game selection is the best skill to have in 2020. also live poker is still a never ending ****** money fountain( until covid) . poker is fine but if you wanna grind high rake high skill level with a bunch of run it once/ upswing members then yeah poker is gonna suck ass .
using doug being down 30 buy ins heads up as saying games are tough is silly , hes been out a good minute and his style is pretty high variance 30 buy ins is not that crazy also 400 nl is pretty much the same skill level as high stakes now but without the buying power.
also play poker for fun and day trade youll make more money.
also also training sites really were the trojan horse, i wish people were more accepting of changing the game variant none of this would really be a problem.
gap is much closer than it used to be but 400NL is not the same skill level as high stakes, regs on average are quite a bit better at higher stakes, fishes will always be fishes regardless of the stakes
The majority of biggest winners at NL500 Zoom probably spent significantly more time on studying poker than I did on getting an MBA from a big name business school.
The $100/hour number is also one that comes with significant variance and no benefits. No idea how people feel about it today but in the past there was some kind of consensus that high variance poker income was comparable to a regular well paid job with benefits that paid 50% of the poker hourly.
$100k/year pre tax in a first world country for somebody near the top of their profession, for example right below a C-level executive at a larger company, isn’t what I would call “pathetic” but it’s certainly below average. In the US with its famously overpaid middle management jobs I would even say way below average.
whether poker income is worth half of what after tax "real world" income is worth is not 'consensus' by any means, but let's pretend that these are equivalent for argument sake.
is 100k even on the low end of what mbas are averaging? there're estimates all over the place, both from schools and for industry averages at different points in their career, but i think there's ample reason to suspect that numbers published by the schools are inflated.
sites like this will understate the avg because it under counts performance bonuses, but it also weeds out non-market driven jobs where people are working for family businesses or for a company that they had preferential access to for a salary that they wouldn't otherwise be able to get. it's a lot more common than most would think. it's not all - probably not even most, but it's a substantial enough chunk of grads that it has to have an impact on avg salaries. i've known quite a few people who this is true for, for example my first boss out of school who was working as a comptroller for a mid sized company was making (inflation adjusted) 150k yet after the company was bought out by a parent company and restructured, got the boot and was unable to find work at all.
many do make it on their own merits and are making those fatty 200k+ incomes but these are generally people with more than just an mba, and they worked disgusting hours to get there - not really analogous to the the 200zoom grinder.
... and peaking at 100k in the corporate world (especially in a big city) is TERRIBLE for something that requires an mba.
tuition alone for MBA programs is 50-150k and a 4 year undergrad is also in that ballpark, and neither of those figures include living expenses/books/transportation/etc. all in the cost is somewhere in the ballpark of 200-300k debt from undergrad+mba.
say you start at 70k in NYC or LA. that's about 50-55k after tax.
if you have to work in NYC, 30k/y is basically living like a pauper.
40k is more realistic even if you're being fairly minimalist in your lifestyle, and most will be spending a lot more (but let's pretend our hero is a fairly frugal one, so 40k).
... and you're also paying about 5% on your 250k debt.
even if you jumped up to 100k/y (70 after tax) after the first several years, it would take you more than a decade of working (after your 6-7 years of schooling) just to repay the debt. maybe by the age of 50 you'd be in a better financial position than this theoretical grinder (or streamer, or bartender, or whatever) living in a small town. you'd definitely be in a better position come retirement if all goes well.
but if your job becomes obsolete 10 years after you start school, you're in major debt where they wouldn't be. as an "average" mba student you're actually taking a much riskier path in that respect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krax View Post
1) I doubt that any of the 200z+ regs would have troubles succeeding in corporate environment. Intelligence would not be a limiting factor for sure.
---
We can agree to disagree then. Obv some might but if you beat zoom200 doesn't mean you can succeed in corporate enviroment. But that's just my opinion.
define success. define "can". my experience with people who are top dog in a corporate oriented profession is that there's nothing unique about them other than their work ethic.
iirc the average doctor, with around $200k in debt, makes less than $100/hr. (not including benefits)
lol that being pathetic for a high stakes poker crusher, presumably running at neutral EV.
Even for one of the best in the world, the barriers to entry/financial investment were initially low and for online poker your COL could be negligible in theory as well. Also, depending on where you live your winnings could be tax-free.
define success. define "can". my experience with people who are top dog in a corporate oriented profession is that there's nothing unique about them other than their work ethic.
Ok. Well....Being ultra conscientious is extremely rare so that’s very unique
But apart from that ...nothing remarkable? You’ve got to be joking or have no meaningful experience whatsoever with those sorts of people.
Apart from being highly intelligent they are excellent communicators, understand how to motivate people very well, are insightful, brilliant sales people, practically minded, analytical.... I could go on and on
The rest of your post reads as someone justifying something they actually know is wrong but badly wants it to be true.
We can agree to disagree then. Obv some might but if you beat zoom200 doesn't mean you can succeed in corporate enviroment. But that's just my opinion.
Your opinion is absolutely correct lol . You need far more developed and wide ranging personal traits than beating a card game is going to get you. Grinding a tonne of volume has an negative effect on most people’s interpersonal skills and that is absolutely crucial in business
iirc the average doctor, with around $200k in debt, makes less than $100/hr. (not including benefits)
lol that being pathetic for a high stakes poker crusher, presumably running at neutral EV.
A doctor is going to continue to make more money throughout his/her career. The vast majority of poker players will make less and less every year (and/or work harder every subsequent year).
Your opinion is absolutely correct lol . You need far more developed and wide ranging personal traits than beating a card game is going to get you. Grinding a tonne of volume has an negative effect on most people’s interpersonal skills and that is absolutely crucial in business
Yeah I should have explicitly specified raw intelligence.
Business folk have/need soft skills that most regs would dream off. Obviously they are smart, but the smartest people in a given year tend to self-select to other professions. Its not their main competitive advantage
is 100k even on the low end of what mbas are averaging?
I was referring to people close to the top in their profession because that's what OP was specifically referring to. The average NL500 Zoom grinder makes significantly less than $100 hour. So for an apple to apple comparison, I tried to use people right below the C-level at larger businesses.
I would never say $100k/year isn't a lot of money. It definitely is, even in first world countries. It's just not that much for someone who studied 5000-10000 hours to get very close to the top of their profession.
Quote:
tuition alone for MBA programs is 50-150k and a 4 year undergrad is also in that ballpark, and neither of those figures include living expenses/books/transportation/etc. all in the cost is somewhere in the ballpark of 200-300k debt from undergrad+mba.
That depends on your personal situation. I didn't pay a single cent in tuition for my undergrad+MBA from a school on the Financial Times Top100 Global MBA list: http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoo...a-ranking-2020
Games would probably be a lot softer if rakeback would come back. I think most people would move up at least one limit and people would actually be able to build a bankroll. It is really hard to do that atm playing lowstakes cash on Stars.
Make 80-100$ hourly and call it pathetic when the majority of the working people makes 25$ hourly.
I am a teacher in a company now part-time but full time soon. You have to realize that if you are getting paid x amount per hour in any decent real job you get paid for drinking coffee, talking with your workmates, sitting in meetings, discussing whether Tesla will stay on top and what other companies are great to invest money in and so on.
On top of that the work is way less stressful compared to poker. Maybe that's just me but poker was in my opinion a really tough job, as you had to be focused all the time and was forced to make constant decisions. That's not happening in a real job, at least not as frequently.
You also can be sick and get paid for the day. You are guaranteed holidays that are being paid, etc. So your hourly is higher, you could call it rakeback I guess.
It's also fairly nice to know that you are getting paid no matter what. No downswings but rather opportunities to constantly move up in stakes in the real job.
Making $100/hr playing a strategy game and living your life how you want to every single day because of your professional independence
Yep sounds absolutely terrible
Also everyone who is halfway decent makes more than that
It sounds amazing when you only list upsides. What about:
- Player of the same skill relative to the filed was making $1000/hr in 2007, $500/hr in 2013 and $150/hr in 2020? Yes, I know, random numbers but not thar far from the truth. Point remains, you make less and less while being better and better.
- Uncertainty - Say you do make $150/hr in 2020, what is your expected hourly in 2030? 2040? 2050? For every other profession you have an idea what your income will be, poker might be gone by then.
80% of jobs around today will be gone by 2040 due to automation.
It'll just be a bunch of nerds looking at a computer screen debugging the latest code. When India, China, Africa start to be the majority of programmers (which imo is bound to happen due to population distribution) destroying any western standard of living doing basically the same mundane debugging one will look back at 2040 and wonder why they didn't just do what they liked for the past 20 years instead of going some route to make a higher expected hourly.
I am a teacher in a company now part-time but full time soon. You have to realize that if you are getting paid x amount per hour in any decent real job you get paid for drinking coffee, talking with your workmates, sitting in meetings, discussing whether Tesla will stay on top and what other companies are great to invest money in and so on.
On top of that the work is way less stressful compared to poker. Maybe that's just me but poker was in my opinion a really tough job, as you had to be focused all the time and was forced to make constant decisions. That's not happening in a real job, at least not as frequently.
You also can be sick and get paid for the day. You are guaranteed holidays that are being paid, etc. So your hourly is higher, you could call it rakeback I guess.
It's also fairly nice to know that you are getting paid no matter what. No downswings but rather opportunities to constantly move up in stakes in the real job.
I’ve missed ya insyder19! Do you think your PLO book still holds up in 2020?
You also can be sick and get paid for the day. You are guaranteed holidays that are being paid, etc. So your hourly is higher, you could call it rakeback I guess.
In good old Germany.
Good luck getting 4-6 weeks of paid vacation time in the US of A. Some full time employees still don’t even get paid sick leave..
I was referring to people close to the top in their profession because that's what OP was specifically referring to. The average NL500 Zoom grinder makes significantly less than $100 hour. So for an apple to apple comparison, I tried to use people right below the C-level at larger businesses.
I would never say $100k/year isn't a lot of money. It definitely is, even in first world countries. It's just not that much for someone who studied 5000-10000 hours to get very close to the top of their profession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by madlex
$100k/year pre tax in a first world country for somebody near the top of their profession, for example right below a C-level executive at a larger company, isn’t what I would call “pathetic” but it’s certainly below average. In the US with its famously overpaid middle management jobs I would even say way below average.
Funny how you used this phrase three times in two posts, yet many people in this thread (and other similar threads) seem to ignore that particular part of it, that there is a huge difference between what is typical for a profession or what is at or near the ceiling.
For example...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oladipo
Making $100/hr playing a strategy game and living your life how you want to every single day because of your professional independence
Yep sounds absolutely terrible
Also everyone who is halfway decent makes more than that
Dude, why are you wasting time typing out replies on 2+2?? Go out, get a good bat, and start getting in hundreds of swings in the cages. Now. Minimum wage for a Major League Baseball player is $563,500.
Making about $20K/week playing a kids game and living your life how you want to every single day because of your professional independence?
Yep, sounds absolutely terrible.
Also, everyone who is halfway decent makes more than that: the 500th highest MLB salary in 2020 is $1,080,000 (Colorado reliever Carlos Estevez). The 400th highest is $2,025,000 (Oakland outfielder Chad Pinder). The 300th is $3,625,000 (Cleveland catcher Roberto Perez).
Hell, you poker players talk about something called the WSOP Main Event. Last year's winner, Hossein Ensan, took home $10 million and he had to finish first among 8,569 players to do so. You know who else took home $10 million in 2019? Craig Kimbrel, Andrew McCutchen, David Robertson, Tanner Roark, Adam Wainwright, Anibal Sanchez and Daniel Murphy.
Count 'em, that's seven guys. If they signed up for a PLO table, one of them would be wait listed.
And they didn't have to rank first among 8,569, like that Ensan chump. Nope. They tied for 117th last year. Go look at Hendon Mob and see who finished 117th at the 2019 Main Event. Correct: "unknown player." Thats just brutal. Meanwhile, the No. 79 MLB prize winner from 2019 is married to Miss January 2010. I'm not making this s--t up, Google it, if you must. No. 79 at the Main Event was some guy who is trying to take over his dad's business.
But back to the seven-figure folks... it bears repeating that Kimbrel, et al still had 116 people ahead of them. They made $5 million less than Dustin Pedroia, who only played six times. And don't give me any excuses about how good you have to be to play this game: the No. 107 guy on last year's list is someone named Bryce Harper, and all I ever hear is how much he SUCKS.
And don't give me some lame "well, that's an American sport, I'm from [insert country here]" excuse. Yes, the majority of players are from the U.S. But there are around 100 from Venezuela alone. The No. 1 all-time Venezuelan baseball player? Miggy Cabrera, who became the first player in 45 years to achieve a Triple Crown. The No. 1 Venezuelan poker player? Some guy who shoots angles then claims to "no speaky English." That's right, Venezuelan ballplayers are straight-shooting, honest... oh wait, never mind, I forgot about Jose Altuve.
There are at least 10 MLBers from East Asia, and they could have done fine staying there. But I guess they wanted to move to a place where people respect raises.
I think there are probably a dozen or so MLB players from Mexico. That country also has its own league, so we might not be getting their best. They're bringing curveballs (Yovani Gallardo), they bringing sliders (Sergio Romo), they're getting charged with domestic assault (Roberto Osuna). But some, I suppose, are good people.
Finally, someone else mentioned education being a barrier to entry for many professions. Nope, don't need to worry about that if you want to play baseball. Go back to those $10M guys. Kimbrel went to a community college. McCutchen, Sanchez and Wainwright didn't go to college. Murphy dropped out of Jacksonville as a junior, while Robertson left Bama after just two years. Two! Even Van Wilder lasted seven.
It's like anything else, you just have to be willing to work hard and put in the time. Plus, if you really want to get ahead, you can learn how to play in position with a simple training video:
So yeah, forget real work, go play baseball! You'd be stupid not to, right?
Last edited by Wilbury Twist; 09-11-2020 at 09:59 PM.
Reason: Dustin, not Jason. Damn Woodland High guy.
It sounds amazing when you only list upsides. What about:
- Player of the same skill relative to the filed was making $1000/hr in 2007, $500/hr in 2013 and $150/hr in 2020? Yes, I know, random numbers but not thar far from the truth. Point remains, you make less and less while being better and better.
- Uncertainty - Say you do make $150/hr in 2020, what is your expected hourly in 2030? 2040? 2050? For every other profession you have an idea what your income will be, poker might be gone by then.
Agree with this.
Everyone saying "anyone decent makes way more than $100/hr" has an absurd definition of "decent". The fact is, if you are good enough to earn $100/hr, you would have been earning 10x that 10 years ago at poker, and (absent problems with social skills) could earn a very good, non-variance salary in a first world country.
