Yeah thats how it works you dildo. Especially since PS increased the rake a ****ton. 25/50cap HU isn't even really beatable vs regs anymore. But anyways Donger would play me at HUNL deep, 1 of the 4 games. This is why you don't see him online anymore, despite him being extremely good, his EV at HUNL online isn't very high these days. Lol nice threads you've been making, gl with your micro tourneys, fish.



When they figure out that they never win in the long run and that none of their friends have won in the long run, poker is the last choice in that list of recreational activities to do for fun.

In the 1st world, for someone smart (what it'll take to get to high level--and smart people have other options), it's an extremely small % that will make it to the amt of $ where it makes long terms sense to play professionally.

Poker was so much more attractive back when it wasn't absurdly hard to win. Rake is higher, games are WAY tougher, edges much smaller, and PS just thinks people won't notice/feel it and games will somehow grow.

Like these^ things aren't explicitly talked about with every poker player but I think people can sense it. I would draw a connection to day trading and why I haven't gotten into it (I've heard-- low/no edge, computers/bots, very high amount of studying/info required, know no one who's been the success story). That matters imo.

Maybe I'm wrong but I feel very confident poker will continue to decline. Online gambling might not, but poker definitely yes imo.

You seem to be underestimating how little of the population even in the U.S. earns 6 figures yearly salary. Also, I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that last sentence but 20/hr is no where close to 100K yr.

I think you are underestimating how much of the US does make 100k. His point is that if a low skill no degree Costco job still pays 20/hr, it's not hard to get a 50/hr(100k) job with a degree/skills and a few years experience.

You must be smoking crack. $50/hr jobs? Yeah you better have good BJ skills...

Also, 100K today isn't the same as 100K 20 years ago. When everything costs 3 to 4 times as much but when the pay is the same or less, there's a big problem.

People "never win (financially) in the long run" at a huge range of popular endeavours in our society.

They include:
-Roulette
-Blackjack
-Going to the movies
-Playing soccer
-Playing golf
-Drinking beer at the pub
-Playing video games
-Eating chicken wings
-Ten pin bowling
-Posting on internet message boards


Each of these have varying parallels with poker. Yet each of these things have varying degrees of popularity in 2016, and are likely to be around in 5, 10 and 20 years time.

Some people think that poker is somehow different. It only is different if you look at it through the lens of it only being a vehicle to make a living. But that's not how most people see it. Most people see it as an entertainment pastime - they could play Call of Duty, or they could play poker. They could go see a movie, or they could play poker. They could play soccer, or they could play poker.

When you look at poker through that lens, then different possibilities arise - including a sustainable, long-term, future for the game to thrive, and a sustainable, long-term, future for professionals to make money.

In one way, recreational players are giving money, and taking "fun". On the other hand, professional players are taking money, and giving "fun" (that is, they provide opponents etc. to play). The exact parameters will change over time, but if you look at it through that lens, it allows a lot more possibility for the future.

Sure.

FYP.

Ascribing things to other people ends up making you look silly: I live in a country with around 60% higher GDP per capita, and a higher cost of living, than the USA.

Even if you were right (and you're not) my personal circumstances are entirely irrelevant to this discussion because this isn't a discussion about you, about me, or any one of us.

Why are you open sitting it then? Isn't there sites besides PS to play HU vs regs where the rake is lower?

Personal cirumstances are relevant in that they skew personal biases.

Thats why people from rich countries think how "cheap" 3rd world countries are (when its actually quite the opposite for locals making local wages).

and why people from poor countries assume how "rich" someone making 20k in the usa is (when again, its quite the opposite).

which, once again, is also why people cite a single statistic to prove their own personal biases irt a certain subject without taking or using all the important information available to them.

if you cant see that or even want to admit that then idk what to say. i guess gl.

Yes because chicken wings and poker are the v similar because they are both activities.


We are mostly water, bleach is mostly water, we are bleach

I have a lot of friends that went to med school etc while I started playing poker 7 or so years ago and a lot of them are going to be making a bunch more than me sooner or later but I mean I don't have to do anything or leave the house, I get to chill at home with my wife with no commute or set schedule, and I made a bunch early on when it's actually more valuable because I had it immediately and could invest it in things like apartments and stocks. I dunno why people are saying like 200k at poker is equal to 100k at a job or something, for me it's the opposite. I'd give up a pretty decent amount of money to have the extra free time and flexibility.

Absolute rubbish.

Poker is a game in which the whole fundamental premise is to make money. Most people do not see it simply as an entertainment pastime. Even the biggest fish or casual rec wants to make money at the game. To say that the only people who play it to make money are those that do it for a living is hugely ingenuous and false.

Take away that ability to make money and the game loses all it's attraction for recs and regs alike.

P.S: @Josem, if you are going to shill for Pokerstars do it on your official account.

Hi proprietous.

What Josem writes is logical but logically most "players" would be best off playing play-money poker - and most "gamblers" would be better off playing the lottery because at least they can finish lifetime up which can never happen with low variance rapid-recycling forms of gambling like blackjack, or even MTTs or Spins in most cases.

His employer is finished if people start to think logically though.

In other news, the guy with the sheep avatar who got banned has been honoured with a coin in Australia:

Well, I do. I had a choice tonight. I could either play poker, or I could go play soccer. I chose to play soccer, because I thought it'd be more fun.

I have a bunch of personal difficulties that make it hard (my three preferred online poker sites won't serve me; the fourth has software that won't install on my PC, and the next best won't serve me either) but that's still a choice that I made.

Other recreational players - people who are net depositors - have not dissimilar choices to make each and every day.... and that's why I think that a bright future for online poker is only possible if operators innovate with new and interesting game types, run interesting promotions, and present a compelling option to someone like me who has a choice of how to spend my Wednesday evening.

I don't think that the choice that I faced tonight was all that dissimilar to the choice that many recreational players face.

I am competitive in nature. When starting out I viewed poker as a means to an earn. Now understanding the current environment thats no longer how I see it. Its just another vehicle to push that competitive desire. Its an attempt to get those 100k hand graphs at a good W/R, moving to the next level, etc.

On top of this I play Madden and SFV currently.

Really, the reason I decided to start taking poker seriously towards the latter part of 2015 is because outside of my corporate job, poker will become a great source of additional income that I can pursue on my own terms. It is a hobby that I will take very seriously and work to continue getting better at. Also, I live in LA which is probably the best live poker scene in the U.S. Played sports my whole life, very competitive, love that aspect of poker as well (still play basketball regularly to help satisfy my competitive hunger).

My alternative to poker is to drive lyft. After gas and taxes that comes out to like max $12/hr. Basically, if I can average a higher hourly playing poker than driving Lyft then it's a no brainer for me to take poker seriously. I'm dedicated to saving as much money as I can and providing for my family.

As a serious hobby and additional source of income outside of my job in finance, there is nothing outside of my job/the stock market I would rather take seriously in 2016 than poker.

But you are ignoring the fact that a major component of the fun or entertainment value of poker is playing to win money. Take that away and the entertainment value drops to near zero.

Similarly if you introduce new game types that give players even less chance to win money, then the entertainment value drops (at least after the novelty wears off). For anyone that has a clue that is.

I don't think it's strange at all. Poker as a living is a ****ing grind. At times it is an absolutely terrible existence. Back in 2005 when the games were super soft people would put up with the grind because there was so much easy money. Now the money isn't so easy. A lot of people leave poker not because they can't beat the games but rather because there are easier and less mentally draining ways of making money.

First of all, not sure why you mentioned Cada. His only claim to fame was winning the main event and that's it. That being said, he had a good 2012, good 2013, and he won a bracelet event for $600k in 2014. He hasn't won much in 2015 or 2016 but that's quite normal for tournament grinders.

Looking at Cunningham's hendon it appears that he has hit a rough patch in the grind (not that unusual), but it does appear he is still grinding.

I have no clue what the others are doing but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Jesus made an exit from poker given everything that went down with full tilt (not to mention that he should be financially set).

The reason you see these guys is because these are the biggest names in the game. They are the most marketable players, and are ambassadors for the game. When sponsorships dried up after Black Friday it made a lot of players disappear. In the states there used to be poker shows on all the time. Now there are very few. However, for the few poker games that remain on television (like Poker Night in America), whose presence is best suited to sell the show to a casual audience. Obviously, Negreanu, Hellmuth, and Ivey. Their brands still have quite a bit of value.

I think the rationale behind equating a regular income to a higher poker income is that poker has way more variance. Even winning players can experience downswings that last months, while at a non-gambling job you're making steady money. You could run hot one year and mistakenly plan your lifestyle/expenses assuming your results will be just as good the next year. There's also insurance and other benefits that typically come with many normal jobs that poker players need to handle themselves.

If it hasn't been mentioned, it needs to be clarified that you can take poker seriously without playing it full-time.

You can be a weekend warrior at the tables and still play to win. Nothing wrong with that.

I'm a college drop out and I've been making 100K+ since I was 22 years old. I came into a profession with absolutely zero knowledge about it and with hard work doubled my $40K salary to over $80K year 2.

$100,000 is not a lot of money and LOTS of people make that, I see it when they fill out their credit application.

Yes, if you have a family and any sort of a brain going "pro" is absolutely ******ed in the USA 99% of the time.

Yes, if you're a 19 year old kid dropping out of school to play professionally it is absolutely ******ed in the USA.

If you're already a pro or a felon with very limited options poker is obviously a good choice.

Imo, which doesn't mean much, poker in the USA in 2016 is a great side income for someone established in their career already. However, if you are brand new to a career AND poker, you're absolutely ******ed for putting poker over a job.

It's not 2004 anymore,kids, the dream is dead for 99% of the 5% that were winning 5-10 years ago. You're playing with less worse players and pros who have been online for nearly 20 years. This isn't sports, a rookie can't beat a pro just because he is better conditioned, experience matters.

You guys are also forgetting other really important and expensive costs.

Self employment tax
Dental insurance
Health insurance
401k contributions
Etc

That right there alone completely wipes out any $ advantage a 60k poker pro has over idk like a said the Joe Schmoe working at Costco.

There are also a bunch of other negative things which def have a price but is hard to put on i.e. working working weekends and late nights (when games are best) etc.

So ya, if you're not a felon or a hermit etc and choose to play poker for a living you are a moron.

Free dental and health and a matching 401k for low paying jobs...idk. Do you live in a big city or something?

Did I say health care and dental was free? Numbers could have changed but i'm pretty sure employers pay for the majority of healthcare/ dental, something like 2/3.

health and dental for a family is expensive. be self employed and u get to pay for it all