Professional poker-> Is it a pipe dream?

[ronzoni]

Old post worth reading,general theory forum july 2000.

Professional poker-> Is it a pipe dream?
Posted by: Mark Dodd (mdodd@telusplanet.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 12 July 2000, at 1:06 a.m.

Down below, buried deep within the Tournament thread started by Jim Brier, is a post by Mason Malmuth where he states:

"By the way, I believe that it is fairly easy to make between $5 and $10 per hour at the poker table and this number is after you have paid your rake and tips. On the other hand, it is very difficult to make $30 per hour or more. However, a few people who play very well are doing it."

I would love to discuss this. I want to know how many players CAN make $30 per hour or more playing poker. How many can make $20 per hour or more? $15 per hour or more?

Is it really possible for people to make a living at poker? Obviously it is, but is this group of players a select talented few? Can the rest of us ever hope to reach this goal, if this is in fact our goal?

All comments are welcome.

Mark Dodd

[Warren Whitmore]

Hi Ronzoni, In my opionion:
"How many people can make $30/hr playing poker."
I coulden't begin to speculate. I know several brilliant people who could easily make $50 an hour playing cards but they don't because they make $100 an hour doing other things. So I will reword your question to "of the poker playing population what percentage of players make X amount of dollars playing poker."
$/hour
0-5=20%
5.1-15.0=5%
15.1-30.0=2%
30.1-50.0=0.3% (above 3rd standard deviation)
>50=0.01%
How I arrived at these number:
(1)Think of a bunch of bell curves (the various poker limits)superimposed upon each other.
(2)From a zero sum game remove $10/hour for rake and tips. This places the mean at -$10/hour.
(3)most of the poker played perhaps 75% is at limits with a maximum bet of $5. This has the effect of "squishing" (not a statistical term) most of the population between negative 20 and 0 dollars per hour.
(4) Think of each of the proceeding curves donating less and less to the results as the games get bigger as there are fewer people playing them.
(5) Finally (as if this werent bad enough) realize that each time the limit increases the coefficint of variance gets worse limitting the people who could play if they had the bank roll but cant because they don't making it even less self weighting than it already is.

[AmericanAirlines]

Your estimate seems to run at 27.31% are profitable players.

This flies in the face of many writers who claim 95% are
long term losers...i.e. 5% are winners.

Sincerely,
AA

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I think the inherent problem with trying to come up with a percentage here is the inabilty to define the parameters of which players to compare.

If were saying 5% of ALL poker players are profitable players, I'd say it's probably easier to make a profit playing poker than make money playing golf. The point of that admittedly flawed example is - just as most people who play golf play it for reasons other than to make money, so do a lot of poker players play for social reasons.

So, why not craft a study that compares, say all players who play more than X hours annually at stakes of $Y or higher.

Until we define the parameters from which we derive the calculation, the calculation itself will remain deceptive (or meaningless depending on your perspective) to the people who care about the answer.

There. I'm sure I've cleared it all up. I don't even know what I just said. [img]/forums/images/icons/confused.gif[/img]

[SunTzu68]

This is an interesting question. However, I think many of the people who do play winning poker realize that they can make much more money in other pursuits. Most of the players that I respect and know have professional jobs that pay very well (much better than $40 per hour) and play for enjoyment. They don't see the money as money, but rather a way of keeping score.

[balt999]

Hey forget about all the Statistics, everyone is throwing at ya...they don't mean a thing. The most important thing is if you really want to be a professional poker player and you're willing to put the time and effort needed to be a pro....then you'll be successful

You can have all the percentages in the world, but they don't measure the heart of someone dedicated..

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi SunTzu,
Yes... perhaps people who do make $40 at other things would be wasting thier time trying to be poker pros... but how many of those people who make $40/hr. at other things have advantages like business connections or Ivy League educations.

I think the attraction of "Gambling for Living, How to make $100,000 a year..blah blah" is that you don't have to have those advantages.

So I believe the real thrust of the question is... "Can I really make an upper class living playing poker (and get out of the my McDonalds or whatever other sucky job/life situation)..."

As you point out... folks who already have the money don't care if they can make the money at the game... it's just "points". (Oh yeah right!)

To the real question that needs to be answered is... "Can Joe Average... if he tries hard... really make $100K big bucks doing poker?", and "If so, what are the chances?"

I mean come on... 98% of the people who burn the effort on law school become lawyers... so if you can get into law school... you have a good chance of making a living at it.

The real question here is if you can skip all that, play poker.... and still drive the Lexus.

It sound too good to be true... so that makes folks want to know the truth. Unfortunately, much like the real dealer price of a car... I think you'll have a hard time knowing without getting into the biz...


Sincerely,
AA

[SunTzu68]

Just for the record, most of the people I know who are succesfull havn't had anything given to them, as your post would seem to imply. They have had to work and struggle for everything they have. However, they did have the aptitude and motiviation to become good at what they do. I think the same applies to poker, if you have the talent and are willing to put forth the effort you can earn over $100k per year doing it. But, I think it is a mistake to think that to reach this level of success at poker requires any less aptitude or determination than at any other profession.

Simply, there are is no 'easy way'.

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi SunTzu,
Yes I agree, Poker is not an easy way to $100K a year,
in my opinion.

That's exactly what I wanted to get out in the open for the original poster.

When you read a book like "Gambling for a Living" you get the idea you might could do it. The original poster was quite perceptive in wanting to know the odds it could *really* be done. If he wasn't interested in that question, how bright could he be?

Anyway, I'd tell him to go try it just to know in his own heart.

Now.., being originally from the working class side of the Palm Beaches, I'm here to tell you... I never ever found youth and wealth in the same person... that it didn't involve some sort of "connection". Period. Family money etc.

Heck, in my entire life I've never met a young wealthy person that didn't have some non-recreatable scenario for Joe Average. Whether it was on Palm Beach Island or Cincinati for that matter. (And it is important to be Young and Rich... and good looking... or in some way... your life will be a compromise. Because that's how life really works. New York ("Money") and Hollywood ("looks") are the twin pillars of American culture. Don't tell me, if you're a guy, you never consider how a woman looks before you approach... if you're a lady, don't tell me you don't take looks and providership ability (income) into account.)

I busted my way through a degree on top of a full time job and at 40 years of age, working at one of the largest Computer companies there is... I can tell you straight in the eye... Hard Work ain't all there is to getting to the good life.

If that's all there was to it, hell everyone would be rich.

Lord knows I'm not... and truth be told I'm quite worn out. I know I've worked hard. Bottom line is, there's no linear relationship between work and reward in this world.

It is clear to me that Person A can work very hard and get very little, but connected Person B can work much less hard and get much more... You gonna sit there and tell me George W. isn't a case of this?

"Just for the Record", I'm considered one of the best at what I do, and have the "employee appraisals" to prove it. To bad they're not in electonic form or I'd post them for fun. The point? You can be considered very technically excellent... and still not earn a salary that warrants a house in an great location...

The proof of how uneven it is?

The CEO of this company (In the top 2 of the industry) is a salesman! He got knighted by the Queen of England. The Engineer that achitected the product that put this company on the map.... Relatively unknown!!!

Now I will say that if you are good at politics, well probably then, you can "move up". But like most folks born to the working class I was taught that schoozing was sucking up and sucking up = ass kissing... and that was somehow "bad" or "wrong".

My experience and observation is that it's really how business is done in the upper classes. The Harvard good ol boys club or whatever.

So if you know of a dignified, no suckup, no salesmanship, no kiss ass way of getting to into the upper classes I'm all ears. But my search for it has turned up 72o.

The idea being to "own your own life". Rather than having to conform to someone elses rules.

I suspect the orignal poster is attracted to that attribute of the proposed Poker Pro lifestyle. I know that's what attracts me about it.

If Bill Gates has trip Jacks and I have Trip Aces... the money's mine... his rank in the world has no bearing on things. We're all equal in the eyes of the poker rule book... really... not like the stories you were told in public school about socio-economics / law in general... where the reality is... he who can afford the best lawyers wins.

Anyway, no flame war intended, but I sincerely hate that Bullsh*t myth about "working your way up". Truth is executives start at the bottom of corporate HQ. Those of us who start at the *real* bottom never make it to HQ in most cases. Least-wise not without some Machevellian type scheming. IHMO.

:-)

Sincerely,
AA

P.S. Ok there are Dr. and Lawyer types out there that did it the hard way and took loans and whatnot to pay for the schooling (hell I still have a law school loan I pay on every month)... but at my age going back to finish the upper education isn't an option.

Anyway, there's no denying that it's easier for a "richy rich" to stay in the elite than it is for any of the rest of us to break into it.

As you point out, your successful acquaintances, "They have had to work and struggle for everything they have."

That's not my idea of success. Success IMHO is that your life revolves around your own personal want, needs, body clock etc. In essence, that't there's no high authority or other things in your life jerking your chain than you... yourself.

I suppose that's really the definition of hedonism or something... but so be it.

I feel our leadership is selling us out in many ways. Think NAFTA, GATT, etc.

Consider that the majority are workers, yet the system favors the wealthy... so much for democracy... we're really a Federal Republic. Ah well more idealogical head games.

We should task our leaders to do what the majority really want... which is set things up so we can all predictably engineer an awesome life, rather than waste it in the bowels of working life.

But then, there I go again with idealism... and well... you know what ol' Niccolo Machiavelli had to say about that...

"He who trades what ought for what is, surely pursues his own destruction."

Well I've written too much about a topic that doesn't belong in this particular forum. My apologies.

As for poker, well... my career took me away for Vegas. I suspect that even though I went throught about $500 worth of poker books from "Gambler's Book" club, I didn't try hard enough (seriously mean that) and tried to cram to much into to little time. I also suspect I don't have the talent for it inately.

But I did keep records. I was marginally +EV. I'd say break even is a fair assesment. And I did do it full time for a while. So I know it *is* difficult. Least for me.

So...anyhow, I'd never tell someone "Oh yeah you can do it if you just try." More like, "You might be able to do it, if you really bust you butt really hard, and even *then* you might not make it!" "The odds *are* long." "But give it your dambest shot, and nothing less, if you are interested."

That strikes me as an honest assessment.

:-)

[mdlm]

Sklansky addresses this question in his essay "Pros vs Wannabes" which is available in the Essays section on this site.

He says there are 500 people who make $50K a year and maybe 100 other people who are successful tournament/big bet players.