20/40 for a living? Is it realistic? - Page 9 - Medium Stakes Poker Forum

piggity · 07-11-2012, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The DaveR

Everyone sucks in both games.

While this is true, until one believes this to be true one shouldn't be playing for a living. And once one does believe it they should be playing bigger.

+1

Also, once you get to that point you will never be able to beat 20/40 again.

RobbyD · 07-11-2012, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlanBostick

Wait, what?

The Foxwoods 20-40 is tougher than Borgata's?

The. Foxwoods. 20-40. Is. Tougher. Than. Borgata's???

You just broke my brain. I think I need to book a trip to Atlantic City.

I do not have great experience with many other venues. But I agree with Alan the FW 20 is not "tough"

callipygian · 07-15-2012, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawdude

I'm actually shocked at the number of live players I talk to, both people I know and people on 2+2 and other poker fora, who don't realize just how many hands you need to have a statistically significant sample in live poker and how long it takes to play that many hands. Remember, the typical online guideline was 15,000 to 20,000 hands. At 40 hands an hour, that's between 375 and 500 hours. Full time grinders get to that point in 3 months or so; recreational players may not get there for a couple of years. And that's the MINIMUM statistically significant sample. Online playing 1/2 and 2/4, I remember upswings and downswings playing out over 20,000 or more hands.

And of course, the higher limits you play, the greater the swings.

This hasn't been a big issue in this thread but I'm a nit so I'm going to call it out anyway. First of all, the online guideline wasn't 15-20k, it was like 150-200k. Secondly, online guidelines and live guidelines are hugely different because of the SD/WR ratios possible. 15-20k hands as statistically significant sample sizes only happen with the highest of winrates and lowest of standard deviations - like the kind you're able to generate at 20/40 live or 2c/4c online. When you look at 2/4 or 3/6 OL, you're looking at pretty small winrates for FR, and pretty large standard deviations for 6-max / HU.

It's always been the case that on a per-hand basis, live converges faster than online. But online, hands per hour dramatically increases, so a live pro who needs 20k hands and an online pro who needs 200k hands may have the same length of downswing on a per-time basis.

Yes, you will probably need several months as a live pro or several years as a recreational player to prove that you're a winner. No, the rationale for that isn't derived from a comparison to online play.

gameoverjc · 07-15-2012, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlabruno

Well then enlighten me. Cause if you are claiming nobody in the US makes a good living playing cash games as their sole income then you are clueless. There are TONS of people (And when I say tons over 1 million) who play poker for a living. I know of a dozen myself locally who do it playing 1/2 and 2/5

I would leverage every single thing I own that there are not 1 million people who been relying on poker as a living and been in black over a 3-4 year time period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlabruno

True. Was hoping someone who maybe calls themselves a poker pro playing 20/40 with a 3 year or more running experience could chime in and maybe give details on his average yearly income.

Biggest poker forum in the world. And yet not one person who posts in MSLHE has come forward to make this assertion. Is it a) because it's some elaborate ploy and they want to keep this goldmine to themselves or b) because no one does it.

Occam's razor in effect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlabruno

I found this post by someone on a blog related to this topic that I started..

Not my post

I played live NLH for five years at Borgata in AC. I played 2/5 about 75% of that time and a mix of 5/10 and 10/25 the rest. Sadly, left it behind for awhile around 2008 to finish college and pursue my career. Sadly, because the poker money was way better and I really do love playing. I don't regret it though. It's just life and I had fun. I'm working to build up a roll again. The game is different from before but not greatly. It's still very beatable.

I recommend mastering NLH and not limit. You are not going to find many donkeys in limit games 20/40 and higher. It's good to try and master any poker game for your overall abilities, but NLH is where the money and bad players are. That should be your bread and butter game. A strong NLH player has greater ability to protect hands and steal from weak players. That hardly exists in limit poker. I find limit to be swingier and NLH to be more in control. I do say that from experience after experimenting. I was beating 20/40 but I could be 2/5 NLH way harder. Also playing limit that much probably leads to suicide. It's disgustingly boring. However, you need to evaluate your temperment and strengths before choosing which way to go. I knew a few people that whipped 40/80 there for a nice amount per year. They wouldn't tell me exactly how much. I'd guess some were close to 100k. They did have years of experience and a mastery of the game.

My hours varied because I was a party animal then, but I played between 30-60 hours a week. Probably averaging 40-45. I was winning 75-100k those years. I had all winning years but I definitely had losing months and some bad stretches. It's only natural. I was winning about 80% at NLH. Limit was around 60ish. I stopped playing any limit after year one.

I recommend you ask yourself which game you can enjoy playing more. Don't play limit just so you can reach that milestone of 1BB per hour. Play what you are best at. Do you have a preference? Are you more of a trapping tricky player? Are you a good reader of your opponents? Are you good at betting thin value? Can you make big laydowns? If you believe you are a more scientific disciplined player, play limit. If you are tricky, know how to trap, and can read well, play NL.

You already got advice from another live pro. I seriously doubt any real lhe pro will state LHE = less variance than NLHE.

It's disgusting how sick it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlabruno

Look I am not looking to get in a pissing match with anyone. All I am saying is to make it sound impossible it sounds a bit extreme. You want to say maybe 1 in every 100,000 people who try can make a living playing 20/40 well ok then fair enough. But to make it sound impossible is a bit extreme to me. And if 20/40 is no way someone could make say 60 k per year (which is what my thread was basically asking) well then what lmiit is it possible? 40/80 , 5/10 NL?

[IMG]http://*******.com/uploads/generated/g1337436914921846786.jpg[/IMG]

jlabruno · 07-15-2012, 07:27 PM

Love the pic lol

gameoverjc · 07-15-2012, 08:02 PM

Lots of good advice in this thread. Keep in mind most of us went into live poker thinking it would be like this:

When in reality it's more like this:

kirbymontor · 07-15-2012, 08:54 PM

I would adjust your yearly win expectations. Assuming you do play the 20/40 at the borgata for 2000 hours a year, like you said you wanted to. Right off the top before tips to dealers or for drinks your paying 28k or $14 an hour. In order to be a 1bb/hr winner you have to win around 1.32bb/hr and that's without tips. Ive averaged paying closer to $17 an hour.

jlabruno · 07-15-2012, 09:00 PM

Love the videos.

@ Kirby not me I do not have the bankroll for 20/40 but was just curious what levels those who play for a living grind out. I am seeing just from this thread and others most who need to earn 40k or more per year play 2/5 and 5/10 NL and 40/80 limit and above.

lawdude · 07-15-2012, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by callipygian

This hasn't been a big issue in this thread but I'm a nit so I'm going to call it out anyway. First of all, the online guideline wasn't 15-20k, it was like 150-200k. Secondly, online guidelines and live guidelines are hugely different because of the SD/WR ratios possible. 15-20k hands as statistically significant sample sizes only happen with the highest of winrates and lowest of standard deviations - like the kind you're able to generate at 20/40 live or 2c/4c online. When you look at 2/4 or 3/6 OL, you're looking at pretty small winrates for FR, and pretty large standard deviations for 6-max / HU.

It's always been the case that on a per-hand basis, live converges faster than online. But online, hands per hour dramatically increases, so a live pro who needs 20k hands and an online pro who needs 200k hands may have the same length of downswing on a per-time basis.

Yes, you will probably need several months as a live pro or several years as a recreational player to prove that you're a winner. No, the rationale for that isn't derived from a comparison to online play.

I think you are DEAD wrong when you say "live converges faster than online". That's a lie live players tell themselves because they don't have PokerTracker to tell them they are wrong.

It is TRUE that since live games often are easier, they will converge at the same rate that easier online games converge at, rather than at the rates that tougher online games will. If that's all you mean, fine. But that's what I was talking about in the first place when I said 15,000 hands was the minimum statistically significant sample-- that is when you are talking about fishy games.

Live players need to be very careful about thinking that our little game is exempt from the mathematical truths of poker. It's just exempt from the tracking software that you would need to be reminded of them.

ikijigoku · 07-16-2012, 05:26 AM

i dont know what fancy **** like "converge" means exactly but if it means what i think it does then yes, the winrate of someone who won 1bb/100 online and is raping a live game for 3bb/100 should converge faster. only problem is that in reality the majority of ppl ****ing suck at poker (and higher drop and tipping and food) so they still have a 1bb/100 or less winrate so they can easily lose for 2-3k hours.

chillrob · 07-16-2012, 12:42 PM

Who pays more for food because of playing live poker? Most places I play give you free food, or at least very cheap. I pay less for food at the casino than I do at home.

callipygian · 07-16-2012, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawdude

I think you are DEAD wrong when you say "live converges faster than online". That's a lie live players tell themselves because they don't have PokerTracker to tell them they are wrong.

It is TRUE that since live games often are easier, they will converge at the same rate that easier online games converge at, rather than at the rates that tougher online games will. If that's all you mean, fine. But that's what I was talking about in the first place when I said 15,000 hands was the minimum statistically significant sample-- that is when you are talking about fishy games.

Live players need to be very careful about thinking that our little game is exempt from the mathematical truths of poker. It's just exempt from the tracking software that you would need to be reminded of them.

Aside from specifying EXACTLY what I meant, I also included some math so that anyone who read my post could derive it for themselves.

You realize that not everyone who quotes your posts disagrees 100% with you, right?

**DougL** · 07-16-2012, 12:54 PM

Quote:

i dont know what fancy **** like "converge" means exactly but if it means what i think it does then yes, the winrate of someone who won 1bb/100 online and is raping a live game for 3bb/100 should converge faster. only problem is that in reality the majority of ppl ****ing suck at poker (and higher drop and tipping and food) so they still have a 1bb/100 or less winrate so they can easily lose for 2-3k hours.

It gets rolled in to how few people run cold the months before turning pro. Nobody ever posts "I'm running like garbage, break even since January playing half time, taking leap and going pro." It always seems like the posts are "beating 20/40 for 1.75BB/HR-2BB/HR (just like Sklansky said), playing my A game, and I'm pretty sure it is sustainable. Even if I only win at 1.5BB/HR, I can totally pay my bills. Time for a shot."

---

I love HOWMANY's posts, but DosXX totally wins this thread.

Quote:

I think to play pro you need a cushion. It could be other sources of passive income, having a ton of money to weather downswings, or being able to move down and still maintain a similar standard of living are all cushions. Playing 20/40 with a small roll leaves none of these cushions. You can't move down and maintain an income level that supports your spending and you don't have backup money or other sources of income.

The inability to move down and pay bills is a huge concept for being all or nothing. Being under-rolled, playing the bottom limit to pay your bills, and thus being unable to weather bad stretches is crushing. OTOH, playing pro poker is a leap of faith, so maybe you'll run good for 6 months, easily jump to 40/80, and have your 100/200 shots work out. I wonder how many people who successfully made it as pros really had a great plan starting out vs. how many made a "bad choice" that just worked out? In the end, taking the leap and having it work out can end up with lifewin. Fail at the leap, get a job, and take another shot later... that could be a path, too.

I always go back to Abdul's quote about how anyone smart/disciplined enough to make a good living playing poker could make more doing something else. Thus to be a pro player, you're doing it because of want, not to maximize. Likely more true now than when he said it. Is pro poker what you want?

lawdude · 07-16-2012, 02:51 PM

Doug:

All very true. Indeed, more generally, and without politarding things too much, I suspect a lot of people don't realize the extent to which even extremely successful people, in any field, have to get lucky even if they are legitimately talented. Bill Gates was obviously a good software engineer, but he's a gazillionaire and others of similar talent are not because he was at the right place at the right time to get the IBM PC deal. Your typical "self made" rich person is someone who is very talented but also had the run of luck when he or she needed it.

And to get back to poker, I believe that Phil Galfond said "change just 10 river cards in their life and many of the top professional poker players would have been unknown". Doyle Brunson got to write and sell SuperSystem and become a media star because of two pretty lucky suckouts with T2. You still gotta be good (and I don't think anyone denies that when he was rising up the poker ladder, Brunson was a top player), but being good isn't enough; you gotta run good at the right time.

jlabruno · 07-16-2012, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chillrob

Who pays more for food because of playing live poker? Most places I play give you free food, or at least very cheap. I pay less for food at the casino than I do at home.

Agreed using the places that are 1 for 1 comp I eat for free all the time. As for the tips I be spend maybe 1 dollar every two hours for a bottle water. And dealers tipped when I win so...