going for it.

[daveT]

I was doing a bit of thinking about the myriad of posts that I have seen about going pro in the poker world, quitting the job, etc.

I have seen many of these posts over the past six months I have been using this site, and I haven't seen anything that I would really agree with.

I for one, do not believe that any responsible gambler would suggest playing for a living. The reality is that it is hard, stressful, and not very respectable. Realize that you will be giving up on many things in life, such as your work friends, and any hope of getting a credit card.

I know that I am listed as a mere "enthusiast," but believe me, it is because I do not post, not because I do not know how to play. I do play for a living, and I play live, which is not the most time- efficient way to play.

I want to point out several attitudes that always get me.

"My reputation preceeds me."

Get it out of your head that just because you have some sort of PhD in computer programming that you are qualified to play poker. Yes, several players have a great education, but Howard Lederer dropped out, Men Nguyen probably didn't get a great education in Viet Man, in fact, he was a factory worker before he played poker. Mike Matusow didn't go to college either. I for one, dropped out of high school. Be rest- assured that theer are plenty of MIT grads supporting the Gambler's Anonymous cause.

"Look at my win- rate."

It really disturbs me to see someone post their win rate of 1.5 BB/ 100. Are you kidding me? In order to play live proffessionally, the standard is 1 BB / hour. Considering that there are 30 - 40 hands seen per hour, the live player must be making 3 BB / 100. I think that you have some work to do.

"I built my bankroll from .5 / 1.00"

The first lesson to be learned is that poker is a high- risk job. Slowly building a bankroll is highly risk- adverse in my opinion.

"I have an easier time beating the good players."

If you are one of the miraculous players who can't beat a fish, your not ready. Are you suggesting that the fish play better than you? The reality is that you go on tilt too easy. The fish are the main meal of all serious players.

"I read such and such books."

We all have, and we all should study the books. The quote should be like. "Well, I HAD one copy of TOP, but now it's like three books, the other day, pages 222- 245 blew away in the wind. I guess I will buy another copy soon.

"I am unhappy with my life."

I really doubt that the key to happiness is poker, just as the key to a happy marriage is not having another child. The reality is that you are not able to define what will make you happy, because you do not know it exists, and poker feels like it will spark some sort of dream. The better question to ask is what does poker represent? Travel? Money? Etc...

I think that there are several things that must be experienced before trying to go pro.

1- You must bust. Every pro has said that they went bust at one point or the other. I am not saying that you earn a badge for busting. But I am saying that you should experience this before going pro, so that you can decide weather or not you want to take to chance at it with no place to find money.

2- Play higher stakes. This is why several players go bust. but I am a firm believer in taking shots at higher games. For one, when you are playing at your usual limit, it becomes too easy, and you are bound to make more mistakes. Taking shots at higher stakes gives you a sense of the great things to come and it help improve your over- all game, because the easier game will bcome easier yet.

I don't think that a good player can be built while playing the same stakes all the time. He or she must be hungry enough to advance and make the $200/ hour.

This is my personal thoughts on going pro. All in all I wouldn't give it up for much right now, but I will never say that it won't change.

daveT.

[Bud Light]

I think there is a world of difference between an online pro and a B&M pro. The MIT guys will do great in the online world, while the people-readers will do better in the B&M world. Plus, in the online world, you can make a livable wage multi-tabling a low limit like $3/$6. You won't be living like a king, but you can survive.

Also, a player never need go bust with proper bankroll management. Given that, your advice is probably correct for B&M players.

[KinkyKid]

I agree with most of your post, then I hit this:
[ QUOTE ]
"Look at my win- rate."

It really disturbs me to see someone post their win rate of 1.5 BB/ 100. Are you kidding me? In order to play live proffessionally, the standard is 1 BB / hour. Considering that there are 30 - 40 hands seen per hour, the live player must be making 3 BB / 100. I think that you have some work to do.

"I built my bankroll from .5 / 1.00"

The first lesson to be learned is that poker is a high- risk job. Slowly building a bankroll is highly risk- adverse in my opinion.


[/ QUOTE ]

1.5 BB/100 hands. And at a computer, you can easily see 100 hands/hour. So they could be making 1.5 BB/hour. Then most, or a lot, of the people here multitable. Lets say only 4 at a time, thats 6 BB/hour. What were you saying about winrates again? This is one of the advantages to online play. As for poker being a risky profession, thats true, and I'm sure most of the people that think of going pro get at least 100k hands in before they do. You'd figure they'd hit a downswing at some point and learn of how swings can go. You can learn proper bankroll management and never go broke while hitting these. I think the second point is an old-fashioned thought...that you need to go broke to be good.

[phydaux]

Yeah, it's only by playing over your roll that you go bust to begin with.

Now yes, there is the classic dichotomy:

You only make money when you play people who are less skilled than you
but
You only improve as a player when you play people who are more skilled than you

That's why I like to play ring games 90% of the time, but play in one big tournament once a month.

I should be able to shake out the dead money, and by the 3rd round be playing people more skilled than myself. That's when my play is going to be challenged and I will grow as a player. Even if I don't finish in the money, the experience is worth the entry fee.

But my income comes from the ring games on Fri & Sat nights. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[JohnnyHumongous]

The tone of your post is a wee bit on the arrogant side. It's also off-base on a few points. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the other-side-of-the-coin angle you've taken. I'm sure it'll start a healthy (maybe unhealthy?) dialogue.

"My reputation preceeds (sic) me"

The content of this point is honestly something I haven't heard around these boards at all. I don't hear anyone feeling entitled to be successful because they were an MIT grad etc. etc. It's common sense that the kind of traits that make someone capable of graduating from MIT would also help make them a better poker player (intelligence, quant skills, discipline, focus, dedication) but these traits are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions to be a successful gambler.

"Look at my win- rate."

The notion of 1BB/hour being the 'gold standard' of poker pro success goes out the window in today's poker environment. Back in the day a live 20/40 pro HAD to make 1BB/hour just to put food on the table and survive, and withstand breakeven stretches. Now you can get any average poker player to play 400 hands an hour of 5/10 online, and, winning at "only" 1.5BB/100 they are making $60 an hour from the comfort of their own home. Play more hands and play higher stakes means the sky's the limit for poker income. Also, the players are tougher online. The literature is better today.

To say that someone MUST make 3BB/100 when they can play 400 hands an hour or more online is ridiculous and blinds one's self to the profit opportunities available.

"I built my bankroll from .5 / 1.00"

I don't quite understand your point here. Poker is a high-risk job? Well, yes and no. If you are a proven winning player then you can eliminate "risk" or "variance" just by waiting for the long term. Keep playing the hands and your natural expectation will be reached. If you start at 0.50/1.00, show you're a winning player, move up to the next level, show you're a winning player, etc. etc., then you can always be assured of making money at this game. Barging in to 10/20 and hoping you're gonna win is a very dangerous way to attempt poker success.

"I have an easier time beating the good players."

I don't hear many people pull this one out on the forums; if they do it's clear they are a little ignorant about what it takes to be a successful poker player. On the other hand, there are people who have a winning style that can beat strong players at mid- and high-limits, but when they take this same style to a low-limit no-fold'em game they get destroyed because they are too lazy/too stubborn to adjust. It doesn't mean they can't beat the "bad" players, it just means they aren't going to make a point to adjust when they are already beating "good" players at higher limits. And if they are beating 50/100 or whatever and can't beat 2/4, well who cares, they're beating 50/100.

"I read such and such books."

Why would you buy multiple copies of the same book?

"I am unhappy with my life."

Some people really enjoy poker, as an activity. They like to play it, they like to think about it, they like to read about it. If they dislike their current job, yet they like poker, then yes, it is possible that poker will bring happiness to their lives. Poker also affords a much better lifestyle, so your non-poker life can improve as well.

1- You must bust.

Whaaa? You have to bust? What if I don't wanna?



All in all your post raises some interesting issues that we can all consider as we contemplate the role poker plays in our lives. Thanks.

[mosquito]

There are some fundamental things you seem to misunderstand. Johnny H covers most of it fairly well, I won't go into detail. The point I'd like to make is, there will be many points of view and conflicting opinions posted on the site. It can be difficult to sort through them if you have a prejudiced view or if you really don't grasp what is being said.

There is no pressure for you or anyone else to play pro. If you believe that no one should it is your perrogative. If you wish to influence others your points should be well thought out and made clear. If you want to know if other people agree with you, post as an opinion and ask what others think.

You did a nice job of compiling a number of considerations for someone contemplating turning pro. I congratulate the effort.

Best, mosquito

[daveT]

I would like to apologize if I have offended any one with my thoughts. I realize that I did not make all of my points very clear. And if I came across as arrogant-- sorry.

I knew that I would get plenty of **** for my win-rate idea. And I realize that with multi-tabling that WR can become almost inconsequential. I think that mathematically, most players are taking on a much higher risk of ruin than they realize here. They are simply unaware of how good or bad they play. Nor do they realize how crazy bad they can run. According to Malmuth, a skilled player can run bad for over two years, and that is more than 200,000 hands.

The easier time playing good players line is not so much about the determination of playing pro or not. But an attitude that should prove to be very unhealthy. As anyone who plays higher or no- limit can attest, the key to consistantly winning is isolating the fish and bringing them down. If these players are afraid of being sucked out on, they will not be very successful. Even if the good players lose against you here and there, just remember that they will make decisions that are better than, or equal to, your own. Either way, you will not profit.

The busting line needs a bit more of an explanation. Unless your roll is super rediculous, life will have an effect on you at some point. You may have to pay a large hospital bill or buy a new car because yours was stolen. I am saying that uncomfortable situations do arise at times, and this could be the end of your carreer. I would like to point out that having a 300 BB roll is probably not ideal for the average person. Not every one can play with the last $200 of their roll and have faith that the gods of statistics will smile apon them.

I do not mean to advocate attempting higher stakes all the time. When you are running good and feeling good about your play, it is okay to take a shot at the higher game because the pressure to win will not be as strong.

I know that my thoughts are probably better geared toward the live player. I would like to point out that no matter wheather you play OL or BM, the foundation of your game is math, statitistics, and game theory. I seldom make the incorrect math play, as I too play in the No Fold'em Hold'em games. Even against the stronger players I may face in higher limits, I find enough mistakes that I do not have to deviate far from correct strategy to beat them.

I would like to finish by saying that if you have studied this game, thought very hard about it, then you should know all you need to know about going pro, and should not need to ask anybody if it is okay to do so.

[Sciolist]

Firstly, I think that you're largely right in many regards.

I don't think that going bust is one of them. If you're playing off a 300 BB bankroll, you should be moving down when you hit a specific downswing - let's say when you hit 200 BB you move down a limit (where you'll be > 300 BB again). Likewise, you move up when you hit > 300 BB at the higher limit.

I've never gone bust. I have, however, run very badly. I know it's possible to run worse, but I'm at around half a million hands, and I've seen more than most. I didn't go bust because I moved down in limits instead of played under bankrolled. What counts is that you have 300 BB RIGHT NOW, not you started with 300 BB when this bad run began.

[dustyn]

Anyone who is going pro should have a 750-1000BB bankroll - 300 is really not enough after you cross the 2/4 barrier. Players are bad enough at 1/2 and 2/4 such that your downswings won't be nearly as bad. Once you move up, I think a semi-pro should have around a 500-70BB bankroll, especially if you are playing 6 max as opposed to full ring. However, as a pro, I think even additional security is needed. Many pros here say their bankroll is much larger than it "needs" to be for the limits they play. There have been crazy downswings and you need to not put yourself at risk if one happens, especially if poker is your primary source if income.

As for "emergency expenses," I think you're making an assumpeion...that those expenses come out of your bankroll. A bankroll is sacred...you have emergency expenses it needs to come from somewhere else. Smart financial planning dictates you have an emergency account or money allocated for expenses like this. If you want to succeed in poker, or any other business, you need to plan financially. Plus there are always credit cards, and I'd argue putting some large emergency expense on one of those is far superior to taking it out of your bankroll, interest or not.

-dustyn

[toots]

Why I say "Go for it" if someone asks if he should turn pro (http://www.thinkgeek.com/homeoffice/posters/65b7/)