How many online pros average +500k a year in the world?

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
Does Noataima even make 500k a year after poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

he's worth over 1billion

I doubt losing 5million is even close to a dent to him

cirque du soleil is insanely popular, he owns 95% of the company

[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Read some interviews with Ellix Powers, that's probably the reality of pro poker for most.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ellix Powers is a former crack addict with little education and obviously an addictive personality, and you think most of the players who go pro will end up penniless and homeless like him? That's some assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely correct. It's absurd to think that a top-tier pro poker player could end up addicted to crack, penniless, and homeless. No evidence whatsoever.

[DefiNe]

[ QUOTE ]
Does Noataima even make 500k a year after poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOL

[seemorenuts]

Please provide a link to where it can be determined that an MTT career is inferior to a cash game career, assume a $50K bankroll and no mixture of the two activities.

[DLizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
Please provide a link to where it can be determined that an MTT career is inferior to a cash game career, assume a $50K bankroll and no mixture of the two activities.

[/ QUOTE ]

a link? this is common knowledge. here, you figure it out. a top tournament player online could have an ROI of 100%. A top cash game player can make 4PTBB/100. These are pretty general numbers off the top of my head. With a 50k bankroll you could play most of the tournaments that run online, so figure out a daily schedule for a tournament player. As far as cash you could play 5/10nl with that bankroll. Figure out how many hands a day a cash game player can play. Do the math. If you don't want to do all that, here's your answer: cash game players make more money.

Also, as far as a career, cash game players choose their own schedule. You can play, when you want, what you want, for however long you want. Good tournaments only run at certain times, and they can take a long time to finish. Try finding a good MTT to play at 3am EST.

[SEABEAST]

[ QUOTE ]
Please provide a link to where it can be determined that an MTT career is inferior to a cash game career, assume a $50K bankroll and no mixture of the two activities.

[/ QUOTE ]
put it this way, every single MTT guy who has made more money from MTTs than i have from cashgames is an online celebrity, and my main game is $400NL, which barely qualifies as medium stakes.

[bustedromo]

[ QUOTE ]
Please provide a link to where it can be determined that an MTT career is inferior to a cash game career, assume a $50K bankroll and no mixture of the two activities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing MTTs for a living is like playing pick-6's for a living. You lose lose lose forever killing a major chunk of your bankroll until you begin to think you're insane for spending your time/money/life in this manner, then maybe you hit it huge but more likely you hit it just enough to recoup your bankroll, then you lose lose lose forever again, etc.

Speaking of which reminds me, it's Sunday ...

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
All,

Just for a humorous comparison, the average salary of Goldman Sachs's 22,000 employees last year was over $500k. The top 250 Goldman employees averaged about $7M each. Sorta sick how little money there really is in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but they add value. Just ask them!

50-150 is my guess...

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
i was a day trader and i know that what your saying is [censored], working for sachs or any other large firm becomes your whole life....that being putting in like 60-70 hour work week for a long time..

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL at 60 hours being a long week for $7mm....or $750k.
Also, real traders only work 40-50 hours and make that much or way more. Hint -- use OPM.

[ QUOTE ]
its not like investing in Haliburton or shell.

they actually rape countries..and thats just the tip of the iceburg, but hey if you can wash the blood off

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFLMAO...sick level.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]

Regarding fund managers...This is way off topic but there is a lot of evidence that they really don't contribute anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally Wrong. Some don't provide alpha. But many do.
[ QUOTE ]

They provide superior returns but only if you fail to adjust for increased risk,

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, see below comments and research papers.

[ QUOTE ]

even if they were still ripping off their clients. As it is I really don't think they do anything except add a little volatility.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is hilariously offbase, ignorant and biased.
[ QUOTE ]

(There are some outlier funds that really do seem to provide abnormal risk-adjusted returns, to be fair.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Truth comes out!
[ QUOTE ]

BTW - My main source for this is a recent New Yorker article,

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, yes, the expert trade mag on all things financial. That article showed a fundamental misunderstanding of even certain fin'l definitions and terms, and was not written by someone familiar with the industry at all.

[ QUOTE ]
but people in academia and other areas of the financial world have suspected this for years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, they've proven many managers consistently show markt-beating returns, if that's what you mean, time and time again:

Ibbotson and Chen's academic paper on the topic of Hedge Funds--http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=733264
using Ibbotson's data for equity L/S funds only [Jan 1995- April 2006:
'L/S Hedge Funds create a net alpha of 5.41 per year - that is net, and overall return of 13.10%.

All results are for dead + live funds, and do NOT include backfill data/bias. Alpha per HF strategy:
Equity Neutral +1.94%
Fixed Inc Arb +3.91%
L/S Equity +5.41%.'

more tl/dr below ---

Mutual Funds:
Do Winners Repeat with Style?
ROGER G. IBBOTSON , AMITA K. PATEL
February 2002
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=292866
'Several studies have found that considerable persistence exists in mutual fund performance. We study this phenomenon in fund managers who achieve superior performance, after adjusting for the investment style of the fund. Our data of domestic equity mutual funds indicates that winning funds do repeat good performance. Style-adjusted alphas are evaluated on both an absolute and relative basis.'

Now, those pounding the table in favor of indexing via BGI/SSgA/VGuard have a point: It is a very cheap way to access Beta exposure – which is simply exposure to the index you are trying to replicate. This should be very low cost – you may have heard of some funds being called 'index funds in disguise,' that is they charge you 1.25% and own 90% of the stocks in the SP500 – that is truly a waste of your money.

By definition, Alpha – or market outperformance – has to be a net Zero for all investors, actually slightly lower including fees/trading costs – just like a poker game. Simply investing in stocks is a positive sum game, however.

Indexers will tell you that since a majority of mutual funds underperform 'the market' – not 90% as they claim, but many – that this proves you should just index. Burton Malkiel says that mutual funds regularly underperform by 2% on an annual basis. Since the average mutual fund costs about 1.3%, that means that most funds are losing 70bps per year in alpha. Index funds are losing 15-20bps per year in alpha.

However, this also means that other players in the market, by definition, are generating significantly positive alpha. After all, if 70% of funds have negative alpha the other 30% are gaining all of that alpha, plus the alpha opportunities ignored by the enormous cap-weighted index funds like the SP500 or Total Market Indexes. [Siegel and others have invented value-weighted indexes to take alpha from cap-weighted ones.] QED.

In less than 3 years from 2000-2002, the SPX lost 45%. Over the entire period, it lost 40%. Beta/Index investors got the relative return they were looking for!

If you can identify superior managers, something that may not be easy or trivial to do [but many sites like MStar, Lipper, etc can give you the foundation] you can certainly do better than the market AND with less volatility, given time and a modicum of work and intelligence.


Many investors have demonstrated the ability to beat the market over statistically significant periods of time with superior performance – Warren Buffett would be the most famous example, John Neff's Windsor mutual fund crushed the market over 32+ years, beating the SP500/SPX by 3.1% annually, after fees. $100k turned into $2.5mm in 'the large-cap market' but $6.1mm in Windsor.
James Simons has grossed 50% annually for the last 20 years [longer, if you use his personal results prior to managing outside money.] Steve Cohen is coming up on 15 years of 50% returns.

Several firms have used models and bond agency ratings to predict defaults to evaluate the equity performance of various 'risk' classes. Generally speaking, they find distressed stocks have abnormally low returns, inconsistent with return/risk assumptions. These firms have higher volatility, betas, and market cap-factors than stocks with a low risk of failure.

Studies have shown that stocks with low risk factors such as lower beta, leverage, higher profits and dividends outperform the market, consistent with the research on distressed firms. O'Shaughnessy shows similar results.

Others have tried to measure 'risk' as uncertainty, and failed. Researches have shown it is not positively related to equity returns, and may even be negatively correlated.

Also see:
The volatility effect: lower risk without lower return
David C. Blitz∗
Deputy Head of Quantitative Strategies at
Robeco Asset Management in the Netherlands
Pim van Vliet, PhD
Senior Researcher Quantitative Strategies at
Robeco Asset Management in the Netherlands

Abstract
We present empirical evidence that stocks with low volatility earn high
risk-adjusted returns. The annual alpha spread of global low versus high
volatility decile portfolios amounts to 12% over the 1986-2006 period.

We also observe this volatility effect within the US, European and Japanese markets in isolation. Furthermore, we find that the volatility effect cannot be explained by other well-known effects such as value and size. Our results indicate that equity investors overpay for risky stocks. Possible explanations for this phenomenon include (i) leverage restrictions, (ii) inefficient two-step investment processes, and (iii) behavioral biases of private investors. In order to exploit the volatility effect in practice we argue that investors should include low risk stocks as a separate asset class in the strategic asset allocation phase of their investment process.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=980865