Getting the advanced degree from UCLA/USC cannot be a BAD THING for your future even if you do not become a lawyer. You will make some great contacts which are generally more useful in getting to where you want to be and the added degree will be useful to you later in life if you want to set up your own company and raise capital etc or even do what dlpnyc did and go straight to a hedge fund.

I sincerely regret dropping my course for a Masters in Finance 20 years ago because I could have used the "name recognition" when I launched my own business/es. No matter what anyone says the law degree MAY open a lot of doors for you that you cannot be expected to see at your age...

Trading jobs - the implosion of US banking and the demise of BSC etc means there is intense competition in a shrinking market. Wall St expands right at the end of bull markets and then spends the next few years downsizing.

ALSO, if you make good money at poker and want to trade and like the freedom part of those lifestyles then I would recommend taking some of your poker winnings and use that to trade (start tiny, really tiny and build systems or find out what parts of the market/s you are good at, read quality investment books and learn to cut losses etc, this way you will see if you like it and want to do that long term)

FWIW - anything after 10-20 years becomes less exciting, be it poker, trading, sports betting, law etc

hmmm trading is very hard and you'd have to learn a lot more - and the hours average to near 100 a week - the pay is similar to what you can expect from hs poker

it's very similar to poker, lots of buzz and 100x more stress I wouldnt suggest it as an alternative route personally

i used to work for a firm which is very much in the limelight at the moment - their stocks dropped 50pc or smthing yesterday

im going back there - if they still exist - in just over a years time - going to enjoy the next year off

"Big law" is generally a lot broader than just the equivalent of magic circle firms. Any firm that pays market rate salaries ($160k to start in NYC/DC/Chi/SF/LA etc) or very close to it is generally considered big law (or a boutique in the case of a small specialized firm).

Part of the difference is the UK split between barristers and solicitors. Given that the barristers do the trial work, taking a case to trial as a Magic Circle firm means something very very different than it does in the US. Solicitors are second fiddle at trial; in the US, the barrister/solicitor split does not exist and the lawyers at large firms that work up cases actually take those same cases to trial. A fair number of huge US firms actually train their litigators to try cases: Jones Day and Kirkland & Ellis are two that come to mind, and either one would fit right in with Lovell's in terms of academic pedigree etc. Both firms certainly derive a significant chunk of their income from PE deals, M&A work, securities compliance and issuance, and the like -- but also from litigation.

Yes I know about the split but Magic Circle firms in the UK don't work on ANY cases at all that go to trial. They don't even do corporate litigation. Basically no litigation at all.

That's what pissed me off about the law community here. I went to law school because I thought the idea of being a lawyer (an advocate for justice and all that jazz) appealed to me when I was younger. Later on I met all these city snobs / i-banker wannabes who basically felt that ligitation was unglamorous and beneath them. They treat litigation solicitors and barristers alike with contempt.

I personally find it sad. They think they're so cool because they get to hang out with these bankers and PE dudes. Then why the f*ck didn't they just join an investment bank or PE firm to begin with FFS.

Magic Circle = pretentious twats

If you want to be a litigation lawyer because you want the personal challenge of going to court and arguing big cases, fair play to you - IMHO that is awesome and I have huge admiration for lawyers like that.

But the lawyers who do all the legwork for i-bankers and PE guys - their work is so bloody mind-numbingly boring that I wouldn't do it if they paid me $1 million a year.

/end of rant

Is it just me or is Magic Circle the post inane name conceivable for a group of law firms?

I do know that Herbert Smith (which technically is probably not a MC firm, but close -- I think they're sixth on that list) does support trial work, as I know some litigators from there. But yes, I share your views generally -- the barrister crew are built from rather different stuff.

I just finished managing a rather complex trial in commecial court in London. The quality of the barristers' bar is very very high: smart hardworking guys that know their stuff. We did not use a magic circle firm as our solicitors, but rather the london office of a large US firm. I know also that Lovell's will support trial work, as I've also used them for exactly that all across Europe.

It's not just you.

I've skimmed much of the thread, and I am speaking from the perspective of an almost 30 yr old grad student who is one year away from a PhD after taking some time off between college and grad school. My advice:

Spend a year or two grinding, coaching, and investing your profit while you are young and the online poker economy is good. Online poker may very well last for years to come, but from what I have read there are some threats from legislation and future AI.

Take some time after that to travel, or to work a strange job that lets you see cool things.

Come back. Evaluate the turn.

I see a lot about day trading and lawyering from young poker players, but if you invest wisely, there are also a ton of sweet small businesses you can start that will hold your attention. And with two years of poker playing profits under your belt, you will have some capital to do so.

You may also find something to do while traveling. There are a number of great jobs and careers that college students just don't think about very often because the jobs are under the radar now but will grow more important in the future--something like a geographer who specializes in water rights.

Just my .02$

amulet good posts

+1

I have the utmost respect for barristers. IMHO the adversarial trial is the most classic manifestation of legal practice and tradition. And all the barristers I have met for some reason are incredibly humble and not at all snooty/stuck up like Magic Circle guys.

By the way if you think Magic Circle is a lame name.. Herbert Smith and Lovells fall into that bracket called "Silver Circle"

Hey Garrett-

I may bring a little different perspective to this discussion as I am not a successful poker player (small winner at SSNL and slight loser at MSNL) but I have been successful in the ‘real’ world. I am in early 30s now and by late 20s made enough money that I could never work again and still live very comfortably. Here are some thoughts:

- **Never leave money on the table.** If you think you can make $500k a year playing poker then do it for at least the next couple years. Opportunities like that don’t come along all the time and if you think poker will always ‘be there’ for you to fall back on, you may be mistaken.

- IMHO people try to get too much ‘life fulfillment’ out of their work. I get fulfillment outside of work. I didn’t make money because I did something I love. I made money because I saw an opportunity, busted my ass, had some years of complete hell, had a little bit of luck, and came out successful.

Maybe the grass is always greener on the other side. But I don’t wake up every morning glowing because I contribute to society and have a respectable job. I wake up happy because I never worry about money, have a smoking hot girlfriend that is too good looking for me, go to restaurants most people can’t afford, and have a killer home. Funny thing is, I’d trade ‘contributing to society’ in a heartbeat if I knew what to do when my c-bet gets called or I get raised on the Turn!

- You have plenty of time to figure out what you are gonna be when you grow up. And you’ll be able to make a much better decision (and also be able to try and fail at a lot more things) sitting on a pile of cash. It’s a nice feeling having a ton of FU money.

- If I printed out your original post and showed it to my employees, just about every one of them would want to punch you in the face. Most people hate their jobs and get paid peanuts, not 200-500k. I’m not saying you shouldn’t strive to be one of the few who are happy with what they do for a living. But what are you, all of 25? Are you aren’t happy doing something that makes you more money that 99.9% of the people on this planet? As Artie Lange would say “WHAAAAAA”. You need to realize how fortunate you have the both the opportunity and talent to be successful at poker.

- If having a respectable job and contributing to society is important to you , don’t be a lawyer. Lawyers contribute nothing and most of them are scum. Plus most of them hate their jobs and don’t make as much as people think.

- I am not flaming or taking a shot at you, but some stuff in your post makes me think you are a little naïve as to how the real world works. Its like the poker equivalent of “I am killing $200 NL for 4 BB/100 for an entire year and now figure I can 10 table $6000 NL for at least 3 BB/100 and make millions.”

For example: I don’t think it’s ‘pretty likely’ that you will score a 135k/yr job at a big law firm right out of law school. Not a shot against you, but unless mommy and daddy have connections my understanding is those jobs are very competitive. To be honest, I’m not sure it’s a given you will get into a Top 15 school w/o connections given the info you posted regarding your undergrad education.

You state you need to be making at least 6 figures, but would be willing to take a ‘lame’ salary for **a year** if that’s what it took to make a ridiculously high amount of money. Somehow I don’t think it works quite like that.

- So in short, I think you should stick with poker for the next 2-3 years (if not longer) and bank all the money you make. I’d suggest applying to those top law schools to see if you can even get in. That may be a wakeup call for you. While you are doing that, take a couple finance and math classes to see if you could handle the trading route. I’m guessing Marketing and Entrepreneurship wasn’t very math intensive. Maybe even take some prelaw or a paralegal type course just to get a taste of what law world is like.

Good luck and I hope this helps.

Although it might sound contradictory, I pretty much agree w/ this entire post. As of today (so tomorrow I might feel completely different), my plan is continue to play poker until I really hate it day to day or decide I have a passion for another career, and I am nowhere close to either of those yet. The points you and others have made are good ones: the more I think about it, the more I realize how much I will likely hate law school, and hate being a lawyer. Trading I'm not so sure, but I think I am underestimating just how terrible working 60-80 hour weeks would be.

Agree with stinkpaw. Even law is often tedious and pays less than poker. You are seriously not re-inventing the wheel in Biglaw.

******ed how everyone wants to become an options trader or do something in finance when they know nothing about it.

i find this to be everyone's initial view on finance. and then they realize it is not extremely fun, hours are long, people are *******s. that is assuming you can even get in, which is extremely difficult. the % of people from finance backgrounds that get into good firms such as GS or JPM etc. is so ridiculously low, i dont see how ppl with no experience or background know that they want to be an options trader.

A+

all_in_lam - I think OP was just thinking "aloud" here on paper and was responding to the interest he showed in Strasser's post about his time at MS on the eq options desk.

What many outside the investment banks do not know is that even if you get into the place you will almost certainly not end up as a risk taker, and even if you become a trader will mainly work making "prices" to clients etc.

However, as tough as it is, if it is something you love, like I do, then it becomes also a hobby and interest. I spent 4 years after college as an engineer and hated it, 2 as a fixed income salesman (hated it) and then bugged my boss CONSTANTLY to let me trade and by some miracle he let me in.............

Easy way to learn is read and read and read all the old Wall St books, these will also show you some fascinating USA history..

FWIW guys who have been successful online poker players IMO ALREADY have the main skills to be a trader in terms of "getting value", keeping losses small, running good money management etc, so some of these guys MAY prove to brilliant in finance

If you are super smart, street wise and have real discipline then I say go for it

meh its hard..

and OP has no background in it, just seems absurd that he would decide those as one of the 3 options is all im saying.

I agree w/ this too. I'm currently talking to people who trade and reading all the books I can on the subject to figure out if it is something I even want to do. From there, I realize it will be ridiculously hard to even get my foot in the door, let alone have a lucrative career in that career field.

I went to an Ivy League undergrad and Stanford law school. I work at a top Manhattan law firm. I 'discovered' poker during my first year of law school and made around 200K in each of my 2nd and 3rd years. In this, my first year at a firm, I'll prob make aroud 150K from poker on the side while i'm trying to balance it with BigLaw (i work around 50-55 hrs / wk), in addition to my 200K firm salary+bonus.

Whatever you do, just don't make the mistake of thinking you have to pick law (or trading) TO THE EXCLUSION of poker...it'll just be taking on more of a hobby role, rather than a main income generator, and ya know what, a lot of people will tell you it's better that way.

ya didnt mean to discourage you, but the possibility of being a prominent trader is not too likely given your past history.

i can tell you from experience, because i have tried to explore my path in trading. I have a similar background to strasser, i have a electrical engineering degree (almost) at the best engineering school in canada (waterloo) and have experience in equity trading and taken courses on derivatives and finance and economics. I tried to get a co-op position but wasnt really able to, and only a decent % of my friends who major in finance have jobs that pay 80k+ at trading firms and they work their ass off and generally hate their lives.

i am currently working at a firm doing electrical consulting, and play poker after work/weekends. im very mixed on this issue too as a few hrs of poker often pays a month of pay, but am 2 chicken **** to play full time. but i only play 400nl

awesome post stinkpaw

One issue that hasn't been addressed accurately is the money issue. People are saying that at a law firm you will only make 100-160K for at least three years as opposed to around 250k playing poker. While you might gross more playing poker the added value of having a "legit" profession such as health insurance, a better ability to borrow money, and zero risk make being a lawyer more profitable in my opinion in real terms.

what I mean in "real" terms is what do you imagine you would want in life by the time you're 27. For me, i want to be starting a family and be able to provide a comfortable living for them. If I play poker It would be harder/more expensive to buy a house, and the risk would be magnified as having a downswing might mean my kids not eating or losing the house. One could argue that grossing more in poker means you could save more but in my expereince if you run your life and bankrole out of the same pool you will almost surely go broke. The advantage to poker is the freedom it provides of being your own boss and being able to do whatever you want. This no longer is the case once you have life obligations (family, house, ect) So whether or not you are playing poker or working 50hrs+ at a law firm you will need to slave away.

People don't gain freedom from having money, they get it by avoiding commitments

Very good point made sir.

More money means more ability to fund commitments. So it seems to me that having more money for the same level of commitment means more freedom.

It's really all about the money/commitment ratio: I know plenty of reasonably wealthy people who are waaaaaaaay overcommitted.