Awesome. Thank you. I will read.

I'm from Canada so my perspective is different wrt places obviously.

Sure, if your games are soft enough and the rake is small enough and you put in enough hours maybe you can make 100k a year sustainably playing 2/5 but ime that's not the case. You saying that it's an absolute fact makes me think you're very naive when it comes to winrates and playing professionally, especially over multi year timelines.

If your 2/5 winrate is 10bb/h which is absolutely amazing, like top 0.01% of 2/5 players, that means your bb/100 is around 30bb/100 assuming fast dealers at 33h per hour. Pretty tall order if you ask me.

Even if manage all of this, you would still need to put in 2000 hours a year of live poker which is pretty difficult itself.

But whatever man to each their own. Just cause I wouldn't do it doesn't mean someone else shouldn't.

He said, "absolute fact" because he's done it, obv, and brag, lol.

I 100% agree with this. I'm not like Mike tho. I can't really beat the game.

Looking back at my results from last year, I can barely afford to make the trips I take playing 9a-4p. I debate with myself about switching it up, but it always comes back to the same thing.

I'd be willing to swap the conversation with the omc nits for playing with the drunks to make more money. I just dont want to deal with the types that I see coming to prey on the drunks.

Games would be better if the people who were trying to make money on them focussed a little on customer service.

I don't know what to do about the angle shooters. 120 years ago there were probably more effective ways to deal with them. They won't change.

I'd hope an aspiring pro could learn to avoid talking strategy at the table and stop berating players for playing bad and getting lucky, tho. Seeing those two things at a 1/2 table is absolutely ridiculous.

Fortunately, we don't have as many fighters in southeast oklahoma as they do in Florida.

That's really good if that's the case but 100k in one year doesn't mean you're expected to win 100k the next year; it could even be a losing year. Because we are talking about a very, very long timeline if you intend to play poker as a sole source of income until you retire.

Does nobody remember the results Dizzy just posted?

2017 - 80k+ playing part time

"omg go pro you are guaranteed to clear 100k every year !!!!!!"

*contemplates going pro but decides against it*

2018 - -10k playing part time

Mike's access to Florida games gives him a very different viewpoint, but always up is not usually possible.

is that a correlation though?
I think we won tbe able to tell until onlinepoker is federal across USA and see what the numbers were.

before blck friday, FTP was around 180-200kk on peak nights and PS was around 240-260k on peaks

that's because dizzy sux at poker. jk dizzy

i went from like 10-12 bb/hr over 1k hours at $2/5, to going like 2-3 bb/hr for like the next 200 hours.

dont want to turn this into a winrates thread.

the answer is quite simple. poker is dying. im not saying it will die in 5 years or in 15 years. but games are progressively getting worse. $1/3 is still juicy, as is $2/5, but you don't get as many big juicy games. you have more and more GTO wannabes.

i'll say it again. i play in a fairly known card room. great action. 2 years ago, the $1/3 and $2/5 games were cracking. insane waitlists. crazy action. these days, you roll up on a Friday night and you can get into a game in 20-30 minutes, whereas 1 or 2 years ago you would have to wait 3 hours or tip the floor $30.

the solutions many pros resort to is trying to act like you are having fun and gambling and talk a lot. this might work temporarily, but at some point, what you really need is rich guys who like to gamble and have fun and don't care about losing money day after day.

these types of people are far few and in between. at some point, these guys get tired of the game, get tired of losing, or aren't as rich as they try to seem.

Dizzy also plays sporadic hours and sporadic stakes. IIRC he plays anything from 2/5 to 10/25 depending on who sits in those games.

Showing that he won $80k and then lost $10K in small samples playing stakes all over the place is not a good comparison at all.

No - he's primarily a 2/5 player that played 10/25 once and 5/10 when the games are good.

There you go completely missing the point again.

How is that missing the point? Its much easier to have huge variation in results if you are playing sporadically, not staying in the groove and not getting better. He hardly played much at all last year. I'm sure he didnt stay sharp and probably was just donking around blowing off steam and not taking it seriously like he used to. He also plays super aggro.

Its a very bad comparison to a pro or a serious rec who plays regularly.

He was a better player in 2018 then he was in 2017. Given he was considering going pro I'm pretty sure he wasn't just "donking around blowing off steam," whatever the hell that means.

When you play in deep and aggressive games where 3-4 hands PER ORBIT are being 3bet it forces you to play more aggressively.

It should be fairly intuitive if not outright common sense that when average stack depth is 300+ BB's and everybody at the table knows how to 3bet light your variance is going to exponentially increase.

Heres Dizzys results for 2018 that he posted in Winrate forum

2/5NL: -1,287; 231 hrs; -5.58/hr; -1.12bb/hr
T/TNL: -13,144; 122 hrs; -107.81/hr; -10.78bb/hr

and a few other odds and ends hours.

Like I said, he didnt play much and there's no way a person can play that little and be on their A game. Not to mention its not that tough to go on a down swing for that small sample when you play as aggro as he does...so again, its a horrible comparison when trying to use him as an example of how easy it is to go from winning $80K one year to losing $10K the next year.

Johnny and Mike, just put each other on ignore please. I'm tired of this bickering between you.

Having also spent over 100k hours in various casinos I can attest to this. I have met some genuinely nice and cool people at poker, but there are also many degens, racists (I'm a black man), scumbags, and haters. For me, the haters got to me the most. When I was a pro and had an image as a strong winning player, there were people who would literally celebrate when I lost a hand and whine every time I won. I promise I was always very nice and courteous to everyone, but it didn't stop people from hating me. I guess it's human instinct; people who lose regularly hate seeing others win. It made winning and losing both a negative experience lol. After a while, I decided I'm better off saying FU to the haters. Their hate made me work harder and try to win even more so I can piss them off more. But of course in poker, sometimes luck goes against me, I inevitably lose and see the joy in their eyes. That made my insides fill with rage.

Sorry for the rant but it was quite a toxic environment.

Last year 7,874 competitors entered the WSOP Main Event. Twenty years before, in 1998, 350 people competed.

Poker. Is. Not. Dying.

Yep, because number of main event participants has a direct correlation to poker’s popularity.

Go back and look at any argument between us...ANY of them...and you will see it starts with him making some stupid negative statement about me. I challenge you to find one single argument that I started.

That may be true, at least in the past couple of interactions, but I really don't care. It's not bad enough for me to play detective, and the "he started it" argument doesn't bear a lot of weight with me anyway. It hasn't been bad enough to infract, but it has been enough that I've edited a few posts and that I don't want to see it anymore.

If you never start it, great. Take the high road and just hit report on his post. or, better yet since you don't seem to think he has anything positive to offer, just don't read his posts.

And Johnny, same applies to you.

no but the WSOP adding tourneys and adding circuit events and Europe events etc.....etc...….

DOES

Yet local dailies are dying by the truckload. This tells me that poker players have realized what a rake trap those games are, but still love donkaments. Plus the decent donkaments aren't so out of reach as average buy-ins have come down while inflationand the economy have both gone up.

This doesn't tell us much about the popularity of LLSNL, just of destination donkaments. And I don't think anyone has argued that poker is dead anyway. The argument is about how it's trending.

Seattle has had one of the hottest housing markets in the country, directly correlated to local economy, and yet the higher stake casino games around Seattle have drastically decreased.

Prime hours are still great, more less due to the consolidation of local rooms leaving fewer options (which is directly related to the overall decrease of popularity).

Bottom line: poker is losing popularity in Seattle.

FWIW, big tourneys are actually growing in popularity. More and more people seem to be moving toward tournament poker around Seattle.

Daily tourneys on the other hand are shrinking at a much faster rate than cash games.

So much this, imo.

Our room has gone from twice daily donkaments to once daily donkaments to now zero donkaments. That's not a good grassroots trend.

GcluelesstrendingnoobG

Even if it is only loosely correlated, a twenty-fold increase in the one is pretty likely to go along with at least some increase in the other.