Going pro

[sweetjazz]

Heisenberg, good luck. I hope you are careful with your bankroll management. The games aren't very good these days, and I personally don't think this is a very good time to be going pro. Do you have a job lined up for the fall?

What do you expect your living expenses to be in Vegas?

[vmacosta]

Heisenberg,
Congrats on physics degree (from a physics grad student).

Good luck with full-time online poker, always like your posts and thought you played well in the few hands we've played together.

I'll be in vegas a few of the weekends of the wsop.

[milesdyson]

[ QUOTE ]
The games aren't very good these days, and I personally don't think this is a very good time to be going pro.

[/ QUOTE ]

[johnnyrocket]

good luck man, i hope another 2+2er makes it

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The games aren't very good these days, and I personally don't think this is a very good time to be going pro.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not so bad when you consider the alternative.

chez

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The games aren't very good these days, and I personally don't think this is a very good time to be going pro.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not so bad when you consider the alternative.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I would estimate that the alternative for a physics major is a staring job in the 50K/year range with opportunity for fairly rapid acceleration and with good benefits. In today's conditions, one needs (1) a pre-existing bankroll, and (2) discipline to put in hours playing your "A" game or close to it consistently in order to get the equivalent return from poker.

It's possible that game quality will improve within the next 6-12 months. In the long term the American and Asian markets still have room to be tapped. But realistically, online poker may not be a viable career option for very long. The evolution in playing ability in the past year or so is something that cannot be undone.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The games aren't very good these days, and I personally don't think this is a very good time to be going pro.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not so bad when you consider the alternative.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I would estimate that the alternative for a physics major is a staring job in the 50K/year range with opportunity for fairly rapid acceleration and with good benefits. In today's conditions, one needs (1) a pre-existing bankroll, and (2) discipline to put in hours playing your "A" game or close to it consistently in order to get the equivalent return from poker.

It's possible that game quality will improve within the next 6-12 months. In the long term the American and Asian markets still have room to be tapped. But realistically, online poker may not be a viable career option for very long. The evolution in playing ability in the past year or so is something that cannot be undone.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not just about maximising income, the alternative is a day job and that sucks for some of us (I left a lot more than $50,0000 and wouldn't go back and I'm not even any good).

chez

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
Its not just about maximising income, the alternative is a day job and that sucks for some of us (I left a lot more than $50,0000 and wouldn't go back and I'm not even any good).

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that there are some downsides to day jobs and one of the most appealing aspects of online poker is the freedom that comes with being able to play whenever you feel like it. That said, that freedom is going to be increasingly diminished to the extent that it becomes harder and harder to find a nicely profitable game at any time in the day. Second, if the games become sufficiently tough that it becomes difficult to maintain a winrate above a few tenths of a BB/100, then the danger of going broke is going to be severe. Imagine a 1000+ BB downswing that takes place over several months of play. That means losing 1000 BB in cash + whatever your living expsenses for that time period are.

Are the games *that* bad yet? No, I don't think so, but the poker ecosystem is in a very fragile state. The number of weak fish that support the winning players is much lower than it has been in the past. With tougher games all over the place, the fish are going broke at a faster rate and are not being replenished. There's a real danger that games will slowly become worse and that eventually the players who are mediocre winners and/or run bad over a long stretch will go effectively bankrupt.

Is this preordained to happen? No, and there's a lot of people who have a major incentive to keep a poker economy going. But it does mean that deciding at this point in time to go pro -- instead of say, working a day job for the time being while playing on the side and feeling out how the poker ecosystem evolves over the next few months -- is probably a poor decision.

I hope it works out for people who are relying on poker as their sole source of income, but I fear that it will not end well for everybody in this situation.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its not just about maximising income, the alternative is a day job and that sucks for some of us (I left a lot more than $50,0000 and wouldn't go back and I'm not even any good).

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that there are some downsides to day jobs and one of the most appealing aspects of online poker is the freedom that comes with being able to play whenever you feel like it. That said, that freedom is going to be increasingly diminished to the extent that it becomes harder and harder to find a nicely profitable game at any time in the day.

[/ QUOTE ]

The freedom is nice (though not seeing much of it stumbling towards supernova elite) but that's not that important. The best bit for me is not having had to deal with a quality moron for 2 years with 'no meetings' and 'no commuting' coming in fast at 2 and 3.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, if the games become sufficiently tough that it becomes difficult to maintain a winrate above a few tenths of a BB/100, then the danger of going broke is going to be severe. Imagine a 1000+ BB downswing that takes place over several months of play. That means losing 1000 BB in cash + whatever your living expsenses for that time period are.

Are the games *that* bad yet? No, I don't think so, but the poker ecosystem is in a very fragile state. The number of weak fish that support the winning players is much lower than it has been in the past. With tougher games all over the place, the fish are going broke at a faster rate and are not being replenished. There's a real danger that games will slowly become worse and that eventually the players who are mediocre winners and/or run bad over a long stretch will go effectively bankrupt.

Is this preordained to happen? No, and there's a lot of people who have a major incentive to keep a poker economy going. But it does mean that deciding at this point in time to go pro -- instead of say, working a day job for the time being while playing on the side and feeling out how the poker ecosystem evolves over the next few months -- is probably a poor decision.

I hope it works out for people who are relying on poker as their sole source of income, but I fear that it will not end well for everybody in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]
the games are nowhere near that bad yet and I think you're a bit pessimistic about the future unless you just mean for people in the USA.

chez

[jt1]

If I were in your shoes, I'd not go pro until I played 100k hands at 15/30 or higher.