I'm amazed how often I see a post like this, where "working 1700 hours a year" is in the same sentence as "running the rat race being miserable."

A work year is generally considered to be 2,000 hours (50 work weeks with 40 work hours per week.) A lot of people, some voluntarily and some not, regularly work more than 40 hours a week.

For 12 years I worked at a homeless shelter with a small staff, and every time even one person was ill or on vacation, we were short-staffed. I took voluntary overtime whenever it was offered, as long as there was no conflict with my National Guard duty. 60-hour weeks (in addition to my National Guard duties, and sometimes college courses) were not uncommon. I missed a total of three scheduled work days during those 12 years.

I knew a Korean couple who owned a laundromat and cleaners. They had no employees. Their daughter did her homework at the same tables where customers were folding their laundry. For a year they basically lived at the laundormat, then they hired one person. Labor is usually about 40% of a company's cost of doing business, so think about what having ZERO employees for the first year did for their bottom line.

What I'm saying is that poker players are often accused of having a poor work ethic, and I believe it's true. While people in the business world and elsewhere are trying to make as much money as they can, poker players talk about being able to sit home and play in their underwear when they feel like it.

A lot of very successful poker players aren't buying this laid-back approach to poker as an occupation. Dusty "Leatherass" Schmidt strongly emphasizes the need for a good work ethic in one of his books. Johnathan Little talks about how he played "basically more sit-n-gos than anyone in the world" while grinding his $1 million dollar bankroll for live tournaments, using conservative bankroll management, between the ages of 18 and 21. A player whose name escapes me described his friend Andrew Robel as "fanatical about his studying and about the math."

Those don't sound like 1700 hours per year players to me. Of course, you can work 500 hours a year if you can make enough money to put yourself in a good financial position. Schmidt states that his win rate is $800 per hour and he has the graphs to prove it, so he could certainly work half the year and his family would be very well taken care of. But he has a business background (he ran his parent's toy store), and he gets his work ethic from that experience.

When you compare the work ethic of chess players to poker players, it's not even close. Chess players do an incredible amount of brute force memorization using books like the five-volume Encyclopedia of Chess Openings.* You might even go to a tournament and see a 9-year-old with a teddy bear in one hand and a chess book in the other.

My goal is to every week play at least 25 hours, study at least 15 hours, and spend whatever time I need for adminstration and recordkeeping. I keep all of my records on Open Office spreadsheets, and I do my own taxes.

I track my time in the three categories (play, study, and administrative) in quarter hours, just like I'm punching a time clock. I have Attention Deficit Disorder, and I know how easily how I can get distracted and lazy. Seeing the numbers on the page keeps me honest. If I've been slacking on my studies for several days I can see that, and I can fix it by the end of the week.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclo...Chess_Openings

+1 to ^^^^^. A majority of poker players do have a bad work ethic in general, I entirely agree. Comparing poker to chess though is really a bit of a stretch IMHO since chess involves no luck whereas poker (in the short run) does, and you can therefore blame failure on something other than your own ability/study of the game, which poker players looove to do

are there any who don't ?

so freedom is basically the ability to not do anything worthwhile/of lasting value. Sitting around and waiting for degens with money to lose is superior alternative to actually producing something, as long as you can do it whenever you can for as long as you can.

Nice to know, wp this generation, I'm proud of us.

I think you are misinterpreting his idea of freedom. It is the freedom to earn a lot of money easily so you can pursue other avenues with your free time. Most people in the world work because they need to rather than wanting to. People want to become lawyers/doctors so they can get rich. It is always the allure of money.

there is no such thing as getting rich easily

pursuing other (worthwhile) avenues with your free time is hard once you spend half your time in casino.

I dont think that people become doctors "only" because of money, its just one of the factors. And I'd argue that even for lawyers the prestige is at least as important as money.

Also, you are simply miscalculating how many poker players make any decent cash. Very few. Most of them are giving up decent income (if you are concerned with longterm)+all the other benefits that come from working your ass off in school/entry level jobs just for aforementioned "freedom" of not having a boss and set time schedule. Which is, in my opinion, very sad.

I take issue with claims that poker is anything but last resort for those who are lazy, unmotivated, or not smart enough for a real career.
---

disclaimer: I enjoy playing poker very much. It's a fun game.

Incorrect, obv your ability to comprehend this world is extremely hindered.

Ive seen this argument a million times. Sometimes from poker players themselves and some sort of unfounded feeling of guilt. 99% pecent of folks offer little to society from their employment. What about all the people that work for CC companies and banks who's job it is to rape people with interest. They are really adding to society huh.
Conversely Pro poker players are in a better position to add to society then most, with free time and liquid funds, some choose to add and some do not just like in every other walk of life.

Where your sense of righteousness comes from im not sure. Usually anger.

You make a great point that most jobs are of minimal lasting positive contribution to society, which is absolutely true. Many are either negative or irrelevant, and don't fulfill the lives of the people working the jobs or anyone they interact with.

The other side of the coin is that your comment that "pro poker players are in a better position to add to society" really is silly. You think the early-20's 1/2 NL dreamers on here are adding to society? The guy who will start a thread next week in Live Low Stakes NL questioning "Should I Turn Pro? - do you really feel down the line he'll be using his liquid funds to do big things in life?

Banks offer a service that has value and is needed. They charge so they can run. Poker players offer no service other than entertainment I suppose and that is a stretch.

Now, now, not this debate again...

You don't need an occupation that contributes to society to be a person who contributes to society. Your job doesn't define (at least it shouldn't) who you are. Furthermore, there are plenty of lazy, alcoholic doctors, dentists, lawyers etc., that would contribute more positively to society by quitting their professions.

As an aside, any professional player claiming he's an entertainer is a moron and likely has a bankroll on life support.


Are you saying what you're saying here or did you word this poorly, since it contradicts everything else in your post?

This discussion is about Poker Pros, not would be Pros or dreamers. And ofcoarse those just starting out are in less of a position just like any other profession.

You are going to really regret this way of thinking in 10 years, and even more so in 20 years. Your view is very short term focused, you should be thinking about the long term.

Your friends who are running the rat race are probably, on average, moving up in their careers, making more money each year, better benefits, etc. Over time, they will continue to do better and better. If you play poker for a living, you do not have the same growth potential, in fact, your industry has declined severely over the last few years.

Sure you are happier now, have more freedom, make more per hour, but this is a very SHORT TERM view of the world. Take a long term view and BE REALISTIC about your long term opportunities playing poker.

As far as rich entrepreneurs, yes, you come into contact with them constantly. But most of them are smart enough to know that most poker players are very lazy, and would be very hesitant to hire one or go into business with one. Being friendly with someone at the table is very different than considering someone for a job or business venture.

You're wrong for saying a professional poker player doesn't have growth potential. With each year of playing, a poker pro learns and becomes a better player... and if he has good money management, his bankroll constantly grows enabling him to play in bigger games and thus make more money.

I know you probably believe this is true, but this is completely delusional for the vast majority. The games get tougher every year. The Chris Moneymaker boom was a once in a lifetime event that is not going to be repeated. Even for a recreational player like me, it is blatantly obvious that the high stakes games have gotten much tougher, there is much less action, and less money on the table. If you want to play 1-2 or 2-5 forever, then there will probably be action for the foreseeable future, but you will not be able to make more money. Your income will stay static, but your need for money will increase.

I have no doubt that poker, in the short term, is better for a lot of young people. But in the long term, there is no chance it is better for all but a few.

Think about this while you are still young and have a chance to do something else.

While there may certainly be more structured growth potential in the regular rat race, there is no lack of potential for a competent pro with great money management skills. A constantly growing liquid roll offers many opportunities both in and out of poker some will take advantage and some will not just like in the rat race.

Further more, you are joined by millions of people who believe that success is measured by $ only, which could not be farther from the truth. My idea of success is not being in servitude to some corporation for the next 25yrs no matter how much they are going to pay me.

There is much more to life than Net $.
Poker offers personal and financial freedom which is a very rare thing in this world, but its not for everyone.

FWIW, The Department of Labor now lists "Professional Poker Player" as a recognized occupation. We were placed in the "Athletes and Entertainers" category.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...-labor-897550/

I've been doing it for a while now and I love it. I have gotten a little lazy as I've built up my roll. I have a nice passive income from staking, and I still have a very nice hourly when I do play. While I don't shell out massive amount for life insurance and I only support myself, I think I'll be fine in the future, as I have a solid amount of liquid cash, and I have made tons of connections through poker.

One of the guys I play with on a regular basis offered me a job in his oil and gas business. He's the president of the company and makes over $1,000,000/year. So if I ever get sick of poker or if that offer is ever more profitable than poker I'll take it. But I would have never got that contact if not for playing professionally.

Lol. Yes, that's worth nothing. You are not an entertainer, sorry.

It would be better for them to list professional poker players as investors, but what do you expect from people that have no understanding of the game and need to classify the profession in some way? Well, ya, a bunch of broke players with 10% of themselves on TV playing terribly is entertaining...

This is all subjective, i mean im sure some who have done it for years love it and some probably regret it. You just gotta figure out for YOURSELF if i its right for you.

The guys that make good money don't regret it.

The guys who no longer make money as the games get harder and edges get smaller are probably regretting it, or at least regret not having a good Plan B, Plan C.

pathetic attempt to put a negative spin on a lifestyle you're not smart or good enough to take part of. the freedom in poker clearly refers to the ability to play poker from anywhere in the world, preferably on a beach somewhere in an exotic location, go out at night with friends, set your own schedule, while making a lot more than one would at a 9-5 job. then the reference to doing something "productive", lol.

the overwhelming vast majority of people in this world are working jobs for the purpose of surviving and their productivity in society is a secondary result of them just needing to make a living to survive, but that's aside from the fact that plenty of jobs aren't productive. for example, economics majors studying for their masters degrees in flawed ideology that then go on to give terrible advice to politicians to actually wreck the economy, or even more pathetically, to simply major in economics while cheer-leading their school of econ on message boards, yeah, sounds like a great existence But yeah, keep pretending most people are trying to take the high road and prefer their grunt work, paycheck to paycheck, alarm punching lifestyle, over the mobility and freedom poker can offer.

Disclaimer: this only applies to people who are actually successful and professional at poker, not break even 25nl players, they are better off cubicle grinding.

Um, for the young internet pros, ike/selbst, for example, professional poker is not a last resort, it's the preferred and more attractive result. for people not good enough to make good money, yes, 9-5 grinding is preferable. but this notion that people are making decisions for what route they take based on anything other than financial/lifestyle reasoning is absurd. tiny, miniscule % of people pass on more financially attractive options for something else on "fulfillment" reasons, and usually those people have already made a lot of money and don't really need it anymore. majority of people simply take a low paying job and then backwards rationalize it after the fact to not feel bad about what they do.

Actually, I am an entertainer. I am a musician, retired from a military band that played all over the world. (It's a good bet that I'm the only person on my block that's been to both Iceland and Tobago.)

I agree completely with your comment about broke players. I admire players like Kathy Liebert, Johnathan Little and others who have always played tournaments with their own money. Both have talked about how they regularly invest a portion of their income.

Players like that somehow manage to get through life without having a "baller lifestyle" or playing in the One Drop.

Your musical experiences don't make you an entertainer when you're sitting at a poker table without your trumpet.

I suppose an aspiring actress is not your waitress when she takes your order; she's an entertainer, pretending to be a waitress for 7 years.

since i post earlier in this thread about playing poker for "freedom" i thought i might comment. for me freedom is about doing what i want, when i want, with whom i want.

i thought i would look up the word:

free·dom
1.
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.
the power to determine action without restraint.
4.
political or national independence.
5.
personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.

i think #3 fits with what i was thinking

living in the US it is hard to argue for #2 these days(BF and all that)

People smart enough to satisfy your disclaimer can do better, if they didnt think short term/werent lazy.
Both financially (long term) and productivity wise. Selbst is one in the million who managed to be a poker player and not a waste of space.

But now I realize why you are the way you are. Should've guessed you're a degen with no real life credentials and knowledge.