Sincerely, A guy who used to do this
I also used to play a ton of online poker and it was my ability to balance it all that ultimately convinced me I'd be better off trying to found a startup.
A lot of the skills overlap, which is why many of the successful high stakes players also have profitable side businesses.
If you're looking for an excellent discussion by a bunch of very successful online players on what they want to do with their lives, check out this thread, which is titled Poker vs Law School vs Trading:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/19/high-stakes-pl-nl/nc-my...
You list some things that make it really hard to live a normal life, but I disagree with some can offer counter-points to others.
You say there is little interaction with other people. This is true for many but doesn't have to be the case. I spend a lot of 'work time' talking with like-minded professionals, studying together or just daily banter. I probably have more social interaction through work than the time I worked in a small development company, and certainly more during my periods of (failing to) run startups.
You say working hours are partially out of your control, but with most forms of poker you can work any time of the day (literally any time in 24 hours, 7 days a week) - some times may be better than others, depending on the game you play. There's a lot to be done away from the table if the games are quiet. Compare this to the lack of flexibility with any other job: either a rigid 9-5, or at least restrictions on when business is to be done (conference calls, deadlines).
It can be stressful and tiring, but listening to some start-up stories here on HN, it can hardly compare! Some of you guys are working yourselves to death! Certainly you can put in long hours in poker, but it's a daily choice. The more hours at the table, the more money. I also believe that poker is actually fairly low-variance compared to other jobs, such as a running a start-up: Long days with long nights, hacking at weekends, all for a very high risk of failure months or even years down the line. With poker you can't count on a weekly (or even monthly) pay-check but in the long term, you cash in with regularity
Personally I like to work around 3 hours a day, 7 days a week. I might put in a short morning session, and a short evening session. Doing this it feels like I have all the day off to spend socialising, hacking on some pet project, relaxing. You don't have to hit the high-stakes to make a living from poker. In the "5-hour-work-week" concept of salary you earn very high, because I have no commute and flexibility to live anywhere in the world. I have moved continent 3 times in the last 3 years. I can jump on a plane and visit friends anywhere, and as long as I have an internet connection I know I can be there, on holiday and making money at the same time. And if you manage your time correctly, you should have time to fully develop other projects, be they startup ideas, or just other, more life-fulfilling hobbies.
There are certainly negatives to the job, but - at least to me - there's an overwhelming number of positives that many (including a lot of professionals) just don't focus on. If you take advantage of what the job has to offer there's no reason it should be the lonely, frustrating grind that many feel; quite the contrary.
It's strange how poker works but I imagine Buddhism and poker to be the most complimentary religion-to-profession complement on the planet.
And I agree with the first point - poker is an empty job. You do not create wealth - you make another poor soul, likely a gambling addict, further burdened by that addiction. Meanwhile, the only person you're "creating wealth" for is the guy with his feet up that owns the poker room.
Or perhaps you have a gambling problem, but are successful enough to deny it.
FTA: > "Looking back, what I've figured out," he says, "is that no matter the amount of money poker players win, they still want more. You're never happy."
However, if it is an addiction they may be financially successful, but unable to psychologically satisfy their their appetite for money or risk.
I wouldn't say that any serial startup founder has an "entrepreneurship problem", but if they were never satisfied with their accomplishments, I would view that as a negative.
The quote from the article was: >"[T]hey still want more. You're never happy."
I would consider that anyone who repeats a cycle of behaviour with the goal of achieving happiness or satisfaction but who always feels disappointed or unsettled might have a problem.
Does a sportsman make wealth? What about a professional chess player? Snooker player? Pool hustler?
What about a brewery, "further burdening that addiction" of alcoholism? What about the barman what served the drink? Just creating wealth for the pub? The sommelier?
What if I start a start-up that's about 'social' betting, like a betfair exchange about film stars? What if I shake up the gambling industry with my social facebook Zynga poker that launches real-money tables?
Your concept of what is a 'valued' job seems very narrow.
Gambling is an enjoyable past-time for millions, throughout history, in cultures around the world. For every sad story of gambling addition, that are thousands who enjoy gambling responsibly on a recreational basis, just for every alcoholic there are thousands that enjoy drinking socially. And some social gamblers sometimes blow a bit too much, just like social drinkers sometimes go overboard at the weekends. Things aren't black and white.
And those professionals provide the entertainment that others enjoy, either directly (from spectators on TV) or indirectly (providing that example that 'the game can be beat').
Sure it's not the most worthwhile job in the world in the grand scheme of directly creating wealth, or improving man-kind. But then, dare I say it, nor do do many a start-up.
Sure, professional sports players, chess players, etc. are not creating material wealth (I'll sidestep the hustler issues for now). The thing is, they are creating wealth by pg's definition, i.e. creating something people want (entertainment, in this case, that people can view).
Compare that with pro poker players. Ask most players what they want (who they want to play against), and they won't tell you that they want to play against a pro. I think pros make most of their money, "preying" on poor players who don't realize they're up against a pro. In that sense, pro players are not really creating wealth, they're tricking other people.
Of course, I'm completely ignoring a part of the poker world which does create wealth, i.e. the televised matches. These are obviously equal to spectator sports. Still, I think the majority of players who grind out a living playing against weaker players really aren't adding wealth to the world.
Hope that was clear. I'm not anti-poker players or anything, I love poker, I'm just explaining why I would never do it for a living.
An alternate perspective is that you're providing an education for a fee.
Sounds exactly like my current situation as an internet entrepreneur :)