The Myth of the Resume Gap

[Aleo]

[ QUOTE ]
I would have to assume that when our hero says that he only worked 24 hours a week, he means what he says -- that he only worked 24 hours a week.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's great, except it's not what our hero actually said

What he actually said was [ QUOTE ]
I never managed to average over 24 hours/week of play.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hours of play does not equal hours of work, especially work in the sense most employers would use. The average 40hr/week job, with paid lunchbreaks probably requires less effort than a 24 hr week of multitabling online. Not to mention that 24 hrs of online play for some is equal to 200 hrs of online play for others.

More importantly though, for good players, there is a lot more to poker than this. There is study, and analysis of played hands.

It seems to me that you are not so much critical of the OP, as you are in some way bitter that you had it soooo rough with blackjack. Well that's too bad for you but it's not really relevant to this discussion.

Regards
Brad S

[Mitch Evans]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no reason the kid couldn't have spent 20 hours a week studying and still spent another 40 hours a week actually at the tables

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To some of us, his resume and his confession screams, LAZY! That is fatal to the job-seeker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of a double-edged sword, don't you think? Tell a prospective employer "I gambled 90+ hours a week for 15 months; as you can see, I'm a disciplined worker, but now I would like to change my career."

[Fishy McDonk]

[ QUOTE ]

LMAO - i guess neither subtlety nor irony feature very strongly in the very literal world of the pond behind the barn!

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, he's the one that said he got a job offer in the gaming industry. Since that would seem to be the perfect opportunity, I can't for the life of me see how he could turn it down.

Even if he is unable to tell us detailed information, surely he can tell us whether the compensation is in the normal range and whether he has to relocate to the Carribean.

Until we hear something, the "resume gap" will remain a reality rather than a myth.

[2ndGoat]

The poker position is in the suburbs of Philadelphia, and offers very attractive compensation relative to my level of relevant experience. I do not believe I could obtain a similar job for similar compensation if poker experience was not involved. The venture has no connection to off-shore elements and is run by people with very impressive academic and entreprenurial credentials. For example, the president has an MBA from Wharton; for those that don't know, it is widely considered the top business school in the world.

I had an interview yesterday with High Corporate America, a fortune 50 company. When one of the two interviews asked why I left my previous fortune 50 position to play poker, it was definitely with a bit if a suspicious approach. My honest estimate is that they were 85% staisfied with my explanation- still a negative, but a small one. They also asked what "statistically grounded capital management" (with an air of "I'd like to see if I can ferret out some [censored] here") is in relation to poker, and my explanation of bankroll management and such seemed satisfactory to them. The one pure swing-and-a-miss was when they asked, "how have you kept your skills current?" I looked the interviewer in the eye and repied, "I haven't." Of course I followed that up with other verbage to soften it, but there was no real way around it. I mostly nailed their technical questions on unix and networking, and given my response to "the salary question," I left with a feeling that my odds in favor of an offer were 2:1.

However, I had determined I would likely not accept the position as stated over the poker spot. A lot of the job responsibilities they mentioned just wouldn't require a lot of analytic brain power, and I know that I need to have my mind fully engaged regularly to stave off boredom. In addition, several asides that the interviewers delivered during the interiew reminded me of the reason why I disliked working at a huge corporation in the past.

Apparently the interviewer came to a similar conclusion, that there's a better fit out there for me. I received a phone call from another department, a recently-acquired yet-to-be-integrated company that does similar, but more interesting work. I'm not sure whether the position is parallel to the first or if it carries a title one step "more senior" than the other, but it sounds more interesting from the initial phone call I got today. I am interiewing for it tomorrow.

I told the poker folk I would give them a definitive answer by Tuesday, the Friday interiew guys are aware of this and are prepared to make a decision on extending on offer before that.

The recuiter for the third position wasn't able to get an earlier interview (before I make a decision on Tuesday). He'd like me to have a phone interview with them in the mean time but this possibility continues to fade further from the 2 frontrunners.

I will let you all know which way I've gone on Tuesday.

2nd

[2ndGoat]

Decision time

So the large corporation interviewed me again, and the position was clearly more suited to my taste. Half the interview was a test of networking and security fundamentals, which I beat like a rented mule. It was really satisfying. I got an offer 2 hours later, which was, curiously, a significant chunk lower than the lowest I told them I'd consider. To be fair, the garaunteed yearly bonus is larger than expected, and mostly makes up for it. Still, I sent them back to discuss it further based on the fact that if they turn me down I could be perfectly happy with the poker job. They came back an hour later a tiny bit above the initial figure I provided. Huzzah. With this spike in pay, the total compensation package would be worth about 35% more than my previous job.

So what does it REALLY come down to? It's an extremely apples and oranges, and so this won't be easy. But basically, in 5 years, would I rather be:

1) Making video games as a coder/designer (the job would be a valuable resume addition in the notoriously tough to break into video game indsutry)
2) A hacker (network security position, potentially leading to the penetration/vulnerability assessment department)

For those of you that bleed binary, I'm sure you can see why this is a difficult choice. I'm going to try to make a decision tonight or at least this weekend, because the poker guys are dying to hear a decision.

2nd

[Fishy McDonk]

What decision?


You have: Job in large corp. suited to taste vs. job in speculative enterprise less suited to taste.

If it was the other way around, I could see the difficulty.

[2ndGoat]

[ QUOTE ]
What decision?


You have: Job in large corp. suited to taste vs. job in speculative enterprise less suited to taste.

If it was the other way around, I could see the difficulty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mostly prefer a small enterprise to a large one. I dislike not ever knowing what's going on in middle/upper management and not being able to do things that make sense because of red tape. Also "more suited to my taste" was comparing the large-corp job to the first position I interviewed for with them, not compared to the poker job.

2nd

[Fishy McDonk]

Then take the poker job. You are young so you can take a gamble. If it doesn't work out, you have plenty of time to get a more stable position and move up the ladder.

[slavic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What decision?


You have: Job in large corp. suited to taste vs. job in speculative enterprise less suited to taste.

If it was the other way around, I could see the difficulty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mostly prefer a small enterprise to a large one. I dislike not ever knowing what's going on in middle/upper management and not being able to do things that make sense because of red tape. Also "more suited to my taste" was comparing the large-corp job to the first position I interviewed for with them, not compared to the poker job.

2nd

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi 2nd,

Very nice thread.

As with most things in life you have to do what you like to do. My last job I stuck around way too long because I made way to much money and I was miserable because of it. Now as you present these jobs I find each interesting but I, like you, would find the smaller company more to my taste.

[kiwi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What decision?


You have: Job in large corp. suited to taste vs. job in speculative enterprise less suited to taste.

If it was the other way around, I could see the difficulty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mostly prefer a small enterprise to a large one. I dislike not ever knowing what's going on in middle/upper management and not being able to do things that make sense because of red tape. Also "more suited to my taste" was comparing the large-corp job to the first position I interviewed for with them, not compared to the poker job.

2nd

[/ QUOTE ]

2nd

Get your ass into a suit, and look forward to those corporate picnics [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
If I am keeping up, you were interested enough in the Corp originally, but job sucked. Then job changed but pay sucked - now that has come through too.

If I was the recruiter, I would either
A: Kick you in the nuts for being indecisive
B: Quietly suggest that by having a F 500 role on your resume, you can always SUBSEQENTLY go to a smaller, more entrepuenarial environmnet if you aren't happy with your choice...and they will reward you for your corp experience. Unlikely to work the other way round and you are potentially compounding the issue you originally were concerned about if you take the non corporate role. (ie your resume) Re the management/red tape stuff, I wouldn't factor that in yet. Get a job you like, paying well, that will leave you in good shape in 2-3 years time.

(and watch Office Space regularly to keep everything in perspective)