The old tired I need my social life spoon fed to me argument. Mostly used by those looking to justify their fail.

plus this makes me LOL too cause at least you get a constant changing of the Degens at your table, where i am stuck with the same Degens day after day in my office.

You lose or win alone. It is one of the the most solitary things you can achieve. It is simultaneously the appeal and spiritual drain of the game.

It has nothing to do with social interaction or whatever.

this is an amazing post, thank you

I don't play as a professional but if you're playing in different places you can talk to people and make new friends, connect, etc.. I have, and it being antisocial is the farthest thing from the truth. Unless, you are an antisocial person yourself, in which case it wouldnt matter if you were a poker pro or an office pro, you will just have a very lonely life regardless.

Live poker is an extremely social game. Pros do not lack for social interaction opportunities.

However, it's simulataneously an extremely isolating game. You lose or win completely alone, at the expense/benefit of those around you. There is no sense of teamwork or comraderie (well, hopefully not.) Winning always comes at the direct, pure expense of the guy next to you.

This is a big draw to the game; it's the realization of individual cunning over your opponents. But that same individualist characteristic is also isolating.

Poker is simulataneously extremely social AND extremely isolating. The two concepts are completely independent.

Poker is a good game for introverts. There are a lot of nerds that are not exactly social butterflies. To take just one example, Johnathan Little did nothing but grind SNGs between the ages of 18-21. As far as I can tell from what he has said and from what I have read, he never played a hand of live poker prior to turning 21, and never wanted to. (There are home games*, charity rooms, and other places that you can legally play live games under age 21 if you really want to.) Little's goal was to grind a big enough bankroll to play on the WPT circuit when he turned 21, and that's what he did. And now that he's playing live, I haven't seen him start many conversations at the table.

There are certainly opportunities playing live to meet some interesting people, and even though > 99% of my poker hours are spent online, it's a lot more fun, at least for me, than playing against an avatar from Uzbekistan. But if you're an introvert like my father (voted shyest boy in his high school class, spent over 40 years making a living talking into a radio microphone), live poker would be a great choice.

*In many states, home games are legal only if there is no rake. For example, players can be asked to contribute for things like food and drink that are provided, but the games can not be run to make a profit.

You're starting to sound like that chick from American Pie... "This one time at band camp..." with using Johnathan Little in every post

great post z4 - all 20 something poker pros should read this and live by it

I really like that idea of separate accounts and paying yourself a wage.

What's an appropriate wage to pay yourself making 20/h? 50/h? 100/h?

Very well put. The game itself is very isolating. But the things you do regarding poker don't have to be. You can get together with people youre meeting at tables to do poker trips, poker study, and do other things together. And like with anything in life, you just need to balance out whatever negative effects you feel come from the game out in another area of your life. If poker is too solitary for you, you could do the things i just put. If youre around people all day long and forced to work together with morons at your day job, play poker! I don't see the big deal about the game in itself being individualistic. But then again im somewhat introverted :P.

Hey, be nice! I was a band geek (retired army musician.)

Johnathan Little is a great example of how to do things the right way. Good bankroll management--as far as I know he has never borrowed money or sold pieces to play a tournament, unlike many (most?) who played in the One Drop. Good money management--he doesn't play outside the US if the travel cost is unreasonable considering his expectation, and he has invested in real estate and other businesses. He does not have a "baller" lifestyle and he doesn't abuse dealers or other players.

He's not the only one of course. You could substitute Kathy Liebert's name in the above paragraph and it would all be true, and I have said more than once on these forums that Liebert is one of my favorite players. (Liebert could be a bit of a jerk at one time, but that no longer seems to be the case.)

Tell this to mcd burger flipping teenage Phil Ivey

Plz post more,

I thought he worked a call center

Clearly, using Phil Ivey as a model, and dropping everything so you can go try and be like him, seems reasonable.

I played 1/2 to build a bankroll for 2/5.

I come from a very weathly background, so I got a college education and all that I have for free basically. So I had about $2,000 and ran on fire all the way up to $10,000. After I hit $10,000 I started playing 2/5 and been averaging about $600/40 hours.

I make about $31k/year from playing 2/5 which is barely enough to sustain a modest lifestyle. Definately not a lifestyle that I am accustomed too. I basically do it because I enjoy the freedom, and because it's just really fun to do. I guess it's different for me because if I go busto, I have a college degree and parents to fall back on.

My parents are too thrilled about it though, my dad wanted to me to go get a PhD like he did but I told him that I didn't feel like putting in the years of struggle just yet.

I just want the opportunity to be a professional, and see if I could challenge myself to the disciplines that come with it.

Ive pretty much played only live for about 6 years now (currently im 27). Im def happy with my current situation, like previous posters FREEEDOOMMMM (braveheart) rules all imo. I see all my other friends that went straight outta highschool into college and are basically working 1700 hours a year running the rat race being miserable trying to get ahead. Obv this doesnt pertain to every single one of them but the majority. It reminds me of the quote "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation". Or maybe they arent miserable and I just portray my own standard of living onto them and I perceive them as miserable?!!? hmm idk, regardless turning the same screw at the same assembly plant, with the same boss and co workers seem about the equivalent as.....turning the same screw at the same assembly plant.....

Anytime I think about quiting poker I should prob just go get the best job that I can given my current situation. Work for about 43 minutes and then realize just how good I have it, quit and go back to the tables.

One thing im not sure wasnt mentioned in all the posts is the fact that you get to come into contact with rich entrepreneurs CONSTANTLY. Live poker might be the best place in the world to meet anyone to get a good job. They are playing poker because they are 1. rich 2 have free time because they are rich 3. are risk takers and are usually looking for something to invest in. ie YOU.. Even the fishest of fish entrepreneurs can spot a good player and they admire that. If you can manage to be likable you can benefit in some obsured ways.

PS Almost certain this thread has the lowest average post numbers per poster in this thread than 99% of threads on two plus two

Not only is it the most practical way of managing personal and business finances (it's how mom & pop businesses operate), but it also helps you to be honest with how many hours you're putting in at the tables.

Work ethic is a problem for many players, but if you're paying yourself an hourly wage based on a percentage of your expectation, then if you're not happy with your take home pay, put more hours in. It also makes the up and downswings meaningless to your personal income, which can help make you see the money/chips you play with as units and not things used to pay for **** that's necessary for you to live.

Also, people that treat themselves to atypical items/entertainment after making a killing in a session are developing an unhealthy way to view the money they earn/lose in poker. If your boss just decided to give you a month's worth of pay in advance and won't give you another check for a month, are you going to buy flashy **** with that money and then dig into your savings to pay your bills when you come up short?

the part about meeting rich entrepreneurs at the table is an excellent one.you should be nice to these people anyway because they're your bread and butter and it makes the game more enjoyable (and profitable.)I've been invited to some great often rake free home games with rich people before because Im friendly, entertaining, etc towards them. I have also seen some deals struck at the poker table between rich people and hungry young smart players.
It drives me crazy to see people be nasty towards them because they took a bad beat or whatever. Let's see you play poker for a living you should better than people who play once in a while for fun. That's not an accomplishment.In the game of life they are winning and it's not even close.

Work ethic is important but by the same token you're not punching a clock with poker and all hours arent the same.Your hourly rate could be 50 dollars an hour but that doesnt mean each individual hour you put in at the table is worth 50 dollars.

At 1/2 most of the players suck so it's easy to get a lot of hours in at good tables but as you move up it's less true. This isnt card counting in blackjack- your edge (if there is one) won't be the same at every table, and this doesnt even take into account tilt, fatigue etc. Your goal should be to play quality hours not just put hours in to meet a quota.If you end up playing in bad games it should be for a good reason-stuck in a must move game waiting to get into a good game (or on a transfer list for a good game) for example.Playing just to get hours in isnt helpful and can even be detrimental in the long run even if you can beat the game for a small profit.

Everything I say is based around a player using sensible game selection, of course. That's kind of rule one for professional play. As I said, you pay yourself based on expectation; if you decide to play in a super-tough game just to put hours in, then your expectation is lower and you must account for that in your calculations (even if that calculation is "skipping the game").

Online, though, where I could put in 50K hands a month of short-handed high-stakes games from a continually variable range of difficulty levels (of ones that fell within my threshold for playing), I just took the mean average of all results from a sufficient sample and used that for hourly.

Live, the answer is: How much money did you make last year and how many hours did you play? Winrate is the last stat to converge so we're not looking for "to the penny" accuracy.

I believe it's called information asymmetry. Back in the day, there was a bigger gap between pros and the ocassional rec player. Games used to be great bc fish believed they were all great players, and lost bc of luck. The games have gotten tougher bc the 2p2 community outs, critiques, and helps fish become better players. Everyone now knows about documentation, graphs, ev, value bets, metagame, game selection, advanced strat, etc. Popularity of the game will continue to decline as new potentials to the game are deterred to enter the market without tons of training online and reading literature. This forum/training sites are not profitable for the game.

People still play slots, roulette, craps.

There will always be recreational gamblers taking shots and having a good time.