Spending any real time thinking about Tommy Angelo is already a leak.

@DGAF: so good man.

There is so much win in this thread. You win the internet

I've been recently been working on business plans for a consulting company that's considering a couple of different startup options as spin-offs, and actually I think DGAF may have come up with a decent venture idea.

Let's play DGAF's scenario out as a business plan. Let's say you have 20k to work with starting out to play 5000 hours, 1 hand per hour using the strategy. A few times in the 5000 hands you'd run into AA, get called, and lose your $1k, so let's say that happens once every 200 hands (for ease of calculation) that you do this - that would be 25 times at a loss of 25K. Assuming you stole an average of $75 the other 4875 hands (say you only average one caller plus the blinds) that would be $365,625k gross income on those hands. So if you work 5000 hours (2.5 years at 2000 a year) and net $340,625 (deducting the $25k lost) you are taking home $136K per year, $68/hour (about 7bb/hour). And the return only gets better if you can actually always pick spots with multiple callers who'll fold for you. Plus rakeback if you can get it.

Of course one problem is finding enough different games in which to make the play (and getting rakeback is questionable), but you could probably get away with it more than once in a location. Still a lot of travel required, so you'd have to model ways to minimize operating costs.

But sounds like to me it could work and produce overall better wages than grind it out poker brings in for a lot of "pros"

How are you going to play 2000 hours/year when it takes an hour to set up the play of the "1 hand" and then you have to find another casino?

Don't be a nit. After all, anything is possible in a thought experiment.

Well that's a problem (mentioned in my original prospectus). I'm not sure you can't come back to the same waterhole and pull the same thing at least once more. Maybe even multiple times depending on the turnover in the room. But that may be the fatal flaw for sure - even if you could find 5000 different games the travel costs would eat into the gross in a big way.

One possible solution for "not enough rooms" might be becoming a master of disguise a la Sherlock Holmes (the original not the modern TV incarnation).
Of course you'd need to add in the costs of costumes, makeup, etc., and probably need to spend some money on acting school to facilitate effective transformations from one character to another.

Lol I guess the only thing that is more ridiculous / funny than this thread is the game I'm in right now

This post tangentially reminds me of all the regs playing infinite hours a week, always looking for a spot to do something slimy (anything on the scale from making the whale show his bluff to actively trying to cheat people) making frequent and flawless seat changes, information mining in comically transparent ways, skipping their straddle/denying the straddle in all but the juiciest games, time banking and giving an aggressive stare down in every hand on every street, while simultaneously never doing a single thing to make the game more fun or comfortable for the weakest players.

And all I can think of every time is...if this a**hole spent even a fraction as much time learning how to play poker well as he did the above, he'd be on Shark Tank sitting next to Cuban by now.

That is an interesting question - could these lowlife angle shooters actually learn to beat the game without all these tricks if they put their mind to it?

I wonder how many of them at least started out playing the right way and decided at some point (consciously or unconsciously) that they just don't have the wherewithal to learn how to play really well (or to actually play well when it counts)?

And how many were scammers/angleshooters from day one?

Kind of the nature vs nurture question?

Its just a personality flaw in my opinion. They're ruled more by fear, so they attempt to control their environment more than other people do, and that fear outweighs logic and skill, because emotionally they just can't handle NOT being a nit.

So basically, they're pussies.

Hi WBF, long time no see...

Also, I think there is a huge misconception that people can just work hard and get good at live poker. If you aren't perceptive, quick thinking, resilient af, good at acting/concealing, and adequate+ socially you just don't have a very high ceiling imo- no matter how smart you are or how hard you work.

At least I hope that's why regs are so reggy...

A vote for nurture? The scammers somehow realized they are not sufficiently perceptive, quick thinking resliiant, etc. and decided/understood/got it beat into them that they need a few tricks to get ahead?/

If you're even thinking, hypothetically, as a thought experiment, about gambling under such conditions, it's REALLY time to get a job. Do you have any idea how much data scientists can earn for honest work these days?

online 6m I'm pretty certain I can do this, especially getting 100% RB. i would take a lot of action that I can do it on a certain anonymous table site where I have positive red and blue lines. i'd feel confident if playing on a site where I change my screenname every now and then too. if I can't change my SN i'd feel like a massive dog. then again, my incredibly low $WWSD would make people think I was due to always have the nuts. If it's only 150k hands as opposed to 5000hrs id feel way better about but i'd prob one table and game select really hard if actually 5k hours.

at live 2/5 would be the hardest as it's a mostly value based game. and so many people see flops. I think I have like no shot at this as even without any reads I tend to get called light just based on my face or something.

I think it would be easier for me at 1/2 as the players are really nitty and wouldn't be used to someone playing hyper-lag they also have less money and their stack has value to them. most regs at higher limtis dgaf when they lose a buyin. i'd have to switch casinos every 4-500 hours for this to work at 1/2 tho.

it's possible at soft 5/10 with not many multiway pots. the biggest/most consistent winner at the 5/10 game I play in goes to extremely few showdowns. like, I almost never see his cards which blows. I've played more hours with him than any other poker player and I've also only seen him aipf for a fully buyin once (he had aces), but he's also very 3b happy and squeezes over limps a lot.

now that I think about it I've seen his cards the fewest times out of any of the winning players in that game...

Keep in mind that for this challenge a positive blue line is not possible and any strategy in normal poker that involves a +Blue line is actually probably a bad thing here. The best strategies for this challenge involve massively positive red lines and massively negative blue lines when playing normal poker, considering that in this challenge your blue line is guaranteed to be negative for the amount you have put into the pot in those hands.

Anyone who thinks this is even close to possible should probably start opening more pots with 72o.

Aren't there certain games and conditions where opening any two at one specific time is profitable? You've folded for 3 orbits straight, the other players are afraid to play big pots without the nuts, you're in position, etc... If you can't find situations like this ever, you aren't looking hard enough. Now we typically don't do this because we aren't folding 3 straight orbits, so we aren't going to get credit often enough to justify opening this weak, but under this experiment, we would be establishing such an image.

So we are going to play every third orbit and somehow make up those 4.5 bb every time we enter the pot? And we can never win at showdown? Right...

correct

In live (no)...online (micro stakes) yes