Oh okay...A "rec" and "casual" players are both my personal ATM's. It's ok though he's a "casual" so he/she doesn't mind. LOL

he's/she's cool!

I’m a rec player and I’m not offended by the term. I’m Also a winning player and so maybe that’s why am not offended?

Was reading this amusing thread because I am ...

A rec
A reg
A marginal winner over eight years

....and also because I like a laugh

Then I got to this...

This is me 100% ('cept I only have to work 2 days a week , coz investments innit)

Didn't read no more.

Peace

that's the point, don't label people.

And if you're a pro, they are different than you. And if you're not a pro, but better than they are, they are different than you. To be more accurate and nitty I guess one could say "I'm a rec, and that guy over there is also a rec, but I'm a stronger rec player than he is."

And so what? People lying to themselves and to others is pretty common. Self-delusion is an important part, or reality, of poker. There is no important problem itt, not that importance is required to make a thread NVG worthy, but damn son this **** is nitty.

In before someone's like "but what if you aren't a superior player?!" Who gives a ****? Why give a ****?

There are also pros that aren't really pros. I love what's his name, Dan something, guy who made Angling Alec the cheater he is today. Because Dan considers himself a pro, one of AA's arguments was that a PRO shouldn't be handled with kid gloves and it's his responsibility, as a pro, to ask to see the chips. There isn't a direct problem here, I'm just illuminating how stupid it is to have titles next to players names.

Lol @ that clown telling others what they should do, and how they should behave. A PRO shouldn't have his big chips hidden and be an angle-shooting pos. A PRO, or really anyone with ethics, shouldn't believe that another player's delusion about their skills gives them the right to cheat and shoot angles. That's the philosophy of a moronic sociopath.

Lets start with 'Part Time American' and then change it to 'People of Hobby'

Wait, that's your point? Why not label people in poker?

I was under the impression a definitive "rec player" does not beat the rake in the long run ?

well i came to the conclusion that this thread is pointless and just semantic gymnastics.... but since you ask

a losing player is called a .... losing player.

a winning player is called a... winning player


Someone who's job it is to play poker is a pro player.

Someone who plays poker but has another job is a rec.

There are losing pros and winning recs.

This opinion is not open for discussion. Because it is the truth.

No, I'm definitely not, but I appreciate the summary because you've confirmed how silly this is.

OK, let's try this:

Perhaps you can see a big difference, but I'd expect the majority of readers would say the difference is negligible, if not non-existent.

And that makes it even sillier. I wouldn't agree, but I would sort of get it if you thought that the term "rec" had become too negative to describe what you view as casual players. But it seems that your whole concern is about posters making themselves out to be pros when they're not. Beyond the fact that you're making assumptions about what people mean, it wouldn't matter what word we substitute in there, the distinction is still being made. Like someone said early on, it seems like it's the use of the word pro, or your perception of people implying they are pros, that is your issue.

The opposite of "pro" isn't "rec player". The opposite of "pro" is "amateur".

I would distinguish between recs and regs. A winning reg might be a pro. A losing reg is just a bad reg. If he claims to be a pro, he might be a drug dealer who is laundering money through poker. A reg is there to play poker. A rec is usually there to gamble and happens to choose poker over slots or blackjack or some other form.

There are a lot of bad regs out there, so I am amused by trip reports complaining about reg-infested tables. Reg-infested tables are easier for me because my poker style involves taking advantage of predictable behavior. Regs are more predictable. Recs are harder for me to read because they often haven't formed poker habits that are informed by interacting with other poker players.

Not sure if you understand the concept and objective of laundering money.

the entire original post is based on the assumption that by calling someone a "recreational player", I am implying that Im not one.

This is not how language works, if I call someone a man, am I implying that I'm a woman?

Bobo Fett got to the heart of what OP's issue is. I propose no more giving the impression (either overtly or accidentally) that you're better than rec players without showing receipts because it gives OP a sad.

The objective is to pretend that you are a winning player and that poker is a source of income. If he makes $100,000 in a year dealing drugs and loses $10,000, he would claim that he made $90,000 through poker. He is effectively paying the other players at the table (and the casino through rake) to clean his money.

I know one player who I think is a drug dealer and who uses one of those poker tracking apps. I am fairly certain he is using the app to create a false record that he is a massively winning player. He's a high-variance guy, so I am not sure if he is claiming to be a winner when he is not or if he is claiming to be a bigger winner than he actually is.

Okay. I think I get it now.

"When one describes other (usually less skilled) players as 'Rec' it implies that the speaker is a Pro. And 99% of us using the term are not pros."

And

"[If a bad reg] claims to be a pro, he might be a drug dealer who is laundering money through poker."

Hence, 99% of players who describe other players as "rec" are very possibly money-laundering drug dealers, and by not using "rec" we will cut down on tax fraud and drug dealing.

I think "recreational" is a much better term than casual. I call myself a recreational player, because I play for fun, not for a living. I have been fortunate in business and do not need to make money from poker or anything else.

I take the game pretty seriously, though. I have read pretty much every poker strategy book that I can find, and I am a winning player overall. "Casual" would definitely be the wrong word.

I am also convinced that there are many "pros" who could not support themselves from poker. They are either not consistent winners, or lean on parents or government to an extent to keep themselves housed and fed.

I'll give you the under on .5 lawyers having had a losing year. Will even be a sport and lay two to one.

Define "Losing Year", and all that is included in that calculation please.

And then find another thread to post it in.

Many people that play poker as their main source of income like to call themselves Pros as it gives them some sort of status within the poker community and insinuates they are good enough at poker to make enough $ to live off.

I've never liked the word and often find myself cringing when ppl go on about turning Pro as if its something glamorous or an admireable achievement
It's always self proclaimed as there is no qualifications required and often strikes me of some kind of self importance thing.


Rec is fine imo and of course there are winning and losing recs(lol poster thinking that all rec are losing players by definition) just like there are Pros. Of course a pro cant be a pro for very long I they are not able to support themselves.


In say golf there will be pros that do not have the skill and/or results to continue playing for a living so have to find an alternative profession but they became pros by having their amateur status revoked so they can play for $.

The word Professional should be dumped from poker or any kind of gambling. As there is no amateur status as everyone that plays in playing for $.

Just regs/grinders(I like it as it sounds less glamorous) and recs

Are we going to call them casual lawyers or rec lawyers? :-)