Quote:
Originally Posted by Zpaceman
I use this term; I'm a "reg"; I'm not a pro. Here's why:
A true "rec", by definition, is participating in poker as an "activity done for enjoyment when one is not working".
The key inference from this definition is that recs are not expecting to make money from poker. Occasionally they will turn a profit, but over the long-run they expect to lose money and accept this as the cost for their enjoyment.
A serious part-time player such a myself, however, does it for both enjoyment and profit. I dedicate some of my "working time" to poker, not just my leisure time. By definition, therefore, I'm not a rec, but not a pro either (since most of my income comes from part-time professional engineering consulting).
I'm happy to be termed a "reg" rather than a "pro".
And I see nothing wrong with defining "recs" for what they are, as many themselves will admit to being so (i.e. losing players).
The trouble is that people such as yourself and people such as xyz who have never studied/ been on twoplustwo, and go to their local card room to play 1/2, drink a few beers and mostly lose, are both labelled "recs"
I don't think people who play seriously for profit (whether part-time or full-time) should be labelled "recs"