Quitting the full-time poker scene
team-bhp.com
team-bhp.com
Every single year the game became more difficult as more people studied and I continued to move up into higher and higher stakes. At one point I looked at how much money I had made/compared to how much I hated what I was doing and decided that I was done. People around me never understood why I quit because they knew me and the amount of income I had made, but the thing is no one can understand what it is to live on a grinders schedule like that.
I would get up at 10-11AM study the hands from the previous day to make sure I was playing correctly mentally, read over new material, review a partners hands as we both did each others to confirm playstyle and decisions were correct, around 3PM I would start scouting tables across various levels looking for soft players that I had datamined information about. Around 4-5PM I would start playing and continue to add tables with soft players and immediately leave any tables that didn't contain any soft players or they had busted. This table hopping and monitoring is absolutely exhausting, but critical to being as profitable as possible.
Repeat this until about 11PM. Then go to sleep until 4AM, get up and play against the players on the other side of the world as they were starting to play loose. Play against them until about 7AM, then go to sleep and get up around 11. Repeat. Do this for 4 years and almost anyone will decide enough is enough even with the amount of income I was making back then. The only rest I took was on weekends, just to remove myself mentally from the exhaustion.
Of course poker is much tougher now then it was then. I wouldn't even dream of trying to play now. I was maybe upper 85-90% player, now I would be in the lower 50%.
Live poker will always be soft because there will always be plenty of people there to have fun and gamble no matter how much software exists. Furthermore, only a slim minority of players even actively trying to win actually put serious effort into studying (see also, dan luu's post on how it's relatively easy to reach the top 5% of any endeavour, even if very difficult to reach the top 1%).
I can't help but use the opportunity of poker on the front page of Hacker News to note that I have a strategy blog and training app on this exact topic:
www.livepokertheory.com
There's a lot of beginner to advanced strategy articles on applying practical solver outputs to live poker games as well as a preflop training based on solver generated preflop charts. Poker is currently my only significant source of income and I "eat my own dogfood" on this site so I'm very incentivized for it to be good!
On a related note, I made a small tool for PLO folks to study their preflop game. Check it out here: https://rnikhil.com/2022/06/15/gtoinspector-startup.html
Just my viewpoint as a solidly recreational player. Although I'm a decently profitable cash player (I donk my cash winnings away by losing tournaments), I'm not good enough to go pro online and I'm not patient enough or willing to spend my life in the casino to go pro live.
It's hard to overstate the difference in skill between online and live. You see VERY weak players buying into games with $5k stacks live while online games with $200 buyins are considered very tough. Even regular players in high stakes live games make surprisingly fundamental mistakes, like checking back extremely strong hands on the river rather than betting them for value, or almost never bluffing.
I would say that if someone plays poker 20+ hours a week and has a losing year live they are also probably just a losing player. I'm friends with many live poker pros, and I've never heard of any of them having losing years. Obviously they pick games they know they can beat and mostly stick to them.
Tournament variance is extremely high and I think being a live tournament pro is unnecessarily risky unless you sell / swap action which most pros do. Or pray you run good and win one. But cash is a safer bet.
As far as spending all your time in a casino in order to make a living, that's basically the equivalent of spending all your time in an office, it's a job and you go to it. It certainly can be grindy. I understand it's not for everyone. But it's not super far removed from many other in-person jobs. And as others have said, it can actually be nicer than staring at a screen 10 hours a day, especially staring at a screen to play poker, because it has the social aspect with the other players and the dealers, the tactile aspect of the chips and the cards, etc.
I'm not advocating for anyone to become a live poker pro, certainly I'm sharing my project on hacker news with the hope that some "serious recreational" players take interest in it since very few poker pros lurk here. Most people should not play pro poker for various reasons - on Hacker News the obvious one being they can almost certainly make more money and easier money with plain software engineering, software engineering is generally more intellectually engaging, and also most people aren't mentally equipped to deal with the swings.
I'm mostly doing it currently because it's a niche that I understand well having done it in the past, and I wanted to do an indie software project and "make money playing poker to reduce my burn rate while building a poker blog and training app" has a natural synergy to it as an entry point into bootstrapped software entrepreneurship. Plus so far its my best received project, has a small but growing audience and respectable retention on the app despite it being an MVP.
Moreso than advocating people become live poker pros, I'm just noting that basically anyone who wants to can win a bunch of money at poker, if they're willing to study the massive amount of resources that exist now. Those resources always existed but the advent of solvers has changed those resources from "these are very good heuristics beating the games" to "this is the solution to the game under certain constraints".
Based on experience talking to "hacker news" type people, they tend to be introverted and so would strongly prefer the nature of online poker rather than casino poker, but I would again warn people that online games are both far tougher and require a lot of extra tooling and precautions that aren't necessary in a casino game.
Plus, at some point, in live poker, you get to put all the solver nonsense away and just look a man in the eye and decide if he's bluffing you or not :)
It's incredible how tough online play has gotten, so quickly. Back in 2000-2004 you could literally not know how to play poker and still make money online. Now, I know I'd get absolutely smoked joining a mid-stakes online $1/$2 game. I'm not sure how much of this is assistance and HUDs. There seems to be just a different breed of players online.
Making other players leave seems like it would be the fastest way to get yourself a lifetime ban to your local casinos.
(that's even ignoring the fact the casinos have already seen every trick in the book already, and will be onto you immediately)
Ultimately, like life, the only true edge you can control is game selection. Hence, that Rounders quote that rings eternal:
"Listen, here's the thing. If you can't spot the sucker in the first half hour at the table, then you ARE the sucker."
I don't know what "good income" is, whether it's like 100k a year or 500k a year... but I can take a pretty good guess that unless you're in the top 15%, poker is probably not worth it professionally.
Real-time assistance simply wasn't a thing back in the day.
Good times though and kind of surreal for a 20 something year old dude.
I knew someone on the other end of this.
Back in the early 2000s, the wife of a guy I worked with fancied herself a decent poker player.
She lost some non-trivial amount of money in an online game and was worried about telling her husband.
So, she tried to win it back and lost even more.
I think you know where this is going (if not, see Gambler's ruin).
She lost all of their savings trying to break even.
Stopped paying the bills.
At some point in the ensuing months, my co-worker came home to an eviction notice (plus, his wife was hiding the letters threatening to shut off the heat, etc.).
---they got divorced.
This beautiful, it has a hook in both directions. Like a little piece of art sitting here on the site.
Your username bio is hilarious--and it is also consistent with your advice.
Have an upvote (on your way to 1K)
UPDATE: Something has to be involved... Or karma aggregation/recalculation isn't instant. I just upvoted their comment, they're still at 999. LOL.
Everyone is crushing it no matter what the rake in these games. "The games are all so soft". Sometimes they eventually though get bored of making all this money and move on to something else.
Same with sports betting now. "I win some, I lose some but overall I am up". Everyone says the same thing, even when betting on sports they don't even personally follow or watch.
You know what they say, the house always loses.
I don’t know how long he played, he certainly didn’t mention a grind as described here.
But, he netted enough to buy his then new $30k Lexus.
A lucrative hobby if nothing else.
Like you said, winning poker is a grind, and for me, extremely boring. I rarely play anymore, and if I do it's with friends. But, I have memories of some big hands in Vegas that I'm happy to have experienced. I also learned a ton about risk management, my personal risk tolerance, and controlling my emotions.
My friend plays professionally full time and he uses these apps for a slight edge. They all do. The apps do not play for him. They just say 80% user Smith123 folds.
Every couple months I used to travel for some juicy tournament series to try my hand at live games.
He ended up making a lot more money than that (more than he’d ever made in a paycheck up to that point!), but half of it was from a guy with more teeth out of his possession than in his possession. Most of his opponents were irrational addicts fighting personal demons.
In the end, he decided gambling wasn’t for him, never went back to Atlantic City.
Zero sum games are really depressing.
You could lurk outside the door and hit them with a rock or stab them with a knife, but that would be illegal. Functionally you're playing a similar role. You're stalking prey, trying to find the weak and hurt them, possibly until they die, knowing there will be more.
I quite understand why people can get off on this, but I also understand why many healthy humans will be put off by it. It's playing up one aspect of humanity while totally stifling other aspects. Humans are also cooperative, but that's not going to make you money playing poker.
I've played in small poker tournaments where there was a buy in which went to charity and the prizes were provided by local businesses. That's positive sum.
Poker itself can be exciting and entertaining to watch, it is televised for entertainment, and has sponsors. In smaller contexts it's a social event that brings people together.
It has produced books, and culture and life lessons (I can't think of better training in outcome bias), it's synonymous with learning to control your emotions. You gotta know when to hold em...
While I think you make an interesting point, I don't think the situation is terribly different for poker than it is for most sports unless you don't count the massive amount of unpaid time and injuries that even losing competitors often put into it as a cost.
If you make films you aren’t targeting “film addicts” that go to the theater all day 7 days a week. They have a minimal effect on your outcome.
If playing sports required taking money from the losers to pay the winners, and the people who lost the most amount of money are those who end up having some kind of addiction and serious problem that the winners are exploiting, then yeah, sports would be also be quite morally questionable.
You are right that there is exploitation in sports and other forms of media, but I think most people can identify those aspects of sports and call them out.
However, neither seem particularly "productive" outside of all the money that is funneled into events for marketing purposes. There is, of course, perhaps some inherent aesthetic and community building around a common interest that is valuable, but I'd argue that the same is true for poker - I personally find the game of no limit hold'em interesting from a theoretical perspective and have met a lot of people that I would not have otherwise through playing it.
Poker doesn't seem that much different to other abstracted competitive pursuits to me besides that it has a larger luck factor to it.
In contrast, tournament games (chess, golf, tennis, WSOP, esports, etc) may have significant entry fees, but at a professional level the total winnings are significantly more than the sum of all entry fees. Generally the excess money comes from corporate sponsors or viewership fees. The entry fees can result in some players walking away with less money than they started, but I don't think this is common outside of tournament-play poker.
The most popular professional sports (soccer, football, baseball, etc) have players on salaries. Those players often also get performance bonuses, either for entire-team results (winning the championship) or personal results (number of games played, statistical thresholds, etc). But they're all getting paid _something_ win or lose.
My comment was more directed at the OP's assertion that poker is not 'productive' because it is zero-sum. I personally don't see how injecting corporate sponsors into otherwise zero sum games (only one team in sporting events can win, only one chess player can win the tournament) elevates competitive pursuits outside of poker to what can be considered 'productive'. OP's view could be that all of these pursuits are equally unproductive and that would be fair enough.
No, absolutely not.
LeBron and Stephen Curry show up to a game, and both walk away hundreds of thousands richer.
---
In the top 1% of basketball games and the top 1% of poker games, they are sponsored and no one loses money.
And in the other 99% of basketball games, no money is involved. (People normally don't play pickup games for money.)
The other 99% of poker games involve players losing money.
Agreed on the distribution of who wins and who loses, most people don't lose money playing basketball. However, the point I am trying to make is writing off poker as "not productive" simply because it is monetarily zero sum (or negative sum in the case of raked games) is a disservice to the game itself.
I do suspect that poker can't be as inherently fun as most other card and board games of chance and skill, because if it was it shouldn't need high stakes to be exciting. But that's just a suspicion.
I have a philosophy of life, that I'd like to explain. Picture there's an immigrant. He comes from some far-off country with a very different culture. He didn't move by choice, he doesn't much like the culture of the county he came to. He'd like to protect his culture and raise his kids in it. He doesn't let them mingle, or get too involved in the culture around them. Naturally, he fails. Looking back on it as an old man, he realises that his kids have adopted not only the worst attributes of the surrounding culture, but they have kept the least sympathetic sides of the old culture, his culture too. And they're repeating his mistakes. "I should have let go", he laments. "I should have picked the things that actually matter, and asked them to hold on to just those, rather than trying to keep everything the way I was used to."
I've told it as a story about immigration, because then it's quite easy to believe, right? But truth is, even if we never move to another country, we move to the future. Culture changes. We are that immigrant dad. We too, if we just try to hold on to what we're familiar with, will lose. We need to make conscious choices about what really matters, what's worth holding onto, and what we can let go. If we just coast along without thinking, we'll keep bad traditions and make new bad traditions too.
Gambling culture is one of those things I want to let go. Become a thing of the past. Recycled into something better. I do love modern board and card games, which manage to be fun without high stakes, smoky rooms and martinis. It's not that I don't understand the glamourous appeal of of all that, I am your "countryman" in that regard. It's just not what I want to save.
Obviously your viewpoint is perfectly valid - there are plenty of people who have been irreparably harmed by gambling culture and the way that poker is marketed largely does itself no favors in that regard. My point is that degenerate culture and poker can be separated and there are absolutely healthy ways to enjoy a hobby which, yes, has a luck element to it, but also requires precise study and meticulous decision making to excel at.
From what I've read I think you are conflating the predatory nature of casinos with the game of poker. Those two things are certainly linked, but I would argue that it would be a mistake to write off a game like No Limit Texas Hold'em as irredeemably harmful due to the association.
Obviously not everyone plays poker in a smoky room with gangsters, or even with real money, but I think maybe that cultural context is part of the explanation. You absolutely can divorce it from that cultural context, if you like poker but hate gambling - but is that worth holding onto, when there are so many options to get similar intellectual and social pleasures?
We play poker because we enjoy the structure of the game and it is different to other things. Personally I'm uncomfortable with your insinuation that I, and the friends I play with, are somehow culturally brainwashed to be gamblers because we enjoy poker.
I'll end the conversation by repeating what I said above. If you look down on this type of activity then there's nothing I can do to change your mind.
Because of culture. But culture changes all the time - if we resist changing it, it gets changed for us, and then usually in ways we would least like.
> isn't that gambling to try to win the game
No, of course not. When I say gambling I'm talking about out-of-game stakes. There's obviously a difference between real-world money and in-game stakes like victory points.
You're not brainwashed more than anyone is. Catan and poker are both part of our culture. But we lose culture all the time, whether we want to or not (the point of my story), so is it really worth it to hold on to the culture that is heavily about gambling?
As I also said: even though lots of poker buffs will resist that because they are into the gambling, you can divorce it from gambling for yourself and your game buddies if you're really determined to. It's your choice. But is that really a conscious choice, or are you just trying to hold on to it without thinking critically about why, like the immigrant dad in my story?
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
Put it on my tombstone: “he got it in good”.
I don't know, I hear lots of sports fans complain about the money earned by athletes that one might think that the owners are only moments from bankruptcy because of those greedy players' salaries!
Should we let casinos shape our culture in this way?
In poker even the thing you're celebrating is zero-sum. Could person A fool person B or could person B read them; that's not people collaborating to create something in the way that two tennis players beating out a long rally are, that's just A vs B. And so much of the game is simply random luck - does the right card fall or not - and that's what people want to see; you might say there's skill in the game and that might be true, but people don't watch poker for the chess moments where someone makes a brilliant move, they watch it for the moments when the right number comes out of the random box. The larger luck factor matters.
There are absolutely brilliant plays in poker at its highest levels when a player finds an interesting line with a particular hand. I agree that most poker "highlights" are not of this variety, but instead highlight the gambley nature of the game, but that is not the whole story. To me, studying and understanding the dynamics of good poker strategy has the exact same beauty and elegance which you use to describe football / chess / Formula 1.
I'd fully agree that the way poker markets itself in many contexts definitely leans into the degenerate nature of it and does itself no favors. However, there is a very complex beautiful game of skill behind all of it.
poker gets all the negative stigma
Of course people can convince themselves with all sorts of rationalizations, like claiming you're introducing people to things that can make their lives better that they might not have otherwise known about. But that's just a fallacy. Good things, with or without advertising, gradually become known. Online ads are overwhelmingly about shoveling chaff down people's throats.
And poker players have the same sort of rationalizations. You might view oneself as an athlete, or an entertainer, a competitor, or maybe even just an analyst. Many of those descriptors, in my opinion, fall closer to reality than ad delivery rationalizations, but again it's all just rationalizations anyway you look at it.
The number of people working truly valuable jobs that genuinely improve society are few and far between, and they tend to pay terribly. Farmers being a textbook example. There are some good counter-examples like doctors, but even there there's an undesirable trend. Working at a poor public emergency institution is going to drive relatively low income and high stress. Go work as a plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills and you're driving an extremely high income and low stress work. All in all we have a pretty terrible system, but nonetheless it's almost certainly better than all the others.
I don't see this as the same thing at all. Advertisers exist because of demand for them by companies who want to sell their stuff to consumers. Those companies employ people and actually produce things that consumers want. This is not a zero sum game.
Ultimately all we really need is food, water and to keep from freezing to death in some shelter. So sure, we can get rid of almost everything else, but that isn't really the point.
I'm not saying poker (or advertising) is like the Holocaust. I am however saying people are exceptionally good at rationalizing their participation in acts they would otherwise find morally appalling if they end up in a place where they are part of a system and their ability to maintain their social status quo hinges on continuing to be part of it.
> All in all we have a pretty terrible system, but nonetheless it's almost certainly better than all the others.
Completely unrelated fun fact: Eastern Block apparatchiks used to refer to anarchists and other communists as "utopians" and coined the term "real socialism" (or "actually existing socialism") to describe the Soviet system of authoritarian governance and justify why it never met the aspirational goals Lenin and the Bolsheviks initially claimed they had. It's terrible, da, but it's better than capitalism and only a counter-revolutionary would claim that something more radical would be possible.
If you go back to the days of feudalism I'm sure you can find a thinker arguing in not as many words that while the divine hierarchy may feel cruel at times it is clearly preferable to the chaos of mob rule.
Content marketing is like a void onion. It's layers upon layers of nothing and it all generates "passive income". Most of it exists to sell to other people who are doing content marketing as a get-rich-quick-scheme. Why bother doing a grift yourself if you can grift by selling your grift to other people and let them worry about how to make it actually work. The actual product and topic doesn't even matter. Is it investment advice? Mental health? Self-improvement? Weight loss? "Passive income"? Offer vacuous goodies like "free ebooks" to get people hooked and then continue selling and upselling them on the promise that if they just pay for one more Mastermind session, webinar, virtual retreat or coaching package, they'll figure it out eventually.
There are so many games out there. If it's really about the satisfaction of getting better, the social aspect, and all those other things, why not pursue it in one of the other games?
This is why some people like things like sit-n-go's or tournaments, where you pay a fixed sum once and then get a good amount of play in but where people will still take it very seriously.
That said poker for fun and poker to make a living are almost indistinguishable, to make serious money multi-table grinds for 8 to 10 hours a day and the reasons outlined by OP article
He was a fellow low level pro that had been bluffing me all night, making nice and chit chatting with me.
Like thinking back now there is just zero remorse. Never saw him again. He didn’t have bus fare.
It is a sanctioned place to have a battle of wits for money. Totally agree it is not good for the soul to grind it out at the tables long term, but for me it was all about the thrill of devastation, giving and taking. Very much not the case that I “didn’t care”.
I met a great friend for a weekend traveling through Thailand after taking him for 10k online and noticing we were in the same country.
I lost 20k in an online hand all in on the flop to a runner runner. I look back on that as a thrill, the most memorable of roller coasters.
I'd reckon it's more about the journey, the stories and friends we made along the way, even though there may be few.
Whenever someone asks, "Why do they do that?" I always share the man who holds the Guinness World Records for rolling an orange with their nose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66xwQZuic3E
Why not?
Gambling, for most people, is ultimately a form of fraud. It's built on the narrative that you can get rich quick. Gambling is for the winners. The losers are just paying for it. The narrative hinges entirely on numbing the mark's rationality and making them not think about the odds, getting them to keep throwing money at you until they go bankrupt.
Rolling an orange on the other hand is something you can do entirely by yourself without harming anyone except the people you inconvenience if you do it somewhere public. Neither activity is productive but at least rolling an orange with your nose isn't actively anti-social unless you're a dick about it.
I find it interesting that professional poker players are frequently criticized for this but I've never seen someone criticize a casino dealer or other employee for this.
The perception of role might be, but not for the product they are participating in ...
You've never seen someone critising the gambling industry for preying on the mentally ill and troubled? That's extremely common
This is like saying you lose on lottery because the state always wins in total. Money wise yes but when you have a lottery ticket you entertain yourself with hopes and can dream about what you'd do with the megabucks. If you feel good for a while because of it ... did you really lose?
Same with poker. Sure, you can only win if someone else loses but what if they had fun?
In other words, is going to the cinema a net loss?
Gambling is ancient and wired deep in the human psyche. It’s neither morally right nor morally wrong. It is just something we enjoy as a species. I feel bad for people addicted, but I also feel bad for people addicted to alcohol or addicted to reading the news. Everyone needs to moderate their own consumption.
Historically most societies have restricted gambling to one extent or the other because it’s clear that there is a subset of the population who can’t self moderate, and this results in a significant cost to everyone else.
We’re currently in a period of loosening regulations and we’ll see how that goes. Early results aren’t great.
https://home.binwise.com/blog/restaurant-failure-rate#:~:tex....
2. If a person with a gambling problem takes out a home equity loan and bets it all on black and wins, the most likely outcome is that they then keep betting until they eventually lose. So while one bet may have close to a 50% change of paying off, the real world expected value of giving someone $100k to go to a casino is much less than if you'd given that same $100k to a random person who wants to start a restaurant.
3. Opening a failed restaurant isn't something that someone is likely to do more than once. It's hard to find exact numbers, but the number of people who will ever start a failed restaurant is less than a tenth of a percent. The number of people who will experience a gambling disorder at some point in their life is 1-2%.
4. Even assuming a person does have some kind of problem and wants to keep trying and failing to open restaurants, the process of opening a restaurant takes a lot more time and effort than betting on roulette.
Gambling has in most societies throughout history been recognized as particularly pernicious. Early data from our recent experiments with loosening regulations seems to provide evidence that gambling produces significant externalities that need to be dealt with through some non-market means.
I do have some issues spending so much time on a zero-sum game, as you mentioned, but ultimately it’s better that I have the money than people who are going to gamble it away; I’ll do something useful with it, and they probably won’t.
"As Canada Bill Jones said, 'it's immoral to let a sucker keep his money.'"
This isn’t unique to Poker.
This applies to all Gambling.
But regardless of it being the casino or another person, it's still a zero-sum game.
It's really not much different than working on a company backed by a rich investor where the CEO skillfully plays their cards to maneuver more money out of the rich fish while the other players also try to get what they can out of them.
That is the income of full time poker players.
Yes, and the top earners in poker aren't always the best players, but rather skilled players who have some personality instead of putting on headphones and grinding and get invited to lucrative private games.
It's a negative sum game.
I agree with about everything the author of the post said. It's a lonely and destructive game. Success if meaningless and comes at expense of others. It's bad for your health both physical and mental. Gambling is fine as an entertainment in moderate amount for people who don't get addicted to it. I don't see any value in professional gambling though. I think almost everyone is worse off in that world. There is a lot of potential lost creating winners and losers in a negative sum game while game organizers make out like bandits luring addicts to their games (both online and live).
Professional poker is a very effective trap for smart analytical people. You can find success there faster and easier than in other areas and then you face a dilemma the author talks about: money is great but you feel like your are not building anything and opportunities to become involved in productive and rewarding endeavours slowly drift away. Switching becomes more difficult (and costly) with every passing year.
I am one of the big winners of the poker world - not only I made enough money to never worry about it again but I've met a lot o interesting people and learnt a lot of interesting things during work on my poker related project. I have one advice for smart people, especially those similar to me (ADHD, maybe slightly on autistic spectrum who can't imagine working a 9-5 job) - don't get involved it will lure you and chew you out. If you feel you have trouble holding a job or completing your degree which is not caused by your intellectual potential - seek help and maybe medication. After more than 15 years in the industry my biggest professional dream is to one day have enough discipline and energy to start a project in an unrelated area and create something more useful than a tool to help winners beat losers at a gambling game.
On a relevant note, I built a preflop tool for PLO folks. Check it out here: https://rnikhil.com/2022/06/15/gtoinspector-startup.html
You are very accurate with how Poker lured me in. Its a easy place for analytical minded folks to make a ton of money.
Would you say that building a “toy solver” for hold em could be a fun way to learn or improve with a language? I’d be curious to see how much work is needed to approximate the shape of the real GTO charts and common bet sizes.
> Imagine sitting in front of a screen for 12-16hrs a day, clicking buttons
> The 95th percentile Poker income is about $200-250k.
I knew quite a few people who went through poker phases in college and their early 20s, back before it was heavily regulated. Back then, it was common for random people to join online casinos without any real skill to go along with it, so they were basically milking the average players all day long. They all had similar ideas about how they were going to get huge incomes by applying basic principles and scaling it to as many simultaneous poker windows as they could.
Some of these were very smart and talented people. A couple wrote scripts to track and graph their progress and statistics, which they shared online for extra motivation. Honestly, it became depressing to watch the growing dissonance between the high incomes they thought they were going to generate and the actual progress of their balances.
Also, staring at poker screens for 12-16 hours per day is soul crushing. Doing that to have a 5% chance of earning $250K (if those stats are correct) is even more depressing.
And then there's drawdown periods: Some times odds would align against them or they'd be off their game for some reason. They could go through long periods where their net balance was either flat or in slow decline, which could turn into a self-reinforcing cycle that worsened their play.
I don't know anyone who continued for more than a few years.
I did recently talk to someone who left their tech job to play poker for 5 years. He was at a level where he traveled to tournaments and got lucky a few times, but realized it was no longer fun nor sustainable. He was having a huge difficulty getting back into a career job. Most interviewers looked at the 5 year gap in his resume to play poker and passed. Those who did give him interviews asked a lot of questions about his career goals, likely because they assumed he was just falling back to a real job for a while before he went back to poker again in a few years. Last we spoke, he still hadn't landed a job.
Doctors coming back after 5+ years of maternity leave (not uncommon in eastern europe when some social system have 3 years of paid maternity leave per child, some stay home even 10 years) can't do basic doctoring. Devs can't do anything sophisticated. People and people leading skills have also probably rather atrophied in those 16 hours dark lit room daily sessions.
So you are basically hiring a 40+ year old junior with potential gambling habit, possibly less flexible than younger, who may be in only for shorter term and probably has quite high salary expectations compared to juniors. That leaving part is probably most obvious. Yeah a hard pass is not unexpected.
The owner of Brighton is a former poker player: https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2023/sep/20/bright....
You don't make money by having amazing unique insight, you make money by finding soft players and milking them for money.
All the retail investors and day traders are the amateur players thinking they are decent but really are just getting milked
Also understanding of odds, management of your bet sizes (Kelly criterion).
Wrote more about it on my blog here: https://rnikhil.com/2022/06/15/gtoinspector-startup.html
Found a corporation--it's not that hard. Viola! No gaps in your resume anymore.
1) There is absolutely a huge edge to be had playing live tournaments, even for buy ins in the $1k - $5k range. If you are playing outside of Vegas it is very common to end up at a table where at least half the table are "recreational" (i.e. players who are bad and are likely to make large mistakes).
2) The downside to playing live tournaments is that it is difficult to get reasonable volume in and the variance can be brutal. It is not that unlikely to go on a 20+ buy in downswing even with a decent edge.
3) Having an income source not tied to poker is huge and allows you to not have to be conservative with bankroll management. If you're pulling in mid 6 figures from a day job you don't have to worry about selling action or going down in stakes when you go on a downswing because you can always supplement the bankroll with your income. This, obviously, can be taken too far, but you don't have to be as worried about the variance from shot taking a higher buy in tournament where you know you have an edge like the $10k WSOP Main Event which is by far the softest $10k that exists.
As the saying goes, being a professional gambler is the hardest way to make an easy living.
If one had only choice between being poor homeless or do this I could accept that relativity, but not like this. I can't have any possible respect for smart capable human living like that by choice, sucking desperate horribly sick people of their possessions, ever.
Sure, there are still few humans around worse than that, just look at the news, but its still pretty much the moral bottom. And all I've seen in this discussion just proves that (I don't judge this activity from my experience since I don't play cards, I get my happiness from mountains and extreme sports and that's more than enough, and salary is enough too).
Nobody can lose anything they don’t choose to play. Consent matters.
We sell cigarettes on every streetcorner (to say nothing of bars), which is evidence that society has reached widespread consensus on the fact that addicts are allowed to choose to be addicted (or not) to things. (The vast, vast majority of people who play poker are not addicted to playing poker.)
There's a write up about it here: https://www.pokernews.com/news/2010/08/making-supernova-elit...
There were other places as well. There were so many stories posted on the 2+2 forums[0] of people making really good money doing this. That's one of the most popular poker forums. It's interesting because it's a different type of skill. Tile a bunch of windows, have a lot of mental fortitude and grind it out. It's a completely different strategy than trying to become a "winning" player.
I used to play microstates back before online poker was banned in the US so I didn't participate in that. What's funny though is even back then at the 5c-10c ($10 buy in) or 10c-25c ($25 buy in) NL tables you'd have folks 4-6 tabling while looking at a PokerTrack HUD which gathered stats about players and displayed them above their name plate. I can't imagine at how much the game must have progressed since then.
Like OP, I decided to become professional because of the freedom, but also because I just liked games. But after a couple of years these advantages start to fade away. First of all, you are not really free, especially when games are scarce: you have to be always available because if you miss a good game, it can take days before another one comes along. Also, the fun in playing games erodes if you play them day in day out. Also, like OP points out, variance is brutal. The downswings can wear you out, sometimes I had to take a few days to recover.
But the main reason I eventually switched to a career in IT was something that OP also mentions: the main skill in making a lot of money, especially in live games, is not how well you play, but how good you are in finding wealthy suckers that want to play against you. This part really put me off in the end, it just wasn't me.
It was great that I noticed this before degenerating into a full-time addict. I used to grind at $15 9-player STTs and the variance was downright depressing. I cannot imagine what people playing at higher stakes go through. Just out of curiosity, I looked up many of the hotshot professionals of the day, almost none are still playing today. The games became tough and eventually everyone gets surpassed by the new guy using real-time assistance.
People starting this grind today simply shouldn't do it. Odds are that the game will become zero-sum at planetary scale given everyone and their mother is using GTO solvers now.
It’s much, much better as a hobby than a job.
Software is a much better gig, with much higher returns in your late-stage career (as the author notes well in TFA). If you are really good at software (but still well below 99th percentile good) you can still earn lifechanging money.
Honestly, I can't see it as a job. The skill at the high levels is insane, the variance is insane.
There is a reason people have said "No professional will win the WSOP again." Even if you are 5-10% better than everyone else... There is many, many, many trials to survive, and you only have to lose once when you are right.
There's a reason Phil Hellmuth folded KK early in the WSOP. And when you understand why... It speaks volumes of his thoughts about himself. Right or wrong.
The fish are out there. It just ain't worth frying them. Go have fun playing. It is a fun game. But a living... for just a few.
I think this nails it. As a grinder you know the work you put in. And given the game has been around lifetimes, during your life if dire shows up, like any skilled profesional, you do what you know.
I really did love it. But I really couldn't imagine not learning anything else.
I think video game streaming is the same. Not much room left for yourself.
@dang please replace the above link with the original: https://rnikhil.com/2023/11/12/quitting-fulltime-poker.html
There are lot of articles on the internet about the tax impact on gaming companies. You can check them out for more details
Somebody posted the link here from team-bhp.
I think both these preconditions are met (in spades) when it comes to online poker.
As far as I can tell, there's no way to stop collusion in the following form:
- Create a large remote team of cheaters
- Have them all multi-table PLO at the same online casino
- Each participant randomly chooses tables to avoid anti-collusion tracking
- With a large enough pool of cheaters, you will inevitably have multiple colluders at the same table
- Sharing knowledge of your whole cards with other colluding table participants will give you all a huge winning edge
Since there's no way to stop the above, and there's a large incentive with low consequences if caught, I assume cheating is a huge problem in online poker. Wondering if anyone can confirm/deny this?
"without tilting"
I played a little for fun on some Bitcoin poker sites about a decade ago, and the sites I used were verifiably fair and gave you the game's seed when you were finished. I don't think I'd ever play for real money on a site that I couldn't verify to be fair. You don't want true external source of randomization for anything other than the seed, otherwise you couldn't verify the game.
A rational fear would be more about a site using a predictable RNG, or somebody being able to exfiltrate or deduce the seed of a running game, or players colluding with each other or an employee. Nowadays, an AI assistant (or full-fledged poker bots) probably largely makes playing online poker a crapshoot anyway.
There's not really any point in a poker site itself rigging a game when the house always wins anyway.
That behaviour quite likely lands everyone involved in jail in regulated (think big name entities with licenses in Malta types) companies. These can be FTSE listed companies with valuations in the billions, and subject to intense regulatory and legal scrutiny.
If you play with crypto on the dark web, you deserve everything you get. Rock up to the established brands, you can expect some minimum standards.
I wouldn't trust these Maltese companies either. They've been embroiled in lawsuits here in Germany for ignoring gambling laws - and after a lot of gamblers won said lawsuits and demanding their losses be repaid, Malta actually passed a law limiting asset seizure orders from other EU nations, in a move likely to be brought towards the EU court system [1].
[1] https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/malta-gluecksspiel-100....
as another comment said below, RTA is probably biggest ways people take unfair advantage nowadays.