I came from what most people would consider a very good paying corporate career. I wasn't lazy in either, which is why I succeeded in both, imo.

BTW, how do you define "waste of space"? Selbst probably has the brilliance to better mankind rather than take people's money at a game for a living, but I suppose you don't consider such things when labeling someone a "waste"?

I need to stop posting before my first coffee. I meant to say that people like Selbst are really rare, not that there is a lot of people like her.

afaik she puts her degree to good use, she is working for lgbt cause, doesnt she?

I didn't think you said otherwise, but the 1/1000000 hypothesis is pushing it...

I have no knowledge of what she does for the gay community (I'm sure it's great), but she could possibly do more good in a career centered around helping people than taking people's money at a poker game. Once again, I must reiterate that what you do for a living and what you do for humanity do not need to coexist within the same endeavor to contribute positively to society.

Good thing nobody gives a crap what you think "better" is.

You don't need to choose your career to maximize the benefit you do for the world; almost no one does that. However, many people derive satisfaction from providing some sort of satisfaction to the people they work with or for. You don't have that experience at the poker table usually.

I think playing poker is a fine career, but you don't do it because you want to make the world a better place.

There are very few people who really try to make the world a better place. I would argue lawyers and many other similar professions do not. I think many people just want to make good money and take care of their family.

I wish people who actually play Poker for a living would be proud of their choice, I feel no shame in my choice I love Poker.

Yes, because making 500k-1m+ a year in poker is for lazy people. We should all just major in economics and ignorantly debate people on forums instead. Your argument that they could do better is incorrect. Poker is a great way to get expedite the process of acquiring capital and then transitioning into those "better" things you're referring to, which is what I've done as well.

Degen with no real life credentials and knowledge, lol. Nice spin. You and I both know full well though that that doesn't actually convince you that your miserable existence is preferable to mine. I've made enough money from poker that if I wanted to I could technically retire on a beach somewhere, but am currently involved in transitioning into business/investing instead. Meanwhile, you're some lowly fledgling economics major who doesn't even have the credentials you hold in such high regard yet, that's trapped in his own delusion of believing that when he gets it he'll have some meaningful existence, rather than be some typical 9-5 grinder like most others. We all know the great things that undergraduate econ majors accomplish post-university .

I've got my degree too, except I'm in touch enough with the real world to know it doesn't actually mean you've accomplished much. I currently own stakes in successful businesses that is giving me actual on the ground experience in the business world, you know, the private sector, and actually interact with other successful people while you hang out in lecture halls all day. Yeah, it's very clear to me why you are the way you are as well, considering you're some econ major that will graduate and then try to land some government job where he can be a ward of the state the rest of his life, offering nothing productive to society at all, but go through life attaching his self-worth to his accredited "econ" degree. How's that bachelor's coming along anyway? It's no wonder you spend so much effort debating that which you don't understand in the econ forum, since for you to come to grips with that reality will have leave you in a shattered state of identity crisis. But it's the ultimate irony for you to label me as a degen loser when I already have the "life credentials" you aspire to so much laying just around in a drawer of mine somewhere collecting dust, and instead am actually living a lifestyle and making money that you'll never see.

The ultimate irony though is that he's just some undergrad econ major and is under the impression he's doing something great with his life. El oh el. I'd say poker players making a lot of money in poker and then using that to invest with in the private sector will end up doing a lot more for society than your average person. But an econ major? He'll likely end up getting a job outside his field or if he does get one within, it'll likely be one where the taxpayer is paying his check as he rubber stamps economic policies the idiots in Washington want to enact that just messes the economy up further. Him actually trying to talk down to successful poker players is like the twilight zone.

My claim that you should not talk about stuff you do not understand offended you enough to go through my posting history, not to mention gazzilion strawmen you just said, and I live the miserable life.
nice

I don't see a point in continuing to point out each other's "personal characteristics", even though I find them fairly amusing. We get it, I think you're below average intelligent person (based on your posts, you might be trolling, idk) who likes to think that he is smarter than people who spent their lives trying to become smart, you think that I'm a ****** for thinking that people who have credentials of being smart might actually be smart (also you are somehow trying to frame "studying" and "aspiring to be knowledgeable" as negative things, which I just don't understand). So let's stop. I am gonna take it as a compliment that you still don't realize that I'm not from US, thus unlikely to end up in Washington. Guess my english is that good.

---
How many poker pros are capable of setting aside 500k-1 mill? Disregard those who played in 2006, that's irrelevant nowadays. What..like 0.01%? Less? Now, how much do top 1% of accountants make? Sellers? Businessmen? Tailors? Top college grads are starting at six figures and are making significantly more within few years. Pick virtually any career, become top 1%, you're gonna make more than top 0.x% of poker players. I'm not even talking about quality of life, having a respectable job etc.

So yeah, I claim that learning poker is "easier" (it's fun, I'm not saying it's simple, even though I think so) and brings rewards quicker, and thus attracts people who are too lazy to learn other skills (law, accounting, ability to sell stuff etc) or have problems with authority (meaning bad emotional development).

I claim that rewards from other careers are greater, assuming comparable level of success. I also think that even bagman from local store has more social value than poker player, which, I think, should matter to people at least a little bit. I don't think that poker is a good stepping stone if you are aspiring to be an investor.

I imagine it's a decent secondary income.

maybe we should rename this thread - hating on poker players

Walls of Hate

Sweet, referencing posting activity to qualify ones quality of life, rather than you know, the things I was talking about, ones actual life. I didn't have to search through your posting history, I simply went to the last thread in which we discussed this topic and pulled it up. But oh noes, even if I did a brief scan of your posts that's obviously indicative of having no life -- much moreso than the fact that me and you registered on 2+2 the same month/year coincidentally and you are spending far more energy posting here on the boards. You see how lame talking about "time" spent on a forum is, especially when it's not even a point in your favor.

More spin. I think I already outlined why I think you're a tool. You think I'm below average intelligence because I don't drink the kool-aid that you do when it comes to economics and have taken the time to develop different views, and I think you're just a muppet parrot whose main reason for defending "credentials" and your constant fallacy of appealing to authority is because you dislike the idea of believing the credentials you are working so hard to get are not very meaningful in reality, so in order for you to maintain some self-worth you must stick up for it, because even entertaining the notion that you're dedicating your life to learning falsehoods isn't an option. Delusion is the only alternative.

It's a compliment that I reference Washington as a simple euphemism for government, since I don't know or have any reason to care where you're from.

Based on the level of intelligence I can ascertain from your posts it's pretty clear you wouldn't fit the bill.

Actual professionals and smart people have already had this discussion and it's basically been agreed that it's a fallacy to assume that being top 1% in poker means you can auto-assume that you'll make more in another field. There's far too many variables involved and it's quite situation/person specific. But even if I were to take your generic analysis at face value, that actually bodes quite well for me personally.

Assert your way to victory is the key. We get it, you're one of those people who thinks if someone is smart enough to excel to that degree in poker then they will have even more success in another area of life. Thanks, would be nice. But you clearly are trying to ignorantly simplify a far more involved topic. Some introverted analytical 24 year old with sharp critical thinking skills isn't equally likely to go make more money in the sales industry. And you overlook the intangible value ascertained from poker. Some successful poker pros are fine turning down more money for increased freedom and happiness. Not everyone feels happy at a deskjob like you all because they sleep with their degree under their pillow at night.

There's many carryover skills between poker and investing, but it's not really like you'd have much idea.

Throughout the thread I actually was mentioning that the job route is definitely preferable if someone isn't making a certain amount of income in poker, but trying to stretch that to now mean poker players making $1 million a year in poker would be better off as a baller accountant or something of the sort is pretty ridiculous. One of the appealing aspects of poker for many people is the extreme level of meritocracy. In many other careers, there's a lot more variance, ass kissing, social networking, and seniority involved with moving up the ladder to the higher pay scale. So for him to be under the impression that everyone making $500k+ a year in poker can just take that skill set and have a fast track to even more in the corporate or working world stems from ignorance and underdeveloped views.

poker can be good too

I think only 1 in 10 aspiring pro poker players have the neccessary talent to even win a significant amount at 20/40+ NL or 100/200+ FL live. And thats assuming they put the massive amount of work in to get there. Obviously the high limits are filled with mostly pro's, so in order to have a big winrate you have to be significantly better than most of the other pro's. Obviously that can only be true for a small fraction of pros.

Most poker pro's will never be good enough to move up in stakes and make significantly more money. For most it makes sense to stick to 2/5 NL and they should be doing as side income, not as their primary source of income. I think it works well if they have a part time job that has benefits and they play 2/5 NL on the side, or have a good paying job and play 10/20 NL and have a small winrate (but enjoy playing the higher limit).


I will say that the easiest way to be a live poker pro is probably to focus on NLH only and move to LA to play the Commerce 10/20 NL full time. Its definitely easier than to go to any other place or any other game. In particularly, going the limit poker route is going to make life a lot tougher.

The other option is to be a prop, and that pays a decent salary but theres really no way of moving up from that.

Both of these are true. People also forget that the successful poker players don't just leave their money sitting in cash under a mattress somewhere. It's invested into the economy and often times used to start up businesses like the Dang brothers for example. To assume otherwise is hogwash basically.

This "who can make more money" argument and "my job is more moral than your job" competition is silly. Take lawers for example. Most would think that being a public defender is a noble occupation, but many lawyers prefer to practice a different type of law where they could make more money and make sure that their children would have the means to go to college. In either case, is someone making a bad choice?

As far as income potentional, almost every job or career has a ceiling. You might make millions of dollars a year as a professional (US) football player, but only the owners make billions. Or, you might make millions per year as a beautiful young model or actress, but it's hard to carry that career into your 40s and beyond.

In the real world, if you want the big money, you have to adjust, maybe several times. Bill Gates starting out writing code. That was a good business, but when he sold his operating system to IBM, he wasn't thinking about the possibility that someone like me, in the 21st century, would be typing on a Microsoft keyboard.

Poker players need to adjust too. Once they start making a lot of money, the smart twentysomethings invest their money in other business opportunities, or write poker books, or work on becoming a public figure to increase their opportunites. Of course, they also adjust by learning new games and staying up on the latest strategies.

There are some occupations, such as entrepreneur, that have almost unlimited financial potential, but except for that or being a corrupt world leader (Vladimir Putin is worth about $20 billion), most of us have limits on how much we can make. If making money is all that you care about, then do whatever it takes to be a billionaire. If you want to make a lot of money doing something you enjoy, then do that. If you want to spend your life as a foreign misionary, or serving with the Peace Corps, or as a career solier, go for it.

Arguing about whose choices are better is pointless.

This thread has the usual strawman arguments.

Let me just say:

Very very few people are making a "positive impact" on the world in their day jobs.

However, the idea that poker players are "entertainers" and thus add value is also bullshyte.

Poker is isolating. It can lead to burn out. It can get monotonous. The lifestyle can trap you. Gambling for a living distances you from the rest of "normal" society. There's a lot to not like in poker as a career choice.

But the "positive impact" argument is stupid, as is the "poker player as entertainer" rebuttal.

First of all, I'll say straw man argument because I want you all to believe I'm smart. Now that that's out of the way, blah blah some stuff already said blah blah contributions to society blah rebuttal blah obviously.

Dozer, I mean, like that was a good troll post. Like, it was pretty cool. I mean, like, I don't know about you guys but if my friends read a troll post of mine that good, like not many people can do it and it'd be pretty cool.

Well done. I really did laugh out loud.

I love my decision to play poker professionally. The 'real' jobs I have had were not fulfilling in the least. Most jobs do not benefit humanity as a whole and I find they limit our creative potential by forcing us to perform repetitive tasks. Poker gives me the freedom to learn, live, laugh and love and share those positive experiences with other people.

Every day I read or study a topic of my own interest and develop a better understanding of the world. If I chose a career (especially in banking) my focus would be incredibly narrow and inflexible. I would be yet another cog in the massive, unethical wheel that robs the common man of his savings among many other unethical practices.

Poker is my way of saying "screw the system." I am going to be free and live my life the way I want, not the way somebody says I should.

Just wanted to add that I live a very comfortable life and spend about $1200 a month. I go out and eat at a restaurants daily and go on weekend trips to neighbouring casino's etc. Its all about reducing your monthly expenditures people! Cut the fluff! Find good roomates, get a 3 bedroom just outside of downtown, cut the cable, cut the data on the iphone. If this isn't possible you are living in the wrong city.

Finally finished the thread:

I thought it was interesting how people measured by both quantitative (salary + benefits) and qualitative (freedom, business skills earned etc). I think both have merit and should both be used. One thing to consider is that you can move to a country with no tax (Canada) on poker winnings so making 30k is really like making ~40k.

One thing I think got lost on people is that there is a huge risk to pensions and benefits of that sort. If there is a system collapse (non zero %, look at the history of fiat currencies and the rate of $ printing today) those pensions go to zero. Also, the pension $$ has already been spent. It is not there, the government owes all of that $$. I personally believe we are better off buying appreciating assets like silver and gold with our savings and do well vs inflation and protect us from a system crash than buying into a fiat IOU system.

PS - I am not implying a currency crash is imminent or will happen suddenly, but that it is a mathematical certainty at the rate we are going.

There's a whole lot wrong in this paragraph, in terms of your understanding of retirement savings.