taper off, and you're left with pros playing more and more against each other rather than against easier prey. This means the average pro is better, which makes it harder for any pro to sustain an hourly rate that he/she desires or is accustomed to.

So where does this all end up? Not too much of a concern at the moment----we're in a late-1990s-tech-stock-type poker boom right now with money flying around tables everywhere. But with more and more people learning, studying, reading about, talking about, practicing, and playing the game, the average poker player is getting better, and it's only the winners who ultimately will stick around and keep playing consistently. I realize that there will always be tourist-types in Vegas and Atlantic City who don't mind losing and chalk it up as a cost of some entertainment, but it’s going to get harder over time. Of course, people were calling a Nasdaq crash 3-4 years before it actually did, so maybe this red flag is a little early and the approach should be to “make hay while the sun’s shining.” I’d certainly be happy to make $15-$25/hour on the side for a while.

Thoughts?

[reddred]

You make good points.....even as the field of players gets better, and the competition gets tougher, there will always be a loser for every winner. I agree that the boom will taper off at some point, but there will always be a large field of players, and on any given day there will be people who will lose (and some of them will be really good players) for all those who win (and of course some will break even). The X-factor in poker is the luck involved, and the subsequent tilt that follows when good players go on extended downswings of bad luck, all of which can be compounded when a "full time" player has the pressure of making his rent of mortgage $ for the month. I agree that the field of good players will grow, and make the battles tougher to win at some point. I've asked the same question myself about the full timers, and have great admiration and respect for those that are successful. But for me, personally, I enjoy poker too much, and feel that the grind of doing it full time would take a lot of the enjoyment out of it. (Plus I don't think I'm good enough yet [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].....to me it's like betting on your favorite football team every week....be tough to just enjoy the game....

[jasonHoldEm]

You get a warped view of the poker world from 2+2. While the majority of players here take things seriously and play well we represent just a (very small) fraction of the poker universe.

There are many players out there who just play for fun and don't mind losing $100 (or $1000 for that matter) just for entertainment value. These players either don't understand the game or choose to ignore proper strategy in favor of having a good time (i.e. perhaps they know they shouldn't be drawing to that gutshot straight, but they choose to chase anyways because they like the rush they get when they hit their hand). The lesson here is always to behave yourself at the table, be friendly, and make sure everyone goes home happy. If they enjoy themselves they will be back for more.

J

[Joe Tall]

I can't seem to get comfortable with the idea of how so many full-time poker players can generate a "good living" (when considering the opportunity cost of not having a traditional day job) strictly on poker profits, and that this is sustainable.

My opportunity cost went up as I became a better poker player that's why I quit my job after making more and more every month which eventually eclipsed my salary.

Sounds like you are a going through a losing streak right now.

Welcome to the forum,
Joe Tall

[coolhanded]

[ QUOTE ]


My opportunity cost went up as I became a better poker player that's why I quit my job after making more and more every month which eventually eclipsed my salary.

Sounds like you are a going through a losing streak right now.



[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that read isn't entirely wrong---it's true that I haven't made the money I think I should have by now given the number of hours I've played (you read that a lot on 2+2), but I still think my reasoning about the games getting tougher over time is valid. Of course, as another poster noted, this is a serious poker crowd here, and many people now getting in on the poker craze probably wouldn't understand Sklansky's "Theory of Poker" if they bothered to read it.

P.S.---Way to tout your own success via your response. Very subtle.

[A_C_Slater]

You must not forget that two years from now you will or at least you should, improve as a player. Just always keep learning. 80 million people in America play poker on a weekly basis. Don't worry, the influx of bad players will never end, I can assure you. Do you think people who work 40 hours a week and have a wife and kids to take care of have time to learn to play poker expertly? Some determined types do, but the vast majority do not and they're constantly looking for ways to escape. Poker is their new escape.

[Joe Tall]

but I still think my reasoning about the games getting tougher over time is valid. Of course, as another poster noted, this is a serious poker crowd here, and many people now getting in on the poker craze probably wouldn't understand Sklansky's "Theory of Poker" if they bothered to read it.

Sorry to hear about your losing streak. Keep studying and reading the forum.

What you don't know is that the games were good before the poker boom. There are so many players that play the game, just to 'play'. I have a group of friends that I've been playing poker with for over 20 years. They know that is all I do now. They didn't believe me when I started studying. I bought them books. They have read them.

They still play the way they have always have. They refuse to change.

In addition, you can read TOP 100 times and I didn't get a great grip of it until I became a student 7CS, O8 and other games.

Subtle? I think I was clear. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Again, welcome,
Joe Tall

[Paul2432]

People like to gamble. Look at all the -EV house games that built Las Vegas. Do you think the casinos are worried that people might catch on and stop playing?

Paul

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
People like to gamble. Look at all the -EV house games that built Las Vegas. Do you think the casinos are worried that people might catch on and stop playing?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the way I think about it too. If it were true that the poker "bubble" has to "burst" because all of the losing players will go broke, then the slot machine "bubble" and state lottery "bubble" should have burst a long time ago. The current state of poker may not be sustainable, but I don't think a sudden giant change like a stock market crash is likely. Instead, if there is a decline, it will be gradual as poker slowly stops being fashionable and something else becomes the current fad. Poker is still on its way up, and even if it starts to not be as "cool" anymore, there are always plenty of people behind the curve who don't realize it, so the games will stay good for a long time from now. Plus, a lot of people who have discovered the game in the past few years really like it and aren't going to stop playing. In the games I play, there are plenty of people who have been playing poker for decades (many of whom are bad, losing players), so I don't see a reason to expect that all of the bad, losing payers today will quit in a few years.

Remember too that the current poker fad is part of a longer trend towards increased popularity, availability and acceptability of gambling of all sorts that has been happening for decades. That seems to be a real cultural shift that will stay with us rather than a temporary change.

[A_C_Slater]

Also, the average losing player believes himself/herself to be a winning player. They don't keep records. They have selective memory, remembering the "big nights" and forgetting the huge losing nights. Why make efforts too improve when you're already beating the "suckers" who just sit there folding all day? Don't they know you have to play to win? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Hell, even the average slot player believes themselves to be "beating" the slots. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]