Could the loss of U.S. fish cause online professionals to go broke?

Soncy · #1 09-23-2007, 01:51 AM

My dad has a couple of acquantainces who were successful online pros and they are both now broke. (Not ridiculously successful, but one guy had quit his job because he was making more $ online and did so for quite a while. His roll was $80K at some point in time.) My dad's theory is that the online poker pool has become much less populated with fish since the Port Security Bill, which contributed or outright caused the demise of the aforementioned players.

1. Does anyone think this is possible or likey?
2. Does this mean that the US is by far the highest exporter of fish? So much so, that the online poker economy would change so drastically that a once successful player would go broke.
3. Does the difficulty of making a deposit affect all limits equally or some more than others?
4. Should the guy who was able to quit his job and stay at home with his kids, but who now has to go back to work and pay for daycare, send Senator Frist a personal Thank You for helping him strengthen his family?

boohaa12 · #2 09-23-2007, 01:56 AM

this post is so 8months ago...

NO (in reply to subj)

blackize · #3 09-23-2007, 01:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
My dad has a couple of acquantainces who were successful online pros and they are both now broke. (Not ridiculously successful, but one guy had quit his job because he was making more $ online and did so for quite a while. His roll was $80K at some point in time.) My dad's theory is that the online poker pool has become much less populated with fish since the Port Security Bill, which contributed or outright caused the demise of the aforementioned players.

1. Does anyone think this is possible or likey?

[/ QUOTE ]

It certainly could cause a player to be a loser at games he was once beating. It shouldn't cause a player to go broke because any true pro will drop down as his bankroll shrinks until he reaches a level he can beat.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Does this mean that the US is by far the highest exporter of fish? So much so, that the online poker economy would change so drastically that a once successful player would go broke.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US player base was exceptionally fishy, but for bankroll management reasons it should not cause any player to go broke.

[ QUOTE ]

3. Does the difficulty of making a deposit affect all limits equally or some more than others?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure about this, but I would guess that it is harder to get large sums of money online so the higher limits are hit the hardest.

[ QUOTE ]
4. Should the guy who was able to quit his job and stay at home with his kids, but who now has to go back to work and pay for daycare, send Senator Frist a personal Thank You for helping him strengthen his family?

[/ QUOTE ]

That guy should kick himself for managing his roll poorly and work like the rest of us to keep it legal.

Soncy · #4 09-23-2007, 02:12 AM

Its seems like I've read where many live players, who most would surely consider true pros, have talked about going broke at some time in their careers. I think Doyle acted like it was a fairly common thing. I can manage to hang on to my online pittance, but I'm not playing for my lunch money. I've had streches of going backwards and sometimes fairly lengthy streches of going nowhere. No big deal for me. But if I was trying to make a living I'm sure there would be more pressures and difficult decisions involed in managing my roll. ...Although, if I go broke it's basically back to the play money/free rolls. {Shudder} Actually, that is a lot of pressure now that I think about it.

blackize · #5 09-23-2007, 02:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Its seems like I've read where many live players, who most would surely consider true pros, have talked about going broke at some time in their careers. I think Doyle acted like it was a fairly common thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's certainly much more common for live players to go broke. Live you play so few hands that having losing months shouldn't be terribly uncommon. Add to that the fact that they have fewer games offered to them making it more difficult to drop down as they lose. And at the very lowest levels it would be difficult to earn what could be considered a livable wage.

Online with vastly more hands per hour and the ability to multitable livable wages can be achieved with much smaller bankroll requirements. Online play also requires less of a cushion for living expenses because due to sheer volume losing months will be few and far between.

Komodo · #6 09-23-2007, 04:05 AM

I think it is 100% crystal clear that there are less fish in the poker rooms after Bill kill poker. The games definitely became tougher when american players got banned from most poker rooms.

2, No, but America had the most players.

momo_the_kid · #7 09-23-2007, 04:50 AM

As the game got tougher, many online pros can't beat the game they used to be able to anymore. If they are not willing to move down, then going broke is quite possible. i am sure there are lots of pros gone broke or go back to their regular job this year.

xSCWx · #8 09-23-2007, 05:06 AM

I had a friend who was making over 120k/year on Pacific and ended up busto within a year or so of the legislation.

I wouldn't lay this completely on the legislation though, he moved up when running bad instead of down. Eventually you just peak out.

I was what I would consider now to be an "average" player and was still pulling in 10k/month pre-legislation on Pacific playing only a few hours a day. I don't think I could pull off 10k/month now unless I played all day or ran hot as balls. You either need to improve or accept that you won't be making as much as you used to.

solucky · #9 09-23-2007, 05:40 AM

Its not only the bill, mnany things change.
1. more sites like 2+2
2. more live coaching
3. more users from PT and HUD
4. and the most most loosers leave poker winners stay...so the average skill increase.

Mcbrag · #10 09-23-2007, 07:01 AM

At the peak of online poker (about a year ago, now), I was playing 10/20 limit about 500 hands a day. Once the legislation passed, I could no longer beat that game. I moved down when my BR reached a certain point. I moved down until I found a limit I could beat again and added more hands played per day (3000 now), until I once again could afford to live off my winnings. I've wished I could go back to prelegislation days and get as many hands in as humanly possible at the higher limits, but then I realized I would have still had to move down eventually, because I would have still lost but just stayed at the higher limits longer with a higher BR. Maybe it would have given me more time to adjust, and devise a winning strategy though.