I really have no interest personally in putting that many hours into playing online. It really bores me after a very short period of time, afterwhich I start playing too loose and aggressive. Which is probably a good part of the reason why I don't win. I could never do the multitabling either, although I did use to occasionally play 2 tables at once. Now almost the only thing I play online is headsup SNGs, where I can play every hand so don't get bored, or the occasional non-holdem game where I think the general level of play is worse than in LHE online.

Anyway, the reason I do worse online may not only be game quality, it may be my own fault. However, I think a lot of people would have the same issues as me, which is why they might consider playing live for a living (as I have considered) while there is no way they could consider playing online for a living. Now you sound like you understand why people play live, and even feel some of the same things yourself, but your first post sounded like you were suprised anyone would want to play live for a living when they could play online instead.

Sorta. I'd say you're getting about 70 hands/hour/table at 3-6. After a big sample I'm averaging 80.1 at 5-10 and 3-6 is probably just a little slower.

If you can win 1BB/100(not easy.. but neither is 1.2/hour at 20 in a high rake game) Then you're making like $4.5/hour/table so if you can 6 table that you're making about $27 an hour, figure $25-$30 range.

Granted, there aren't very many people who can 6 table 8 hours a day and I know I damn sure can't. I mean I guess if I had to I would but you can just as easily build a roll up and play higher and just play less hours or something.

Don't forget bonsues. At Stars every or so. 28,000 hands I get $1,500 in cash just for being so cool. I don't feel like factoring that in(If you do it's probably closer to 30,000 hands at 3-6) but it adds to the WR.

Understood. It's always good to acknowledge all your options, I was more concerned if Jesse's actually tried online before and might've had inferior results, therefore going the live route. I'm interested in finding out if it's possible to take the same skill set from live and get the same ballpark results online - without sacrificing my own money to find out of course. That's where the question came from, it wasn't at all from a "online is better than live" perspective. But of course it could be perceived that way, etc.

Anyways, that story was hilarious Jesse. Lamont can't seem to get away from marginal situations, on and off the table huh?

fwiw I played live for a year 30-50 hours a week something like 46 weeks and did fairly well and then I just threw $600 on PS and was a big BR nit(still am a huge BR nit) and now I play almost exclusively online and do okay.

I don't think online's as hard as people think it is, people just lose 70BB and freak out like crazy for no reason.

So after an interesting discussion, my reasons for playing live instead of online are:

1. I enjoy playing live more. I'm a people person, and I actually enjoy talking to my opponents and in general being in a social setting. I've made some friends the last few months playing live, and I think that helps tremendously with other aspects of life (like not burning out).

2. I tilt more when I play online because the hands come so fast I don't have time to get my head right between bad-bets/mistakes I make.

3. Now that I am "good" at live 20/40, spending much time playing online would be an expensive proposition (both in terms of lost earning potential and possibly actually losing).

Makes sense. I think for me, aside from the social interaction which really does go a long way in keeping you sane, the opportunity to think deeper about hands and adjust more profitably to the table is greater live. "Quality" is the word I'm getting. Good stuff Jesse, thanks for answering.

Wow this a blast from the past. I'm taking the liberty of bumping this thread because, as you can see, yesterday was my 1 year anniversary. Special thanks to Captain R for leaving his lucky credit card at home and therefore paying for the celebration dinner.

Congrats Jesse.

I follow your blog infrequently, but whenever I do, it's a great read.

All the best for the year ahead.

how long did it take you to move up from the small stakes (i know you were playing lots of 6/12 for awhile) to the 20/40?

see, i told you it was a huge mistake. of course, at the time i had no idea you would run like willie parker vs. the bengals defense...

Congrats, Jesse, and thanks for still finding the time to come here and help us out with some of the lessons you've learned.

I was a 20/40 player when I went full time. I logged 400 or so hours of 6-12 before moving up basically for good.

Lol running good early was key. Breaking even since may 20th....less key.

This is like Jesse's self-originated Well.

So, how much better at poker do you think you've gotten in the past year? If you could put a number on it (say an increased $/hr.), what would it be (ignoring that the games have gotten tougher)?

1.) What size bankroll do you think you need to start playign full time?

2.) What % of your winnings do you put toward expenses (rent, alcohol etc.) and what % do you reinvest in bankroll?

Jesse,

congrats on the 1 year and keep on keepin on.

What would you suggest to someone that is looking to seriously play the 20 more often. I basically play the 6 and 8 right now rebuilding my roll (thx to being an unemployed engineer for 6 months ..lol). I haven't played the 20 in at least 1.5 years (don't have access to my records right now) and just looking at the games, they don't look any different than they were back then obv, but... in your opinion,

What are the differences between those games? There still seem to be big multi-way pots at some frequency (not quite as much as the 6 and 8) and they seem a bit more aggressive, but again, not overly comparatively speaking.

If you had to give 4 points of advice or keys to moving to that game, what would it be?

let's get real: when are you going to retire and move to a tropical island?

Yeah, like Alameda.

If you close your eyes, you can pretend the sound of the airplanes landing is the roar of the ocean.

I've made tremendous progress in areas like tilt control, game selection, quitting, and stamina. Sadly I don't know if I've gotten much, or even any, better technically. I mean, I guess I have, but it's really hard to quantify since it's such a long march.

Cgrho....

I think too many variables must be considered for each individual case for me to blanketly state a BR requirement. Thoughts:

1. How hard would it be to get a new job?
2. Do people you love depend on your money? Or like me is it just some pets and local bars.
3. How much money do you want to make a year (what stakes will you play)?

As for me....my life only costs 2-3K per month, so I've grown my roll a fair bit....sorta....the market tanking helped nothing.

Wow... I remember when my monthly nut was that low! That was 2 kids, 1 wife, and 2 houses ago! LOL

I think there are way too many variables for each specific case for me to put down a number here and declare it "enough". Things that obviously matter:

1. How much does your life cost? For me, it's like 2-3K/month, which means I've been able to grow my bankroll a good bit in the last year. Obviously you need more if you spend 10K a month.

2. Do your loved ones depend on your money? Or is it just a few pets and the local bars, like it is for me, that would suffer if you went busto.

3. How much do you want to make? In other words, how high will you play?

4. How easy would it be to replace your job?

So...assuming you spend $3000 a month on food/beer/housing, have no children or wives to support, hope to make around $100,000 a year, have (some reasonable) evidence that you're a winning 20/40 player, and could easily get another job, I think you could try pretty responsibly with as little as $25,000.

LOL didn't think this post got through on the Oaks level cellular data network.

Keep in mind that I don't have much experience with 6 and 8 games outside of specifically Artichoke Joe's in San Bruno, which had a very small player pool for an insanely passive 6/12 game (with a jackpot and small drop...I highly suggest it).

1. Game selection is important. Bay 101 is great because there are usually 3 tables going and if your game sucks there is a decent chance one of the others does not. At 6/12 pretty much every game is good, or at least every place has several games. At the Oaks there is only 1 30/60 game most days, and if it sucks, you're just kinda hosed.

2. Profiling players is more important. At 6/12 I remember that with the exception of the maniac archetype and the "not awful" one, basically treating everyone the same was acceptable. At 20/40 it becomes important to go into much more detail with your reads and adjustments. At 40/80 it's paramount.

3. The money will freak you out at 20/40. Like it or not, losing $1500, which is commonplace if you play 6 hour 20/40 sessions, hurts. A lot. I've found that the only way to reliable deal with swings in a game is to routinely play twice as high.

4. Talk about hands with friends. I post hands on here a fair amount, but I have a core group of poker buddies with whom I exchange email regularly about hands. It's been absolutely invaluable.

There, I managed to answer your question without talking about poker at all