Professionalism connotes far more than making a living off of something. Licensing, accounting, travel, hiring staff. Your definition is not accepted by the majority of society.

We’re talking about pros here. There’s lots of professionals out there in various fields who don’t exhibit professionalism. Language is funny.

I think the point is that in almost any other area, to be labeled a "Professsional" usually requires, or at least usually encompasses, things such as a degree (university or otherwise), some kind of board certification, specialized training, apprenticeship, etc. etc.

There aren't many fields where you can just unilaterally self-declare "I'm a Pro". Poker Player, Magician, Comedian, things like this where they're all solitary endeavors come to mind, where there is no real barriers to entry to being a "Pro".

The barrier to entry to becoming a “Pro” is making money.

To me the dividing line is more that there are fields where the activity can be done as a hobby as well as a form of income.

I play on a so-called "rec site"- Carbon. And having been told I "play like a girl" among other things, I don't have a problem being called a "rec." Just don't call me late for dinner.

I played 1/2 last weekend for 6 hours and made $312.

I'm a pro poker player.

I disagree. If I'm a pro poker player, I can lose money by making a mistake playing a hand, or just pure variance.

If I am a plumber, I can make a mistake that causes a house to flood that would then cause me to have to repair the damages. I could also do my job perfectly but accidentally drop a tool that breaks a toilet, thus costing me money.

Pro anything can lose money in someway doing their job.

As does your preferred term of "casual player". Your post isn't about not making the distinction, it's about what we call it.

This is a "you" issue - for some reason, you think there is a big difference between calling someone a "rec player" and a "casual player", and I believe you'd be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of people that think there is any difference, let alone a big enough one to worry about.

Idk why people started using "rec"
Its way more fun to call them fish and donkeys looool

I'm not saying that there is a problem making a distinction.

casual > rec. rec literally means losing mentality.

I was intrigued right up until the let's call them "casual player's"

It literally doesn’t mean that.

it means non serious player. like not preparing to win.

To many false assumptions in there to calculate.

I view it as a spectrum or more accurately a Venn diagram with a lot of overlap. I certainly don't view "rec" as always an insult or a diminishment even if it's used that way a lot.

The first group are the pros and I guess semi-pros. They file as professional poker players for tax purposes. Obviously, if a pro (not a retired one) poker is their occupation. Some pros and all semi-pros may not rely on poker as their primary or sole source of income. The tax distinction is not a firm one as some don't pay their taxes or chose to not file as professionals. That said, except when tax laws are onerous, it's a pretty objective way to classify pros.

The second group are the Regs that usually overlaps mostly with the group above but can also include the group below. It refers to the high volume of time they devote to their job, second job or hobby. There are good regs and "bad regs."

Recs are mostly recreational players ie people who play for fun and want to win but don't depend on it. Some overlap may occur with those that win enough to file as a pro but most of these guys aren't going to quit their day job. Poker is mostly a hobby or a past-time. Some in this group are better than some in the group(s) above. Those that self-identify as recs vs. regs are probably more honest with themselves. lol.

Fish can be in any of the above groups.

*sorry for the wall of text and the redundacy.

Right, that's exactly what I said. In other words, this thread is about using "casual player" rather than "rec player". Like I said, this is a "you" issue - you're probably the only one, or in a very small minority, who even see a big difference. As others have said, calling them fish is obviously a derogatory term. Recreational player is a much nicer term, and casual player really isn't any different.

As I type this out, I start to wonder if we're being leveled - is that really what this thread is about? Calling people "casual players" rather than "rec players"?

I don't think literally means what you think it means.

As does casual player, in this context.

Obviously, recreational and casual are different words and can be ascribed different meanings. But I don't think either of the two words have a clear enough meaning in a poker context that we can point to one being a great deal better or worse than the other. To me, both casual and recreational imply a player that isn't taking the game all that seriously.

Recreational: relating to or denoting activity done for enjoyment when on is not working.

Many people find winning to be more enjoyable than losing.

Players in a basketball rec league can still take it seriously and try to win.

Not a level, that is what my post is about.

I'll summarize it again, because I think you're still missing the point.

When we use the term "recreational player" we use it as a distinction to say "that poker player there, he/she is different than me."

When we say "Hey, I'm not a rec like that guy" the context strongly implies that the user is the opposite of a rec. IE a pro. That's disingenuous, because a huge portion of the users are not pros.

My post is not about the rec/casual player or their feelings.

"Hey, I'm not a casual like that guy."





It finally happened. I always kinda thought it would eventually. It used to be so common, on 2+2 and otherwise, to call players who play badly "fish" or "donkey". Then, and I'm not sure exactly how it happened, it became common to call players who play badly "recs" because "fish" or "donkey" were too offensive. Finally someone has determined that "rec" is too offensive and instead players who play badly should be called "casuals." I wonder if this will catch on and become the new common term. And if so, I wonder how long it will last and what the next term after it will be when it is determined that "casual" is too offensive.

i get the merits of “rec” supporters and how dumb/trivial this is.

but it’s a nuance for sure and worth being discussed.

“Rec” means to have inferior strategies, and a rec is EXPECTED to be a losing player.

“Casual” defines time, or effort, but mainly it’s temporal. You can crush a game casually, or play in a game full-time but with casual effort. It also hints at being a cool person, casual is better liked than intensive. It doesn’t give away that the player sucks.

Language is non binary, this will never be perfectly solved. But why not use the term that carried a positive diction, instead of the one that hints that they might be inferior?

I just don’t see these connotations and differences like you do. The terms strike me as fairly synonymous.

They are synonymous strictly in definition. It's how people use them which gives them their meaning.

I'm also willing to accept that I am a lunatic.

This is the part that you just made up in your head and could easily apply it to the "Casual player". There are a lot of former collegiate athletes and lower level professional players that still play in Rec leagues, or play recreationally. They are still quite good and leaps and bounds ahead of the competition.

It doesn't support your argument that the "Casual player" MUST be a losing player so you won't admit it.

Then it doesn’t matter what word you decide to use, as that new word will be used the same way and take on that connotation.