well said, couldn't agree more. especially about the diminishing returns part. My gut feeling is that almost no matter what she chooses to do for money, she'll be comfortably above the level where the "diminishing returns" argument becomes highly valid.

ESW: if it was all about money and a career wall, there is next to no chance anyone including Cate would have chosen poker over say a transition from being a lawyer into investment banking or whatever. She said herself in the tweet to Bill Perkins it's about the freedom the lifestyle brings, and that's perfectly valid.

You mean that it seems to you that happiness as an explanation makes more sense than pursuit of money or advancement, because it'd be easier to achieve those things by going into investment banking instead.

One advantage to poker as a career path over law and possibly investment banking is that the cards ultimately determine who winds up on top of the heap, not family connections and one's ability to bring in clients. Cate's said that she believes she can be the top player in ten years, and it's possible in poker that she can be. Whereas with investment banking it's possible the walls that existed in law also exist in banking as well.

I think it's possible she thinks, or thought at one point, that for her the dollar potential in poker is higher than with investment banking. She could have easily found a law job with more flexibility if money wasn't a concern. Also, playing poker requires a willingness to play when tournaments are scheduled or fish are around, so it does require some willingness to adapt to others' schedules.

With poker there's the freedom of not having to answer to a boss. I think that's a form of freedom that might have seemed alluring to her.

I cant believe we are 1200 posts deep in a thread featuring 2 unknown whales playing 3 HU sit and go freerolls.

Damn poker really is dead

I agree with the sentiment that it is bad for the world when people who have the abilities to make significant benefits for society choose instead to pursue poker. However, that said, many "poker players" have used their flexible schedules to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities, that presumably benefitted many people beyond themselves. And furthermore, I find this to be more a problem with society than with the person, who is simply choosing their optimal decision given the available career options. Most jobs are just not conducive for fulfillment for creative types of people who value life and schedule flexibility. For a lot of jobs you go in for 10+ hours every day and have a cubicle and boss assigning you tasks.

What would really be great is if a lot of people at "high-value" jobs all quit to go play poker. And eventually the companies would realize that they are losing out on great talent, and maybe if they can somehow make the working conditions more flexible they can retain the talent. I'd love to see society as a whole reach an "equilibrium" where people can have relatively flexible schedules -- can work from home 3 days/week, can take time off to play key poker events, etc. If we get to this point, then people won't have to choose completely between being a pro poker player or doing job X; they can live a good flexible schedule that involves making an impact with job X and also a good amount of time for poker (or whatever other activity one could want to do).

On a side node, as someone who is currently balancing poker with a "real job," I found myself extremely sad that I couldn't play the Borgata ME (Day 2 was a Monday), and that I can't play the upcoming SHR WPT finale (Day 2 is Monday).

I really hope that in the future we achieve an "equilibrium" state where it is possible for people to have jobs that benefit the world while also living the flexible lifestyles they crave.

But bro he wanted to set the tone.

this. what's the fun in a grudge match when both players are so unlikable?

Cate and Mike might not be insufferable in-person, but for whatever reason I felt like they didn't handle Doug's questioning (which I thought was tough but fair) all that well.

isn't she mostly playing tournaments?

All of this is simply wild speculation. All we do know is that Cate left a solid job at a very high end firm to play poker. Her reasons are her own, and saying that she was capping out at her firm is nothing more than rank speculation.

Just catching up to this story after never hearing of either player - listened some to Dentale being interviewed about this by Doug Polk - couldn't take much of him - is he basically a guy who tries to bulldoze his way through poker with bravado and big bank account?

I mean it sounded like it took him 10 years to realize blackjack wasn't beatable, and now he's analyzing a game like poker that is 1000 times more complex and he's spewing his opinions? Even though he "learned about variance" in poker, doubtful his analysis of other players is worth much.

So good.

If you're saying you disagree, then you should give your reasons for believing that she truly is seeing freedom at the possible expense of money, given that I just delineated some reasons why her explanation doesn't fully to add up.

It would help shed light on her state of mind. Someone who's looking to compete and dominate the competition would be very different from a freedom seeker who doesn't care about money or achievement. There's going to be a lot more Mike Dentales on the climb to the top looking to wrestle with a chest-thumping Cate Hall if it's the former. I doubt this thread would even exist if it was truly the latter.

A good reason for believing that she truly is see[k]ing freedom at the possible expense of money is that she said said she was miserable being a lawyer and wanted to stop doing something that was making her miserable, and instead do something she enjoyed, i.e. play poker.

Another good reason is that it isn't particularly unusual for people to give up high pressure careers that pay extremely well in order to do something they enjoy that pays less. I mean, just google, quit high paying job to be happy, to see how common this is. Even Science says you should quit your demanding, high-paying job and prioritize free time instead of money. It's not like she's some outlier.

ffs you people are ridiculous

this obsession is beyond bizarre

If she got a dog someone would start at thread: Cate Hall Says She Got a Dog Because She Likes Dogs, But What's the Real Reason and Why is She Lying About It?

This is really all over the place depending on industry. The general rule of thumb is that you earn meaningfully less in salary but hope to make up most of the difference in bonus/equity comp, but that you work better hours, in that in-house is a 9-5 (or 8-6) kind of job but you're not doing nights or weekends. So maybe 250-500k per year to start?

I love the typo correction, in light of the fact that you wrote said said

I just wrote that it would have been possible to stick with law and work half the hours if she'd been willing to live off a fraction of the salary and much less prestige. She could have found work contract work through an agency, which would have left tons of time to travel or relax and she'd still have had enough to live off of.

Also with poker, it would have been possible to adopt a lower key existence if freedom from misery were truly a concern. At the fork in the road, she dialed up the aggression with Mike Dentale, rather than just step away and let the cards speak for themselves.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to compete and win. She's already said she sees herself being the best in the world in 10 years time. I just think that because those things matter to her, she wants recognition for her achievements, and some people like Mike Dentale will always resist.

I see no reason not to accept her bona fides. Dentale challenged her on her income and she proved him wrong. She has publicly stated that she didn't like being a lawyer and would rather play poker, so as far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the discussion. The absurd skepticism of both Dentale the moron and a number of posters ITT is simply silly. My point remains that those challenging her motivations ITT are doing nothing more than wild speculating.

Way too high, mostly owing to the bolded part, which is not true for any in-house lawyer I know. Maybe if you latch on with a startup that throws you a bunch of points (and even then only if the startup binks). But going from Big Law to in-house at a large corporate company you can expect a significant drop in both base and bonus. Most of my law friends left Big Law after 4-6 years when they were taking home ~$225-275K in base (depending on firm & market) and ~$30-$100K bonus for a total comp of ~250-$350K. Most are in-house taking in $150K-$250K salary, $20K-$50K bonus, so most in the $175-$275K range. But as you say: lifestyle is dramatically different. I'd happily take that 20-40% pay cut to go from 70-hr weeks to 9-6pm x 5.

My bad on original spelling.

Thanks Doug!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZyzirUQqQE

More importantly, even if Cate was exaggerating/lying (which it certainly appears she wasn't) who even cares? Would she be the first person to exaggerate a detail of their life on the poker world? Absolutely not.

I just spent two post laying out reasons why her rationale doesn't fully add up. So you should have a reason to question her level of self-awareness. Whether you actually see that reason or not isn't something I can help you with.

The reason it matters that the allure of poker for Cate Hall might have also been the opportunity to compete and receive recognition is because recognition isn't always readily given in poker when variance in the game is so high, and that might be especially true for a woman who's achieving higher levels of accomplishment than women have prior. So I'm not sure why so many are so befuddled that there's been so much drama ensuing when someone's thumping their chest and it happens to be a woman. I actually think people will tend to come around with the gender thing in time, but there's limits to how much recognition people are going to be willing to give others in poker because it's the nature of the game for most people to think they're better than everybody else.

It is almost certainly true that Cate has gotten more attention than her mere accomplishments in poker would merit in part because she is a woman.

But it seems equally obvious to me that Dentale has received more attention than his poker accomplishments would merit by virtue of being a cheater and a complete douchebag.

That seems much, much worse to me. We should be encouraging the participation of more women in poker, and discouraging the participation of cheaters and douchebag. So why are so many people challenging or doubting Cate's outside accomplishments and no one is challenging or doubting Mike's?

People can do that now. The problem is that people are too greedy. They work and work and work and work for what? For more pieces of paper so they can keep buying bigger houses and fancier cars? People have no one to blame but themselves.

Are you telling me that a lawyer of Cate's talents can't work part-time (ie 20hrs a week) making well over the median household income? I don't buy it. That would offer a lot more freedom than being a professional poker player, IMO. As a poker player, you are a slave to the grind.

(btw, not arguing whether lawyers benefit the world..that is a seoarate discussion).

BTW, if you are making $500k a year, you should be able to work a few years, invest that money, and never have to work again (let the money work for you). Again, people are greedy though.