It's definitely possible. However, a mortgage is one of the issues that makes me think in order to play poker for a living instead of get a job you need to be making a good bit more at poker than you would be at the job. (other key issues are Health Insurance and Retirement Plans)

However, even given those 3 issues it's possible.


You can get a mortgage playing poker. If you make $120K 3 years in a row and pay taxes on it you can get a mortgage for a house (especially if at any point you declare as a pro that makes it even easier) ... you may have to pay a bit higher interest rate (maybe) but it can be done.


Hey, ya know get a job for one year and get your mortgage than quit the job, play poker, and keep up your payments. I haven't looked into this legally but I'd assume as long as you kept making the payments on time no one would care and likely wouldn't even ask.

T H I S

havent read the thread but this op was actually very good generally....

just wanted to say good work brit, for once =/

Do you mean that if you fail at poker and just to get a 'real' job, you will be seen as a degenerate loser? If so, I agree. Better to fail at other stuff even if the job is a trader that is the real-world equivalent of a poker player.

A $150k job often includes 2-3 weeks paid-vacation, sick days, 401k matching, and health care.

I think that young folk tend to forget about the importance of this. When you are in your 20's, retirement and health are not that concerning.

This is very fair and absolutely true, however I can say with some reasonably simple logic that my post assumed that most people are not paying taxes or declaring themselves professionally. Also, while the winrate is certainly POSSIBLE, this would apply to only a small segment of people playing 50, 100, or 200 NL, etc. Most people are break even or near enough to it that making a reasonable living is out of the question.

Brit is right in one aspect - a lot of people who wonder if they should go pro think that intelligence is the most important prerequisite.

But if you are intelligent, you should by now have realised that intelligence is not what makes some players successful. It is attitude.

I am pretty sure you can adjust your attitude to become a good player. But that might mean that the game isn't fun anymore; and it might even change your personality. Most important, few people can change thier attitude on their own.

I don't think anyone who dances around in front of his computer after winning a huge pot or who gets angry after taking a run-of-the-mill bad beat like AA cracked by QQ will ever be a winning player. Do you think you have what it takes to take such events without even getting up from your chair at your computer?

@ Brit - you make some good points sometimes, but you have no respect whatsoever for your audience. Sad.

Seems like Britessential has gone very quiet indeed after it was pointed out that he's a losing player and therefore has no business lecturing smart people who work hard to develop their game and make very good money as a result.

lol @thinking that would stop him

he already made a million threads and in every one of them every other post pointed out the fact that he's a losing player.

most likely he's just busy helping out the poor and improving the world.

Well everyone should pay their taxes.

And obviously if you can't make money at poker you shouldn't rely on poker for money.

And yea it would apply to a small number of people given most people lose money at poker. It can be done though by a number of people.

I dropped out of uni 2 years ago, got a job for a year and a half and quit about a month back to give poker a shot.
OP is pretty much spot on, but I wouldn't change my experiences and I will make it as a poker player - someone has to.

Either you are clueless, bad at poker, or leveling. I will put this simple because there seems to be a misunderstanding. First I need to make sure we both understand that good grinders will make 10-15k a month. The serious grinders at 100nl that can 18 table full ring and play REAL hours make more than this. But if we both can agree on this then everything else is common sense because 10-15k a month is more than most the population and if anyone can buy a house it's them. Report back if you need more clarifications or help.

i am now dumber for having read this. OP makes some decent points but he drowns them all like beautiful kittens in a burlap sack in his ignorance. and then the thread, my god.

in summary: many people who drop out of college shouldn't, poker breeds a kind of laziness that's bad for the soul, i pity anyone who never had a job but is making ~50K/year+ at poker, but life as a poker player can be pretty sweet nonetheless.

This thread should honestly die, but as long as people are saying ridiculous things like this, it can't. What I said was about as simple to understand as is humanly possible. I'm none of the three things you mentioned. This thread is not about what "good" players "can" make, it's about the overall possibilities available to people who want to alter their lifestyle to turn pro. I'm sure that there are some people capable of making a ton of $$$$ and living a normal life, I have said this in about six or seven other posts in this thread. However, people you are referring to make up a very small % of those who end up taking the plunge and quitting college/work etc to play professionally. If you think there are a high number of people playing NL50 or NL100 making $15000 a month, please illustrate this for us with some form of proof. If you think that the majority of players out there are 18 tabling for serious hours and crushing games for huge winrates, be my guest and indulge that fantasy if it makes you feel better.

Bottom line, I'm being fair and objective throughout this entire thread (unlike what people are accusing the OP of). I'm simply sticking to the line of thought that very, very few succeed in this game at the rate they assume they will, and that many people who are obsessing over the idea of turning pro probably shouldn't be. You on the other hand, are coming off like the typical 2p2 online multitabler who is angry as hell that his profession is being called into question.

Lame. Either that guy made a typo and meant to write 8-tabling, which is not impossible. Or he meant 18-tabling which means he has no clue about poker.

Either way there was no reason for a response.

if you think people don't make money 18-tabling FR 100NL then you are just wrong, and look dumb for saying they dont.

now if you are saying the majority of people don't make a lot 18-tabling FR, then maybe youre right. but mass tabling FR for a big hourly is really commonplace.

You might have a point if one person could actually explain simply these "advanced thought processes" without boiling it down to simple thoughts and actions.My main gripe however is with people who feel the need to say "constant evolution" as a poker player is crucial, or that its not the same game as it was 30 years ago which is poppycock. It is the same game, and most people playing it know as much as you do and you exploit them when the cards fall your way and vice versa.

I once argued that If Phil Ivey took a 5 year poker break while danny greanu played solid for 5 years and then came back and they played heads up, Phil would still stand a good chance of winning; infact, just as much as daniel. This is because Phil has learnt the game, and he can play the game. He wont suddenly be stripped of how to play and the "how" is important here. The "how" involves all possible moves a player can make, which also is restricted by the game or system. The player is never fully aware at the table, and can thus be said to be a partially passive agent.

Player's often make the right moves at the wrong time. They make the wrong "read" or "guess" and it turns out right. This is what happens mostly in poker. People act on limited information and in the dark guessing, but ego plays a part here because players want to feel like they have mastered a game of chance, that every decision they make is a solid, and sound one, when they can never be sure. It reminds me of the paradox of the player who berates anoher player after the fact - it excludes the crucial crux - that when you do this, you are making an assmption about another persons thought procsesses, abotu what they must have thought you had, what they did have etc, and thus is very misleading. But poker players will play the "skill" card with lesser blunders than that. "skill" is importnat to the poker player because poker players are generally looked down on in society, it is seen just like any othr gambling with "legislation" to prove it. I guess all legislation and philosophies behind that are just simply wrong. Poker does not hurt lives, it only adds to them and makes people happier, more skillfull, more fully rounded winning players....eh

When a player makes a correct read, he's a genius, but when he gets it wrong, nothing is said, why?? because nobody expects him to be right, because to be right you'd have to be clairvoyant dabbling in reading tea leaves. There are times for example when players get credit for not having any physical clue as to what a person may have, but still get credit if they guess correctly - the nature of a poker ego at work. Skill is exaggerated in poker to such an extent that's its hard to see what it is against all the egos who think they can "soul read" and other bollocks. Cardrunners has your bollocks.


But to answer your question, I am a break even player, like most people. People need to stop treating poker like its a "way of life" and accept that its a card game you gamble chips with - "gamble" is the operative word, Projected yearly winnings are ridiculous, as even some of the best players on this site have run bad for months on end and lost 70+ buy ins. People just tell themselves its ok and it wont ever happen to them, but secretly they are bricking it, because they know it can and does.

Another point I will add is poker ( as seen in thepsychology forum) is stressfull and sucks the life out of the people, an why is that? Is it all down to them, and their lack of control, when so many articles in th poker world are always stressing that everone tilts its just how you handle it.

an then they go on about bankroll management and how that is thee most important thing - only when they arent talking about "skill" in the same sentence.

It's not about semanics Howard, it's linked to "luck" and "skill" and the aggrandizement of the latter.

sounds difficult

What do you mean? I make a living 18 tabling 200 FR... the good thing about it is you dont need a huge winrate. 2ptbb earns you more than 100$/hour once we include rakeback...

im far from the only one doing this. im not saying its common, but both ftp and stars have a few dozen solid regs playing 18-24 tables of full ring 100nl/200nl and making good money...

How do you figure the game doesn't evolve? If winning regs played the same way they did during party prime, they wouldn't beat the games today.

Ex. During party prime you could 3 bet people ip and cbet any flop and they would instantly put you on an overpair and fold. Now, since people have gotten better, people will start 4 betting and cr'ing or floating lots of flops because they better understand that you can't always have a hand when you do that. So you had to adjust to that. If that isn't evolution I don't know what is.

I'm tired of living in a world full of contradictions and ostriches.

for the same reason mike sexton says the games were just as hard in his day

so evolution= people realising that in a card game where you have 2 cards, you wont make a pair very often and thus a bet could be misleading of your holding. Wow. If That's evolotion, i'd hate to see devolution.

The myth is that people played texas holdem way differently years ago than they do now when it is exactly the same game with limited moves. The system is static, and thus stagnant in many more ways than it is alive and evolving.

No, that's just one of the ways the game is played differently now than it was a few years ago. And stop referencing mike sexton, he sucks at nl holdem and probably couldn't beat 100nl.

I love online multitablers who make themselves feel better by saying this stuff. You've seen Sexton play how many hands?

it's always the same response.

by the way Mike is a nice guy and has many years experience playing some of the highest games for long periods of time. Thats why I respect his opinion about the difficulty of poker.