I disagree only the top 1% of lawyers that belong to huge law firms(or own them) and have been practicing 20 years can make more than what vannesa selbst has, then when you factor the hours of your life spent as a lawyer(12hour+) days and the emotional stress and grind of the job its similar to poker most lawyers grind it out for 50k or less per year out of some shotty office on the dangerous part of town,,,, you know the court appointed lawyer

There is a reason why Raymer left his job at Pfizer after bagging the ME where he had sold a boatload of himself.

bigfishhead that's an excellent post.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Amadan

It was a long post so I wont quote it all. There was a lot of knowledge in it that some of the guys on the forum could benefit from paying heed to.

Some of the long term pros who have been in the game for 25 years shouldnt take the first post as a personal insult but instead ask themselves would you encourage your children to play poker for a living.

A dhéanamh go maith le mo chara.

I didn't take any offense either, but no one asked my opinion (particularly OP when he found out I met his criteria). As for an agenda, I just think it's lol for a guy to give "guidance" (his word) when he has absolutely no experience.

That all said, I don't disagree with most of your post (the Doyle broke comment has always been a huge lol for me and is reminiscent of a different era entirely and mostly used to rationalize poor discipline... "nottin' wrong with being broke, only staying broke..." lol, total bull****).

If being in the top 1% of lawyers earns you more, gives you more prestige, and actually has a better and more secure future than being in the top 1% of professional poker players (as she is in this example), then her choice was -EV irregardless of the actual results. The most successful individuals are the outliers. In this case we have an example of one of the best poker players in the world. If you're going to compare best poker player to best lawyer who graduates from a top law school, makes some good connections, and runs good in life, you'll end up as a partner, or owning your own firm, or on the Supreme Court. That's waaaaaay better than any poker pro can ever aspire to.

OP has a dream job that he loves, does not want to play poker fulltime and therefore offers advice against doing it. That's awesome.

BTW, no-one should take up boxing as a profession because I hate getting punched in the face and am generally bad at beating people up.

Like jobs are everywhere

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXnifPfxK0Q

At the risk of derailing, what is your stamping ground for playing poker, if you don't mind me asking? I mean in terms of game type & level, is it all live or some live/some online etc.?

What about the freedom,what a great way to travel the world being a poker player u can do it while earning money,all u need is a laptop and an Internet connection,play some live also!if ur in your 20-30s its a great way to see the world while earning enough to keep u on ur way!the memories and stories u could recall may be better than any high end salary in the same place with the same ppl everyday?

The point of his statement is not that it should happen. It's that it's often the result for various reasons. Tilt, spewing at the dice tables, too much hookers and blow, buying cars a poker bankroll can't really afford, etc. It actually has nothing to do with era. It happens almost daily in the poker world today. The reasons vary. But it's a sad reality for many. And yes, this many is mostly young pros that just made too much too fast, resulting in a lack of respect for the money too.

yeah back to my original point its poor money management that ruins lives not poker itself(maybe it can be considered a gate way to poor money managment?)

I think the poker environment is much more conducive to poor money management than most jobs though:

- You literally work in a casino, therefore lots of opportunities to spunk money off in pit games

- Alcohol is readily available

- Surrounded by degenerates instead of standard 9-to-5 people

- Poker lends itself to losing respect for large sums of money, because it's standard to have multi-buy in swings in your income

Most people work jobs they dislike and eventually get stuck.

Someone tell me how poker pros pay for their own health insurance and spouse/children. (and save for retirement).

I'm not talking about pros that are ballers.

I guess this is a question for American pros. The cost of healthcare seems to be more reasonable in civilized countries.

I played nearly exclusively online between 2002-2011. Since 2011, I've been playing live exclusively. Mixed limit games, mostly.


No one knew jack about variance and risk of ruin back then because it takes a very long time (in hours) for live play to converge. As for hookers, blow and blowing money on Bentleys, that has never changed, never will, and always has to do with being a poor player. My opinion is it does not matter how you go broke if you are broke because money management (not bankroll management) is the absolute 1st and most essential element to doing it for a living (which obv encompasses lifestyle choices).

The info is readily available to everyone; there is no reason for a competent player to go broke unless it's because he's getting blinded out by living expenses, and in that case, he should have gotten a job before that happened because the game passed him by or some other reason for not winning any longer.

Grinding ssnl for a living over 6 years now and i didnt regret a single day

I never see limit games where I am (Australia), it's exclusively NLHE and PLO. Do they spread 8-game in the US? What are the blinds for the games you play?

If you don't want to say, no problem & thanks for the reply.

sick post

big +1 to all of that

As usual Joey says exactly what I would. OP's post in general is good. I'm currently in a state of turmoil where I've been a high stakes player for years now and am currently really struggling. I'm 28 and have often said I'd quit poker at 30, as the idea of grinding in casino's in my 30s (potentially with wife, kids etc) always felt horrific to me.

However, if people do poker the correct way there is still plenty of money out there for the time being. I don't think the freedom it can offer can be argued with either. It's true that nowadays it requires probably at least 5 days at 7 hours a day, but when you can pick and choose when and where you do those 7 hours as opposed to living by the clock it makes a huge difference.

But do you have complete choice or are you compelled to play at the mercy of game availability and juiciness? What I mean is, you play high stakes, are there times when only lower stakes games are available or the game is spread but is infested with mostly competent players, make it unprofitable?

lol OP

/thread

the freedom to do stuff between mon -friday is the best part for me, living in aus grinding all night then going out for lunch and beers on a tuesday avo while everyone is working is awesome, every day is a public holiday