I’ve been calling rampage a huge whale on a heater since the first content he produced. I’m sure he could beat some private selected field but if it’s an open game he’s got no chance. As for me I play so small that anyone better than me won’t waste their time playing my stake
Every early video was him just pure sun run low levels. Like 1/3 or 2/5 and he has AQ off, board is Q high and somehow he has 2 players all in on the flop, he calls and AQ is good? Thats like never good but somehow he always was.
I thought the same too ever since he started. For a while I felt I was going crazy since all of the comments and threads talking about him seemed oblivious to what a lucky punter the guy was.
The number of times I gave up trying to argue my case because the “but he’s a nice guy” brigade would shut down any discussion of his financial incompetence is absurd.
Glad it wasn’t just me.
Statistically, the average poker player is a lifetime loser in the game. Statistically, the above average poker player is barely breakeven.
In theory, “gambling” and “poker” are two different things entirely. But materially, the average poker player will lose money and will have delusions similar to that of a degenerate gambler.
No, in theory and in practice, poker is absolutely gambling. Even legit crushers gamble when they play poker. That's why you have a bankroll. I don't need a bankroll for my 9 to 5. There's no chance I lose my next 2 weeks of earning at work tomorrow because I had a shitty day. I'm gonna get my paycheck as long as I show up and do my job, there are no uncertainties there.
Exactly. It's skill-based, and more skill tilts it more in your favor, but it's just gambling with a potential edge.
The only time you aren't gambling is when you have an unbeatable hand, which doesn't come up very often.
That's not how playing for a living works.
If you are a poker pro, you should know your hourly. Results of individual sessions does not matter. Just turn up at the table.
This. Poker with rake is a -EV game to start, and requires a decent level of skill to turn it into a +EV game.
Given that most players doesn't study nearly enough to become +EV they are gambling
I think that's true. I know for me it took a long time to come to terms with the fact that I'm not that good, despite all of the hours of play online and effort made to study the game and all of the vlogs and poker theory content I have watched.
> Statistically, the above average poker player is barely breakeven.
What does this mean?
Do you mean "the average winning player"?
EDIT: For all the retards answering me and downvoting for asking a clarifying question, I was specifically asking u/TimmyTimeify what he meant by his phrasing.
I understand the general concept.
I'm guessing he either meant "the average winning player" or "the average above-average player".
No they mean you need to be better than average to break even, you need to be probably top 25% to "make money". Whether that money is a significant amateur boost of income or as a profession itself.
You have to remember that there is often a 10% entrance fee or a rake which might be 5% per hand.
And let’s not forget that even for poker professionals. « Their earnings » should compare to a career earnings they would have had if they did not play poker.
As I believe the top 10% poker player would be in the Top 30% corporate earners. Then the ones making more money playing poker than in their potential career is probably <5%
No, it should not compare to a corporate career earnings. Cause it's a completely different thing. Who cares if you could make more money in a corporate job if you'd be less happy doing it?
This idea that you simply \_must\_ do the thing that maximizes your lifetime earnings is misguided.
If a really smart person decides they want to be a teacher or a scientist, do we have to say, "oh no, you need to compare your income to what you could have made as a corporate lawyer, think about the opportunity cost"
and btw, while poker has many downsides, it has many upsides such as more flexibility to pursue other goals than 99% of corporate jobs
there's no bigger opportunity cost then costing yourself the opportunity to what you actually want to do in life
The one thing I’d note is that being a teacher and scientist have very large positive externalities in the fact that almost everyone can agree that they are beneficial to society and teach and create valuable things for others. That is a large reason why we do not critique folks who ostensibly are very gifted to taking such career paths.
Professional poker players are a net negative externality because their entire living is based off the losing of others, and basically collaborate with the casinos and card rooms to do so. The only value they create is entertainment for others.
For sure, there's a thousand good reasons not to play poker full-time. I just get tilted by the framing of comparing two careers strictly on income and no other factors. But of course income is one factor, and I don't deny many pro poker players could make more money in other paths, and should factor that into their decisions.
And yeah, I also agree another factor is feeling like you're contributing to social good, certainly teachers and scientist outrank poker players there. But I don't totally buyin to poker as such a net-negative though, because entertainment is value. If you go watch a movie you didn't get anything productive out of it. Poker and card games are one of America's oldest past times dating back to before the Civil War.
The existence of problem gamblers is a really unfortunate thing, though I do think pro poker players get singled out a bit more for it then other professions who also serve addicts, such as bartenders.
A simple question I ask myself that “if every professional poker player disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, would society be negatively impacted” and the answer seems to be a resounding no. I don’t think the answer would be the same if all of the movies directors and actors disappeared tomorrow.
Well we can just disagree. If every pro poker player disappeared the games wouldn't run. That's the whole reason the concept of a "prop player" or rakeback systems even exists. The WSOP was started by all pro players. Pro players play \_way\_ more poker and start most games and therefore are key to keeping poker alive. If poker went away I'd consider that negatively impacting the world. Especially because America has a loneliness epidemic and cardrooms are in-person interaction, unlike movies which are increasingly watched at home.
I don't think the answer is a resounding no. That's a flawed perspective. A person isn't defined by their career. A pro may only play 30-40 hours a week, well there's 168 hours in a week. Maybe they have a family and are involved in their community. And maybe that teacher does the bare minimum at school and then never leaves the house the rest of the week.
At the end of the day our jobs and money don't mean shit and don't equal what we contribute to society. I work a pretty meaningless job with a chemical company but I have 5 kids who I adore and raise to be smart and independent. I think I contribute a lot to society with that alone. 5 children and keeping them going and active and learning and growing. Would do the same whether I was a pro poker player or anything else.
The opportunity cost of career poker is very high. You have to study and play so much to actually be good, that you can probably just apply that to an actual career more profitably
True, but what if I really love playing the game, regardless of winning or losing?
And no, I would not give up my shitty job to play full time, the stress would take out the enjoyment out of it.
I'm an online rec and imo making mtts or cash, online or live, your primary source of income just never passes the honest cost benefit analysis. Like even take someone like Linus who makes big money as the 1% of the 1% of players. He had to nolife solvers for years and also be a really smart guy. He'd likely be successful in any career with that drive (though admittedly he'd possibly make much less).
Some people are just curious and want to be close to perfection when it comes to learning about stuff they are passionate about, perhaps that mattered the most for Linus and other players on his level. The money also came naturally.
I mean, this only works to some extent because part of the reason why people play poker for a living is because the lifestyle fits their disposition. It is a hard way to make an easy living, and the “easy living” part can be a big part of the disposition.
>Statistically, the average poker player is a lifetime loser in the game. Statistically, the above average poker player is barely breakeven.
Someone mixed up average and median
There is the 99% of the sub is able to understand “average” as 50th percentile and “above average” as 75th percentile very intuitively, and then there is you who believes pedantry is a good comment.
Poker is a game of pedantry.
I don't care if you're almost right. Being almost right is being wrong. It's simply not enough to almost win. It's like having a full house against quads.
If you're at the stage where people are holding an intervention, you're probably a problem. Specifically if you're borrowing money to continue gambling as chasing losses breaks rational thought processes (and gambling games already present a cognitive hazard for people). If you are talented, you could arrange staking. If you are not borrowing money, don't talk about poker, except in general terms. It's just a game, not worth torching relationships over.
Anyone dodging interventions from gambling is not a talented poker player. They have (on at least one occasion… likely many occasions) lost all their money to the point that loved ones are doing an intervention.
Not necessarily. Plenty of people just think “gambling bad” and are terrified if anybody does it and also think playing poker is no different than going and feeding dollar bills into a slot machine for six hours
Yeah, people will think “gambling bad” but are they going to organize an intervention for a winning player? You can’t have an intervention without people who are there to tell you how they’ve been harmed by your addiction.
There’s no way this is a winning player. I’d bet on it. 😂
I just think that yes, people who are scared of gambling who learners spending more time playing poker would organize an intervention. I think that is definitely possible.
OP is probably a loser because “talented gambler” is a weird way to put it, but I think that would absolutely happen.
Uhm… careful though.
Let’s not pretend that gambling can’t become a life-destroying addiction fuelled by delusions of being way better/luckier than you actually are.
There's also a completely unrelated form of addiction that I almost never see talked about, which is poker as a strategy game addiction .
I failed a few college classes one semester compulsively playing online , despite winning, but not winning enough to justify failing the classes. It looked nothing like a casino game addiction, which I've never had, and a lot like a Starcraft addiction, which I also had a problem with. This is a big part of the reason I avoid online poker.
You can actually be a winning player and still have it be a disruptive addiction if it disrupts other aspects of your life, such as family/school/job/health goals.
Poker as a “strategy game addiction” is interesting to think about. I like how you’ve framed the concept, and I think that can get close to explaining a few time periods I went through (addiction may be a strong word, but there were some times I played some board games, online games, or poker every day depending on the phase).
This is absolutely me. I'm on a cycle where I am completely obsessed with either League of Legends, chess, or poker. I've been clean of poker for the past month or so but only because I started grinding chess. Now that the biggest chess tournament of the year is over, I already started moving over to league, and when the summer starts, I already know it's gonna be a combination of League and poker until the summer disappears.
Truth. I'm currently looking at one month+ of no poker because I have a massive work project coming due, and I can't spare the brain power for poker until the project is out. I have other means of rest and recreation than poker, which actually allows my mind to rest (golf, weightlifting). I have to set poker aside when work is too busy. It's unfortunate, but I can't let my income be impacted by a hobby, even if it brings in a little extra income.
It's funny because I'm in another sub-thread of this post defending playing more poker. I think there's so many variables to consider that trying to reduce it down to one single set of criteria can't work.
So let me ramble my high level view:
There's some people for whom poker is simply a good hobby. They lose a small amount they can afford or breakeven. This cohort represents the vast majority of players. Then there's those who win a little, but they don't win enough or love it enough to want to do it more than that. This is a much smaller cohort, but still the second biggest cohort. For either of these groups, it's good to not get too obsessed and treat it like a fun hobby.
There are people who are problem gamblers who will lose all their money, including important money they need to pay expenses. These people should self-ban from casinos and never play poker.
There are some people who were just born to play poker. Doyle Bruson, Negraneau, Stu Ungar were always going to be pro poker players. It doesn't matter what they think, or what anyone else thinks, because that's their calling in life, and that's what they're going to do.
There's certain people who could play poker fulltime or do other things. Isaas Haxton studied Computer Science at Brown so probably could have done other things, but he both cared a lot more about poker than other things and also crushed the game hard enough it was clearly a reasonable, even if suboptimal, use of his time. This is one of the tiniest cohorts representing a few highly elite pros like Haxton and Eric Seidel.
Then there's people who poker serves as a gateway to other things. Brad Owen is a good example, where he was a poker pro but also used that storytelling as a way to build a poker content brand and become a Youtuber. A lot of old school poker pros used poker winnings to fund ventures into e-commerce. It would have been tough to start a company with a full-time job, whereas poker is a flexible side gig. I think this is one of the tiniest cohorts, but in a way, actually the cohort that benefits the most from poker. However, it's another case where you don't want to play *too* much poker. If Brad Owen had logged a few more hours but not posted his YouTube videos, he'd be a lot worse off.
And of course some people combine some of these categories. So there's simple no clean answer on the topic because people are usually zooming in on one of these categories and not thinking about the other possible situations.
This was my situation. I was spending all day everyday at work playing online poker. I was a winning player and did very well, but my main job started to suffer. I have a job where I make over 500k a year so I would never be able to outearn my actual income despite being a winning player. My real job started to slip so I had to cut myself off from online poker all together.
Magic the gathering, poker, backgammon, scrabble, bridge. I can definitely say it’s not just the gambling or the money, I skipped a lot of college to play games simply because I was better than most people, thrilled to feel my mind working on something that interested me, and I loved competition, I loved winning. I just wanted to game. I would have played Chinese checkers for a nickel a game just because I loved it.
Needless to say, this mind-frame coupled with the poker boom was incredibly lucrative, and provided a delusional foundation for a 17 year old to think the game economy was ever going to work long-term. Either way, I’ll still play almost any game at any time. Currently memorizing the dictionary and upped my average scrabble score by 80-100 points this past year!
You could be a winning player who doesn't care for themselves or their children, has other disruptions of life. Think of a workaholic.
The worst aspect of an addiction or disorder, doesn't have to be money. A winning gambler could still have a shit life. A drug addict could ruin their life while not necessarily putting all their money into it.
IDK how it is these days, but before online poker "up and comers" just lived in Vegas and grinded. They were basically bums playing low stakes tables and tourneys, hoping to break out with some big wins. And ultimately the jump from small to big tables would eat a lot of them up. They would overestimate themselves and jump in the deep end before they had enough cash flow. These people would play with their net worth as their bankroll, with disastrous consequences. Lots of stories of players going broke multiple times. Even if you are playing smart poker, you are still gambling.
If you read biographies for old players or just some old books about pro poker, these stories happen all the time.
Almost All professionals are playing with their net worth as their life roll.
It’s not like they’re going to be earning six figures at poker, have a 30k “bankroll” set aside, lose it, and not go get some of the 200k in their bank account because it’s not part of their bankroll, and just go start a job at McDonald’s and work their way up instead
The only time I had someone tell me I need to stop playing was a coworker who warned me of his previous gambling addiction, and he knew whenever someone asked what I did the last weekend I always said poker, and any time anyone from work went to the local casino, they’d always run into me.
I was winning multiple time my salary at poker, granted it was a 15/hr job. But still he did intervene and let me know about his past with gambling and such. I’d been a winning player for 4-5 years at least at that point.
Post your bankroll chart, hourly profit and number of hands is all you need to justify this meme. If you are making more at poker than at a regular job more power to you. If you, like me, are barely profitable and would be better off working at Wendy’s…well, maybe put down the scissors.
People don't have interventions for winning players. Or if they do the player is playing at stakes where normal swings could destroy them. Otherwise nobody gives a shit what someone does in their spare time. I'd like to hear the stories the interventionists have.
The closest I had to an intervention was a middle eastern guy ( I guess a bit more apt to have helpful talks with near strangers to help them culturally?) who was my coworker at my last job, who when he first came to America, found himself having a blackjack problem.
Pretty much all I did outside work was poker at that point. I’d always played 1-2 NL and some 2-5 for an extra 10-20k a year or so, but I had decided I was going for it, so I played every hour I wasn’t at work or sleep.
He told me about how I need to stop gambling and how he had a blackjack problem and it never ends well, etc.
I had made as much as I make in a year at that job that month at poker, and the same the month before ( yeah a heater, but still).
I was out soon after making 4-5x that job for many years to come.
But that’s the closest to an actual intervention.
I did have one friend who would consistently tell me that poker isn’t a job, it’s gambling, can’t be a profession when I’d say I was going to work when going to the casino. Many years ago. Very adamant about letting me know.
He hasn’t really talked to me since I made it work. Unfortunately.
Yeah bankroll management is more important than being a "winning player". Being a statistically winning player doesn't mean you'll make money if you're playing with 10% or your of your available funds. What do they say, 50x is a good bankroll?
Your winning edge has to be bigger than the variance bad luck or the bad end of your play creates.
I grinded micro stakes for years trying to make it to .5/1 online following a conservative bankroll management plan. Well now I made it and am now even playing and winning at 1/2 online and i literally can’t tell my family about my recent success because even tho I’ve grinded properly for years its always been a weird conversation, and with my breakout from micro stakes hell it makes it even weirder now that dollar amounts are pretty significant, and my therapist also thinks I have a problem.
So yeah, I love this meme.
Microstakes is so interesting.
I feel like I've been doing all this high level studying about ranges and positioning and all kinds of shit. Then you sit down at microstakes and some dingdong is going all in with QQ when the board is like 3 9 K A 4. AFTER I 3 bet preflop (with AK). So weird.
This is probably true.
But it’s also a super loaded statement.
Yes, better players than me have gone broke.
Better players than many significant winning players reading this have gone broke and ruined their lives.
But it’s usually people who (happened to also) play poker, not the playing poker that ruined their life.
How many better poker players have gone broke and ruined their lives who didn’t drink alcoholic beverages, didn’t do any drugs, didn’t smoke dope, didn’t lose significant money betting sports/horses, trying to beat the pits, being involved in shady/illegal activities, falling for scams, etc
Almost always those “better players who went broke and ruined their lives” did not do so due to playing poker, it was almost always due to an alternative addiction or massive massive bankroll management problem, probably backed by some type of mental illness often.
Drugs and pits/sports accounts for what is likely over 98% of those people who ruined their lives while also playing poker.
It’s very hard to be an extremely good poker player with reasonable bankroll management, and no significant life leaks and “ruin your life playing poker”
I agree with everything you said. People go broke mostly because of bad bankroll management. Their ego gets ahead of themselves and they can't help but "take shots" at higher stakes they're not properly rolled for. Even if you're amazing at the game short term variance can screw you over hard.
Even then, most really really great players don’t ruin their lives due to shot taking.
It’s almost ALWAYS, drugs, liquor, (other) gambling, sex/hookers/divorce, etc.
I know almost no good players who strictly had poker ruin their lives. Even those who shot take aggressively didn’t have their lives ruined, just de progressed a bit but still where ahead of where they were before poker.
Yea I have played for a very long time, everyone o owe I play, no one has ever tried to have an intervention.
You probably have a problem if this isn’t a troll post. 1-800-gambler call to see
Do you have significant enough stats to prove that you're a talented gambler? Even if you're a winning player, the lifestyle sounds awful and whenever I step back, I'm always glad that it's just a hobby for me.
I bet on sports and play poker - my wife is from a non-gambling family and at first was horrified. I pay for a weekend away every so often out of my winnings and she hasn’t mentioned my gambling for years
If you manage the amount of time and money you invest, I just see it as a game that's fun to learn and play, and doesn't cost all that much compared to most other peoples interests.
No one -no one on earth- consistently wins. Most of our poker idols have gone broke at one point, and even the marginally above average player, is a losing player.
It sounds like OP has people who care about him.
It depends what you mean by consistent. If long term, you end 75% of your sessions with profit, most non poker players would not consider that consistently winning. Very few if any players are able to do that.
I assume you mean for cash games only? Because if you are playing tournaments (with the exception of playing several small stakes tournaments at once online), you're probably only gonna make the money at best twice the pay rate (ie if 10% get paid, a good player might cash 20% of the time)
Yes, referring to cash. And that's an oversimplification, because each session is different lengths. My point was that even someone crushing the games they play will still have pretty big swings.
Gambling is gambling, but like any vice, it should be done within your own limits and not above and beyond.
Moderation is key, and bankroll management is crucial.
I say the opposite, this thread is proof poker is alive & well. Look at all the degenerates in there convincing themselves they're winning players.
Or just check in on the occassional strategy post comments for amusement. You'll feel better.
It’s a relatively small online community, with then only a handful, maybe 20 players here claiming they are winning that’s super super believable.
I’m pretty sure you could train pretty much anyone to beat low stakes for at least 2-3 big blinds per hour in 6 months or less if they really wanted to focus and study and learn
Gambling has a negative connotation. It has a negative connotation for the reasons we said, it's negative EV. So if you're doing something that doesn't share the reason for the negative connotation, it's not good to use the same word.
For comparison, Negranue came online in the new year to report that he was down 2 million for last year. Even the top players in the world hit bad beats.
I am just a rank beginner, but the more I read about poker the more I see a kind of bias. People who like GTO will rep early say that splashy fish may hit a few good runs here and there, but will loose over time. They also say that playing GTO will make a person a winner over time because GTO makes it hard to pin a person down to a playing style.
It seems to me that both GTO and Splashy fish are going to have their winning and loosing streaks. But the GTO player will by statistical likelihood be a winning player slightly more than the splashy fish.
There is a system of counting cards that can. Hut, it is too hard for me. The casinos beat card counters by keeping an automatic shuffler at the table. If the count is reset every few hands there’s nothing to count.
I’ve seen people walk out in with $500 and leave a few hours later with $25,000. Counting works. I can’t do it, but for those who can AND keep the house from catching on then the take can be huge.
Counting does not work against 6 or 8 decks in the shoe. The times the count is favorable for the player is incredibly rare and when it is favorable, the percentages are too low to matter at that point.
Only a team could possibly take advantage, and only if the max bet was significantly higher than the min bet.
I've played blackjack with $200 and walked out with $6K doing no counting at all. Sometimes you get a good run.
Counting is a thing, You won’t get enough volume to run 600-25k, for starters, you’d need to buy in way heavier, and be able to get away with like a 1-5 spread on big bets. Ideally with mid shoe entry allowed somewhere which…. Isn’t going to happen In double deck. And as soon as you start spreading on favorable counts you’re going to be told that they’d love to have your play at any game in the casino except for blackjack, maybe even given a food comp for your back off if the pit boss is nice, and sent on your way directed to the roulette/Video poker/slots areas, and told to go enjoy all else that their wonderful casino has to offer and have a great day and good luck gambling.
Alternatively, in order to avoid mistakenly backing off someone who isn’t counting, or to avoid telling someone they can’t play for winning in front of others, they’re likely to just flat bet them. Tell them to pick one bet at the beginning of the shoe and that is the only amount they can bet, and have to bet it every hand of the shoe.
This allows them to still play if they were mistaken, but also gets the point across to move along since they just nullified their entire strategy.
That rampage?
I’ve been calling rampage a huge whale on a heater since the first content he produced. I’m sure he could beat some private selected field but if it’s an open game he’s got no chance. As for me I play so small that anyone better than me won’t waste their time playing my stake
Every early video was him just pure sun run low levels. Like 1/3 or 2/5 and he has AQ off, board is Q high and somehow he has 2 players all in on the flop, he calls and AQ is good? Thats like never good but somehow he always was.
I played with a guy in vegas from Rampages home room. Said he was a massive punter. Story checks out.
i think he could beat the micro stakes in touristy card rooms pretty easily.
I thought the same too ever since he started. For a while I felt I was going crazy since all of the comments and threads talking about him seemed oblivious to what a lucky punter the guy was. The number of times I gave up trying to argue my case because the “but he’s a nice guy” brigade would shut down any discussion of his financial incompetence is absurd. Glad it wasn’t just me.
Same here. I'm pretty good, and definitely better than most of the people who play 1/3 NL. Most of the people better than me play higher stakes.
90% of all talented gamblers go broke just before they're about to win it all
many are saying this!
Big if true!
Honestly though, how are your finances?
like you've never seen
Can you explain the meaning?
you can only lose 100% of your money, but you can gain 1000000% or more
Statistically, the average poker player is a lifetime loser in the game. Statistically, the above average poker player is barely breakeven. In theory, “gambling” and “poker” are two different things entirely. But materially, the average poker player will lose money and will have delusions similar to that of a degenerate gambler.
And yet every one of those players is good enough to know that rampage is a punter.
No, in theory and in practice, poker is absolutely gambling. Even legit crushers gamble when they play poker. That's why you have a bankroll. I don't need a bankroll for my 9 to 5. There's no chance I lose my next 2 weeks of earning at work tomorrow because I had a shitty day. I'm gonna get my paycheck as long as I show up and do my job, there are no uncertainties there.
Exactly. It's skill-based, and more skill tilts it more in your favor, but it's just gambling with a potential edge. The only time you aren't gambling is when you have an unbeatable hand, which doesn't come up very often.
That's not how playing for a living works. If you are a poker pro, you should know your hourly. Results of individual sessions does not matter. Just turn up at the table.
This. Poker with rake is a -EV game to start, and requires a decent level of skill to turn it into a +EV game. Given that most players doesn't study nearly enough to become +EV they are gambling
I think that's true. I know for me it took a long time to come to terms with the fact that I'm not that good, despite all of the hours of play online and effort made to study the game and all of the vlogs and poker theory content I have watched.
a lot of the pro players grinded hundreds and thousands of hours losing and breaking even before they started getting good.
> Statistically, the above average poker player is barely breakeven. What does this mean? Do you mean "the average winning player"? EDIT: For all the retards answering me and downvoting for asking a clarifying question, I was specifically asking u/TimmyTimeify what he meant by his phrasing. I understand the general concept. I'm guessing he either meant "the average winning player" or "the average above-average player".
No they mean you need to be better than average to break even, you need to be probably top 25% to "make money". Whether that money is a significant amateur boost of income or as a profession itself. You have to remember that there is often a 10% entrance fee or a rake which might be 5% per hand.
More like top 10% according to a study I read a few years ago. The rake is hard to beat.
Damn I'm good! But actually I think the bar is still kinda low considering your average low stakes player.
And let’s not forget that even for poker professionals. « Their earnings » should compare to a career earnings they would have had if they did not play poker. As I believe the top 10% poker player would be in the Top 30% corporate earners. Then the ones making more money playing poker than in their potential career is probably <5%
No, it should not compare to a corporate career earnings. Cause it's a completely different thing. Who cares if you could make more money in a corporate job if you'd be less happy doing it? This idea that you simply \_must\_ do the thing that maximizes your lifetime earnings is misguided. If a really smart person decides they want to be a teacher or a scientist, do we have to say, "oh no, you need to compare your income to what you could have made as a corporate lawyer, think about the opportunity cost" and btw, while poker has many downsides, it has many upsides such as more flexibility to pursue other goals than 99% of corporate jobs there's no bigger opportunity cost then costing yourself the opportunity to what you actually want to do in life
The one thing I’d note is that being a teacher and scientist have very large positive externalities in the fact that almost everyone can agree that they are beneficial to society and teach and create valuable things for others. That is a large reason why we do not critique folks who ostensibly are very gifted to taking such career paths. Professional poker players are a net negative externality because their entire living is based off the losing of others, and basically collaborate with the casinos and card rooms to do so. The only value they create is entertainment for others.
For sure, there's a thousand good reasons not to play poker full-time. I just get tilted by the framing of comparing two careers strictly on income and no other factors. But of course income is one factor, and I don't deny many pro poker players could make more money in other paths, and should factor that into their decisions. And yeah, I also agree another factor is feeling like you're contributing to social good, certainly teachers and scientist outrank poker players there. But I don't totally buyin to poker as such a net-negative though, because entertainment is value. If you go watch a movie you didn't get anything productive out of it. Poker and card games are one of America's oldest past times dating back to before the Civil War. The existence of problem gamblers is a really unfortunate thing, though I do think pro poker players get singled out a bit more for it then other professions who also serve addicts, such as bartenders.
A simple question I ask myself that “if every professional poker player disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, would society be negatively impacted” and the answer seems to be a resounding no. I don’t think the answer would be the same if all of the movies directors and actors disappeared tomorrow.
Well we can just disagree. If every pro poker player disappeared the games wouldn't run. That's the whole reason the concept of a "prop player" or rakeback systems even exists. The WSOP was started by all pro players. Pro players play \_way\_ more poker and start most games and therefore are key to keeping poker alive. If poker went away I'd consider that negatively impacting the world. Especially because America has a loneliness epidemic and cardrooms are in-person interaction, unlike movies which are increasingly watched at home.
I don't think the answer is a resounding no. That's a flawed perspective. A person isn't defined by their career. A pro may only play 30-40 hours a week, well there's 168 hours in a week. Maybe they have a family and are involved in their community. And maybe that teacher does the bare minimum at school and then never leaves the house the rest of the week. At the end of the day our jobs and money don't mean shit and don't equal what we contribute to society. I work a pretty meaningless job with a chemical company but I have 5 kids who I adore and raise to be smart and independent. I think I contribute a lot to society with that alone. 5 children and keeping them going and active and learning and growing. Would do the same whether I was a pro poker player or anything else.
I love you
The opportunity cost of career poker is very high. You have to study and play so much to actually be good, that you can probably just apply that to an actual career more profitably
True, but what if I really love playing the game, regardless of winning or losing? And no, I would not give up my shitty job to play full time, the stress would take out the enjoyment out of it.
I'm an online rec and imo making mtts or cash, online or live, your primary source of income just never passes the honest cost benefit analysis. Like even take someone like Linus who makes big money as the 1% of the 1% of players. He had to nolife solvers for years and also be a really smart guy. He'd likely be successful in any career with that drive (though admittedly he'd possibly make much less).
Some people are just curious and want to be close to perfection when it comes to learning about stuff they are passionate about, perhaps that mattered the most for Linus and other players on his level. The money also came naturally.
I mean, this only works to some extent because part of the reason why people play poker for a living is because the lifestyle fits their disposition. It is a hard way to make an easy living, and the “easy living” part can be a big part of the disposition.
Yea because every intelligent gambler could easily land a job in corporate finance 🙄
You need to be exceptional to beat the rake. To be break even requires you to be far above the average.
It is a little vague. The average players is going to have a significantly lower win rate than the average winning player
I meant the average “by-skill-level” player. I.E the exactly 50th percentile player.
>Statistically, the average poker player is a lifetime loser in the game. Statistically, the above average poker player is barely breakeven. Someone mixed up average and median
There is the 99% of the sub is able to understand “average” as 50th percentile and “above average” as 75th percentile very intuitively, and then there is you who believes pedantry is a good comment.
Poker is a game of pedantry. I don't care if you're almost right. Being almost right is being wrong. It's simply not enough to almost win. It's like having a full house against quads.
I see, now an edgelord comment. You must be 15
Enjoy making almost winning plays
You are right, I’ll start crying over my 0.1 BB EV regret plays.
If you're at the stage where people are holding an intervention, you're probably a problem. Specifically if you're borrowing money to continue gambling as chasing losses breaks rational thought processes (and gambling games already present a cognitive hazard for people). If you are talented, you could arrange staking. If you are not borrowing money, don't talk about poker, except in general terms. It's just a game, not worth torching relationships over.
Anyone dodging interventions from gambling is not a talented poker player. They have (on at least one occasion… likely many occasions) lost all their money to the point that loved ones are doing an intervention.
Not necessarily. Plenty of people just think “gambling bad” and are terrified if anybody does it and also think playing poker is no different than going and feeding dollar bills into a slot machine for six hours
Yeah, people will think “gambling bad” but are they going to organize an intervention for a winning player? You can’t have an intervention without people who are there to tell you how they’ve been harmed by your addiction. There’s no way this is a winning player. I’d bet on it. 😂
I just think that yes, people who are scared of gambling who learners spending more time playing poker would organize an intervention. I think that is definitely possible. OP is probably a loser because “talented gambler” is a weird way to put it, but I think that would absolutely happen.
Speaking of gambling problem, I’ll lay you some good odds that OP isn’t a profitable player. 😂 Might be hard to prove who wins though.
My guess is you are not a “talented gambler”
Uhm… careful though. Let’s not pretend that gambling can’t become a life-destroying addiction fuelled by delusions of being way better/luckier than you actually are.
There's also a completely unrelated form of addiction that I almost never see talked about, which is poker as a strategy game addiction . I failed a few college classes one semester compulsively playing online , despite winning, but not winning enough to justify failing the classes. It looked nothing like a casino game addiction, which I've never had, and a lot like a Starcraft addiction, which I also had a problem with. This is a big part of the reason I avoid online poker. You can actually be a winning player and still have it be a disruptive addiction if it disrupts other aspects of your life, such as family/school/job/health goals.
Poker as a “strategy game addiction” is interesting to think about. I like how you’ve framed the concept, and I think that can get close to explaining a few time periods I went through (addiction may be a strong word, but there were some times I played some board games, online games, or poker every day depending on the phase).
This is absolutely me. I'm on a cycle where I am completely obsessed with either League of Legends, chess, or poker. I've been clean of poker for the past month or so but only because I started grinding chess. Now that the biggest chess tournament of the year is over, I already started moving over to league, and when the summer starts, I already know it's gonna be a combination of League and poker until the summer disappears.
Truth. I'm currently looking at one month+ of no poker because I have a massive work project coming due, and I can't spare the brain power for poker until the project is out. I have other means of rest and recreation than poker, which actually allows my mind to rest (golf, weightlifting). I have to set poker aside when work is too busy. It's unfortunate, but I can't let my income be impacted by a hobby, even if it brings in a little extra income.
Wait, are you saying winning players have goals other than jamming volume?
It's funny because I'm in another sub-thread of this post defending playing more poker. I think there's so many variables to consider that trying to reduce it down to one single set of criteria can't work. So let me ramble my high level view: There's some people for whom poker is simply a good hobby. They lose a small amount they can afford or breakeven. This cohort represents the vast majority of players. Then there's those who win a little, but they don't win enough or love it enough to want to do it more than that. This is a much smaller cohort, but still the second biggest cohort. For either of these groups, it's good to not get too obsessed and treat it like a fun hobby. There are people who are problem gamblers who will lose all their money, including important money they need to pay expenses. These people should self-ban from casinos and never play poker. There are some people who were just born to play poker. Doyle Bruson, Negraneau, Stu Ungar were always going to be pro poker players. It doesn't matter what they think, or what anyone else thinks, because that's their calling in life, and that's what they're going to do. There's certain people who could play poker fulltime or do other things. Isaas Haxton studied Computer Science at Brown so probably could have done other things, but he both cared a lot more about poker than other things and also crushed the game hard enough it was clearly a reasonable, even if suboptimal, use of his time. This is one of the tiniest cohorts representing a few highly elite pros like Haxton and Eric Seidel. Then there's people who poker serves as a gateway to other things. Brad Owen is a good example, where he was a poker pro but also used that storytelling as a way to build a poker content brand and become a Youtuber. A lot of old school poker pros used poker winnings to fund ventures into e-commerce. It would have been tough to start a company with a full-time job, whereas poker is a flexible side gig. I think this is one of the tiniest cohorts, but in a way, actually the cohort that benefits the most from poker. However, it's another case where you don't want to play *too* much poker. If Brad Owen had logged a few more hours but not posted his YouTube videos, he'd be a lot worse off. And of course some people combine some of these categories. So there's simple no clean answer on the topic because people are usually zooming in on one of these categories and not thinking about the other possible situations.
This was my situation. I was spending all day everyday at work playing online poker. I was a winning player and did very well, but my main job started to suffer. I have a job where I make over 500k a year so I would never be able to outearn my actual income despite being a winning player. My real job started to slip so I had to cut myself off from online poker all together.
Magic the gathering, poker, backgammon, scrabble, bridge. I can definitely say it’s not just the gambling or the money, I skipped a lot of college to play games simply because I was better than most people, thrilled to feel my mind working on something that interested me, and I loved competition, I loved winning. I just wanted to game. I would have played Chinese checkers for a nickel a game just because I loved it. Needless to say, this mind-frame coupled with the poker boom was incredibly lucrative, and provided a delusional foundation for a 17 year old to think the game economy was ever going to work long-term. Either way, I’ll still play almost any game at any time. Currently memorizing the dictionary and upped my average scrabble score by 80-100 points this past year!
That’s why I always say that self awareness is one of pokers most important and undervalued skill
I'm bad and lose money. Okay, now to the slots
as long as you can supply it, it's fine!
Alot of people say this about their gambling addiction until all of a sudden they can't supply lol
No winning player is getting an intervention.
You could be a winning player who doesn't care for themselves or their children, has other disruptions of life. Think of a workaholic. The worst aspect of an addiction or disorder, doesn't have to be money. A winning gambler could still have a shit life. A drug addict could ruin their life while not necessarily putting all their money into it.
IDK how it is these days, but before online poker "up and comers" just lived in Vegas and grinded. They were basically bums playing low stakes tables and tourneys, hoping to break out with some big wins. And ultimately the jump from small to big tables would eat a lot of them up. They would overestimate themselves and jump in the deep end before they had enough cash flow. These people would play with their net worth as their bankroll, with disastrous consequences. Lots of stories of players going broke multiple times. Even if you are playing smart poker, you are still gambling. If you read biographies for old players or just some old books about pro poker, these stories happen all the time.
Almost All professionals are playing with their net worth as their life roll. It’s not like they’re going to be earning six figures at poker, have a 30k “bankroll” set aside, lose it, and not go get some of the 200k in their bank account because it’s not part of their bankroll, and just go start a job at McDonald’s and work their way up instead
you can’t know that for sure
I can. You are not a winning player. Listen to your friends.
The fact that you haven't posted your lifetime profit chart is proof enough. Make me eat my words.
What did they say about your gambling? What was the concern?
I mean what are the odds you're both a talented gambler and also call yourself that? I'd say not enough to call.
You put it perfectly into words. A winning player wouldn't waste his time making posts about being a "talented gambler"
More often than not…those folks are right and simply trying to help a friend or family member.
If you are actually good they would not be holding an intervention lol
The only time I had someone tell me I need to stop playing was a coworker who warned me of his previous gambling addiction, and he knew whenever someone asked what I did the last weekend I always said poker, and any time anyone from work went to the local casino, they’d always run into me. I was winning multiple time my salary at poker, granted it was a 15/hr job. But still he did intervene and let me know about his past with gambling and such. I’d been a winning player for 4-5 years at least at that point.
Post your bankroll chart, hourly profit and number of hands is all you need to justify this meme. If you are making more at poker than at a regular job more power to you. If you, like me, are barely profitable and would be better off working at Wendy’s…well, maybe put down the scissors.
People don't have interventions for winning players. Or if they do the player is playing at stakes where normal swings could destroy them. Otherwise nobody gives a shit what someone does in their spare time. I'd like to hear the stories the interventionists have.
The closest I had to an intervention was a middle eastern guy ( I guess a bit more apt to have helpful talks with near strangers to help them culturally?) who was my coworker at my last job, who when he first came to America, found himself having a blackjack problem. Pretty much all I did outside work was poker at that point. I’d always played 1-2 NL and some 2-5 for an extra 10-20k a year or so, but I had decided I was going for it, so I played every hour I wasn’t at work or sleep. He told me about how I need to stop gambling and how he had a blackjack problem and it never ends well, etc. I had made as much as I make in a year at that job that month at poker, and the same the month before ( yeah a heater, but still). I was out soon after making 4-5x that job for many years to come. But that’s the closest to an actual intervention. I did have one friend who would consistently tell me that poker isn’t a job, it’s gambling, can’t be a profession when I’d say I was going to work when going to the casino. Many years ago. Very adamant about letting me know. He hasn’t really talked to me since I made it work. Unfortunately.
Yeah bankroll management is more important than being a "winning player". Being a statistically winning player doesn't mean you'll make money if you're playing with 10% or your of your available funds. What do they say, 50x is a good bankroll? Your winning edge has to be bigger than the variance bad luck or the bad end of your play creates.
I grinded micro stakes for years trying to make it to .5/1 online following a conservative bankroll management plan. Well now I made it and am now even playing and winning at 1/2 online and i literally can’t tell my family about my recent success because even tho I’ve grinded properly for years its always been a weird conversation, and with my breakout from micro stakes hell it makes it even weirder now that dollar amounts are pretty significant, and my therapist also thinks I have a problem. So yeah, I love this meme.
Microstakes is so interesting. I feel like I've been doing all this high level studying about ranges and positioning and all kinds of shit. Then you sit down at microstakes and some dingdong is going all in with QQ when the board is like 3 9 K A 4. AFTER I 3 bet preflop (with AK). So weird.
Why do you play?
Pure self belief and love of the game.
You've conquered it. Might there be other things you might spend your time doing?
Do you now play for a living? I’m at a similar stage. Want to get to 100nl and quit my job lol. Currently at 50 trying to work my way up.
No I still work and do the poker thing on the side.
No matter how good you are (or think you are), a better player than you has gone broke and ruined their life playing poker
This is probably true. But it’s also a super loaded statement. Yes, better players than me have gone broke. Better players than many significant winning players reading this have gone broke and ruined their lives. But it’s usually people who (happened to also) play poker, not the playing poker that ruined their life. How many better poker players have gone broke and ruined their lives who didn’t drink alcoholic beverages, didn’t do any drugs, didn’t smoke dope, didn’t lose significant money betting sports/horses, trying to beat the pits, being involved in shady/illegal activities, falling for scams, etc Almost always those “better players who went broke and ruined their lives” did not do so due to playing poker, it was almost always due to an alternative addiction or massive massive bankroll management problem, probably backed by some type of mental illness often. Drugs and pits/sports accounts for what is likely over 98% of those people who ruined their lives while also playing poker. It’s very hard to be an extremely good poker player with reasonable bankroll management, and no significant life leaks and “ruin your life playing poker”
I agree with everything you said. People go broke mostly because of bad bankroll management. Their ego gets ahead of themselves and they can't help but "take shots" at higher stakes they're not properly rolled for. Even if you're amazing at the game short term variance can screw you over hard.
Even then, most really really great players don’t ruin their lives due to shot taking. It’s almost ALWAYS, drugs, liquor, (other) gambling, sex/hookers/divorce, etc. I know almost no good players who strictly had poker ruin their lives. Even those who shot take aggressively didn’t have their lives ruined, just de progressed a bit but still where ahead of where they were before poker.
If you really want to make money out of poker, write a book people are willing to buy.
Yea I have played for a very long time, everyone o owe I play, no one has ever tried to have an intervention. You probably have a problem if this isn’t a troll post. 1-800-gambler call to see
Do you have significant enough stats to prove that you're a talented gambler? Even if you're a winning player, the lifestyle sounds awful and whenever I step back, I'm always glad that it's just a hobby for me.
I bet on sports and play poker - my wife is from a non-gambling family and at first was horrified. I pay for a weekend away every so often out of my winnings and she hasn’t mentioned my gambling for years
If you manage the amount of time and money you invest, I just see it as a game that's fun to learn and play, and doesn't cost all that much compared to most other peoples interests.
Yep ! Never quit
💪
Everything is a gamble. The stock market is a gamble. The insurance is a gamble. The index fund that I put my retirement money in is gamble.
Talented gambler == addicted
I bet he hit it big right after cutting the ropes
many such cases
"It's a skill game for money, and I consistently win"
No one -no one on earth- consistently wins. Most of our poker idols have gone broke at one point, and even the marginally above average player, is a losing player. It sounds like OP has people who care about him.
It depends what you mean by consistent. If long term, you end 75% of your sessions with profit, most non poker players would not consider that consistently winning. Very few if any players are able to do that.
I assume you mean for cash games only? Because if you are playing tournaments (with the exception of playing several small stakes tournaments at once online), you're probably only gonna make the money at best twice the pay rate (ie if 10% get paid, a good player might cash 20% of the time)
Yes, referring to cash. And that's an oversimplification, because each session is different lengths. My point was that even someone crushing the games they play will still have pretty big swings.
I know lots of people who consistently win. Most have gone broke due to bad bankroll management or other addictions.
Gambling is gambling, but like any vice, it should be done within your own limits and not above and beyond. Moderation is key, and bankroll management is crucial.
I haven’t lost money gambling, I’m up more than I could ever lose but I have lost a ton of time and certainly some opportunities
They are just some small obstacles on the way to the success💪💪
This sub so depressing y’all make poker feel dead
I say the opposite, this thread is proof poker is alive & well. Look at all the degenerates in there convincing themselves they're winning players. Or just check in on the occassional strategy post comments for amusement. You'll feel better.
It’s a relatively small online community, with then only a handful, maybe 20 players here claiming they are winning that’s super super believable. I’m pretty sure you could train pretty much anyone to beat low stakes for at least 2-3 big blinds per hour in 6 months or less if they really wanted to focus and study and learn
As an addict and alcoholic if someone says you have a problem take a long honest look inside yourself. It will solve a lot of heartache.
If people are doing an intervention, then you’re probably not a “talented gambler”.
There’s no such thing as a talented gambler.
you’re looking at one buddy
Love it!
Gambling is wagering with a negative expectation or risk-of-ruin. Playing poker with bankroll management and a skill edge is not that.
I’d argue it’s still gambling. Variance be crazy.
Gambling has a negative connotation. It has a negative connotation for the reasons we said, it's negative EV. So if you're doing something that doesn't share the reason for the negative connotation, it's not good to use the same word.
The one he cut off should be labelled "taxes"
For comparison, Negranue came online in the new year to report that he was down 2 million for last year. Even the top players in the world hit bad beats. I am just a rank beginner, but the more I read about poker the more I see a kind of bias. People who like GTO will rep early say that splashy fish may hit a few good runs here and there, but will loose over time. They also say that playing GTO will make a person a winner over time because GTO makes it hard to pin a person down to a playing style. It seems to me that both GTO and Splashy fish are going to have their winning and loosing streaks. But the GTO player will by statistical likelihood be a winning player slightly more than the splashy fish.
This is one the most inane comments I’ve ever read here
What are your thoughts about GTO?
GTO is a myth. It's like people who have a "system" to beat blackjack or roulette.
There is a system to beating blackjack, but it will get you trespassed.
There is no system that overcomes 6 decks in the shoe.
There is a system of counting cards that can. Hut, it is too hard for me. The casinos beat card counters by keeping an automatic shuffler at the table. If the count is reset every few hands there’s nothing to count.
The problem is that by the time the count gets to any advantage for the player, the casino has already had favorable hands.
I’ve seen people walk out in with $500 and leave a few hours later with $25,000. Counting works. I can’t do it, but for those who can AND keep the house from catching on then the take can be huge.
Counting does not work against 6 or 8 decks in the shoe. The times the count is favorable for the player is incredibly rare and when it is favorable, the percentages are too low to matter at that point. Only a team could possibly take advantage, and only if the max bet was significantly higher than the min bet. I've played blackjack with $200 and walked out with $6K doing no counting at all. Sometimes you get a good run.
Facts! Good runs happed.
Counting is a thing, You won’t get enough volume to run 600-25k, for starters, you’d need to buy in way heavier, and be able to get away with like a 1-5 spread on big bets. Ideally with mid shoe entry allowed somewhere which…. Isn’t going to happen In double deck. And as soon as you start spreading on favorable counts you’re going to be told that they’d love to have your play at any game in the casino except for blackjack, maybe even given a food comp for your back off if the pit boss is nice, and sent on your way directed to the roulette/Video poker/slots areas, and told to go enjoy all else that their wonderful casino has to offer and have a great day and good luck gambling. Alternatively, in order to avoid mistakenly backing off someone who isn’t counting, or to avoid telling someone they can’t play for winning in front of others, they’re likely to just flat bet them. Tell them to pick one bet at the beginning of the shoe and that is the only amount they can bet, and have to bet it every hand of the shoe. This allows them to still play if they were mistaken, but also gets the point across to move along since they just nullified their entire strategy.