poker pro - hardest job there is?

[Henry17]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are autopiloting then you are playing way below your earning potential.

[/ QUOTE ]

True but why does this matter?

I might be clouded on this because I have several other sources of income but I don't think so. I think most individuals if offered the option of $150k for effortless work would jump at it. It is this mentality of needing to maximize income that makes poker so hard for most players.

Anyone who works only 1 job isn't maximizing their earning potential. They could get a second part time job. Anyone who ever turns down overtime isn't maximizing their earning potential. Money has a cascading logarithmic decreasing utility function. Poker players more then anyone should realize this but most don't since the level they play at has more to do with ego then making money.

[Janabis]

[ QUOTE ]
With the loyalty programs and given how soft poker currently is; anyone can make $140k/year+ putting in 48 hours a week.

[/ QUOTE ]

19 out of 20 people can't even beat the rake at $0.10/$0.25 NL while single tabling.

[Henry17]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With the loyalty programs and given how soft poker currently is; anyone can make $140k/year+ putting in 48 hours a week.

[/ QUOTE ]

19 out of 20 people can't even beat the rake at $0.10/$0.25 NL while single tabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given poker is a zero sum game that is a given.

That is one of the paradoxes of poker. Anyone can but most don't. People worry about bots despite the difficulty of programing a sophisticated AI. The bots that are out there have relatively modest AIs that reflect less sophistication then what a human could learn in a few months. I don't know how to explain why players are so bad.

[Jamougha]

Henry,

your analogy is bad because moving playing closer to your maximum earn increases dollar/hr. I could mindlessly multitable for $100/hr, I would much prefer to play in challenging games for $250/hr.

[Henry17]

[ QUOTE ]
Henry,

your analogy is bad because moving playing closer to your maximum earn increases dollar/hr. I could mindlessly multitable for $100/hr, I would much prefer to play in challenging games for $250/hr.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. But even per hour people often choose the easier and less paying job. Waitress in a pub vs waitress in a strip club. Bay ST lawyer vs lawyer at small or mid-sized firm. Heavy back breaking construction vs normal construction.

You said you prefer the challenging game. Do you enjoy that it is challenging? If you get some non-monetary pleasure out of playing at a more challenging game that is fine. People get pleasure from doing plenty of challenging things.

OP though is complaining about being mentally taxed. So if we changed your example to can make $100/hr with no effort or can make $250/hr but is mentally destroyed do you still think people would suffer for that extra money?

I don't think so but I admit that question is hard for me to answer since the extra $150/hr has very little added utility for myself.

[Rek]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Henry,

your analogy is bad because moving playing closer to your maximum earn increases dollar/hr. I could mindlessly multitable for $100/hr, I would much prefer to play in challenging games for $250/hr.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. But even per hour people often choose the easier and less paying job. Waitress in a pub vs waitress in a strip club. Bay ST lawyer vs lawyer at small or mid-sized firm. Heavy back breaking construction vs normal construction.

You said you prefer the challenging game. Do you enjoy that it is challenging? If you get some non-monetary pleasure out of playing at a more challenging game that is fine. People get pleasure from doing plenty of challenging things.

OP though is complaining about being mentally taxed. So if we changed your example to can make $100/hr with no effort or can make $250/hr but is mentally destroyed do you still think people would suffer for that extra money?

I don't think so but I admit that question is hard for me to answer since the extra $150/hr has very little added utility for myself.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hate to admit this but I agree with Henry. The OP is stressing, so easing back on the maximum per hour earnings is a good thing to do. A more comfortable ride is what some people need. We are all different and some people thrive on pressure and others can get destroyed by it.

You need to find your optimum level taking everything into account. If this means less income per hour but at an easier workload then that can be good for some people.

[NL__Fool]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Over the last 3 years I'd say the game has stayed consistent. About 2003 the games became so soft that it is hard to judge but anyone who can't make money now never will

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what rock your hiding under or what world you live in but this is the biggest no brainer 100% false statement I've seen in the past while.

The games have gotten significantly tougher over the past couple of years and as the OP stated this is a "widely accepted fact"

Gone are the good ol days of being able to 8 table 6 max limit hold em at the 5-10 and 10-20 limits for over 2 BB/100 for a "good player" without a lot of effort.

The games took a significant hit for the worse over the last couple of years due to several factors, the games have not stayed consistent.

The winrates available in todays games are a far cry from what people used to be able to achieve 3-4 years ago.

The games are still very beatable but just not as beatable as they used to be.

[agencia1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Over the last 3 years I'd say the game has stayed consistent. About 2003 the games became so soft that it is hard to judge but anyone who can't make money now never will

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what rock your hiding under or what world you live in but this is the biggest no brainer 100% false statement I've seen in the past while.

The games have gotten significantly tougher over the past couple of years and as the OP stated this is a "widely accepted fact"

Gone are the good ol days of being able to 8 table 6 max limit hold em at the 5-10 and 10-20 limits for over 2 BB/100 for a "good player" without a lot of effort.

The games took a significant hit for the worse over the last couple of years due to several factors, the games have not stayed consistent.

The winrates available in todays games are a far cry from what people used to be able to achieve 3-4 years ago.

The games are still very beatable but just not as beatable as they used to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed. i wouldnt say you can do well playing on auto pilot. maybe on v low limits. but even now on 1/2 and 2/4 nl there are some v good or at least solid players. ive been pro for about 2.5 yrs. the 1st yr of it in live play. my roll is in 6 figures and though i generally play a v systematic game id say this is def the most mentally tiring job i will ever have for the time i put into it. i usually play 35-40 hrs a wk of 5/10 NL playing from 2-4 tables depending on my alertness. always when i get close to the 40 hr mark on a wk i run out of gas. ive actually started working out a lot in an effort to make sure my mental stamina is optimal.

i wouldnt say this is the hardest job there is but its def v taxing on one's brain.

[Henry17]

I think the difference in perspective might be because of the length of play. 2.5 and 3 years is nothing. I realize everyone has to start at some point but anyone who thinks the game is hard now would have been killed in the 90s.

[agencia1]

henry
first of all the game wasnt online in the 90s like it is now.
you werent playing 50k+ hands a month (and im sure im on the low end compared to some other full timers). in live play only a fraction of that. the increase in game speed coupled w the multi tabling produces a lot more volume of information that needs to be digested. and increases the amount of mental exertion one undergoes to play a high level game.

the OP never brought up playing in the 90's. he was talking
about the effort needed to process this information as a full time job.