... or you do have to be someone who's naturally good at maths, theory, etc (I'm horrendous at both)?

Anyone who is a) of moderate intelligence b) prepared to work at it and c) has control of addictions, life leaks, emotional issues etc. could probably "make it" as a minimum wage grinder. I don't know why anyone would want to though.

If you want to make a living at poker and don't have independent wealth, you need to crush it because it has a low bar of entry and tens of thousands of young men like the idea of living by playing cards.

Or you could get a real job and play as a hobby, which is the smart move for most people who can beat the game.

I think that's basically the right answer. It's possible for many people (maybe even most), but being really successful at it is quite difficult and it's definitely more fun to play as a serious hobby than as a full time job.

Not in 2020, no

Lets take fotball as example, only best athletes can make a living. In poker its different you can be mediocare and still make money while playing. With solid game and stable mental game one should be able to make 1-2k a month wothout aiming to become new limitless.

“Mediocre” poker players don’t make 1-2k a month.

FWIW, if I would have to wager a guess if there’s more poker players or football/soccer players making >$1k/month in Western European countries, I’d take soccer.

Some level of intelligence is certainly needed to make it in poker, but especially in live games emotional intelligence might outweigh IQ. You don’t have to be a savant though.

In what world does 1-2k a month allow someone to survive as a pro?

Most places? The majority of expenses for most people are rent and those related to owning a car. Just get an $800 apartment, a roommate to split rent and utilities with, use public transportation and cook your own cheap meals and you can stay under $1000 a month and still have health insurance.

Some countries outside of the US you can get by on even less.

Obviously not literally everyone but anyone with average intelligence should be able to beat live 1|2. The average player doesn't even understand poker 101 stuff like position.

Almost everywhere that’s not Western Europe, Australia or North America?

Even in US states that use federal minimum wage, $1-2k/month probably isn’t too bad for a single household. Full time minimum wage employment there is in the neighborhood of $1200/month so I would assume that you can easily live of $2k/month in a third world state like Mississippi?

Only a American would ask that! Newsflash USA#1 isn't the whole world.

Most times i have played live 1/2 every flop goes 6 ways its more like a fishing expedition than actually playing proper poker and using concepts such as position. Move up stakes to where they respect your raises while a meme actually has some merit at low stakes live cash. Its easier to beat one person in a 2/5 pot then 5 other people in a lower stakes game.

U Shove..... live 1/2...1/3 poker has greater payoffs from multiway pots; playing a much wider range can make money with the right table dynamics.

Give me the six way pot every time.

Think of it this way. Since poker is a zero sum game, every mistake which loses our opponents EV gives someone else EV. If playing a 6-way pot vs. wide ranges is lower EV than playing a heads up pot vs. a tight range, that would mean that our opponents are not making mistakes by calling and playing wide ranges. If they're not making mistakes then why aren't we playing the same strategy? If they are making mistakes, and the EV isn't going to us, then who is it going to? It's not going to the other players who are also playing wide ranges irrespective of position.

FWIW my 1|2 winrate is much higher in BB/h than my 2|5 winrate, despite 1|2 being more at the mercy of rake.

This is surviving as a pro? I guess I could "survive" working behind the counter at McDonald's, but that's not how I took the spirit of the original question.
Aren't the vast majority of posters here from those areas? Seems to me we shouldn't need to put caveats on every answer.

Meh only USA#1 that you have to pay absurd health care premiums and get taxed on your GAMBLING profits. Most of Europe and Australia you don't get shaken down while dying on the street and get to keep 100% of your gambling winnings so 2k a month goes alot further.

Fair enough if that works for you. I always made my living from mtts and found sitting there 40 hours a week fishing in 6 way pots worse than torture. The times i enjoyed playing cash was at slightly higher stakes where most pots were heads up or at the most 3 way and some semblance of poker ability was used. Realise thats not the highest EV route but its higher EV than going crazy being surrounded by 1/2 donks all your life.

You're right and I'm not a huge fan of 2+2's tendency to nit up every single question (this is not a jab at any poster ITT, just a general observation) but I think it's worth teasing apart what a "poker pro" means in relation to these threads.

I think the perception for poker newbies might be that a pro is a minor league rockstar, making great money off his wits and steely determination. So breaking down the harsh reality that the game chews up and spits out most "pros" is worth discussing.

To me a poker pro is just someone who derives the majority of their income from poker and sustainably makes enough to provide for the basic necessities of food, water, shelter, hookers and blow.

lmao

Bold is ridiculous.






You forgot to mention booze.

I tend to believe that the focus should never be trying to become a professional, but your focus should be on working ro become the best player you possibly can become. If your focus on the work, being a professional should come as a secondary consequence of the hard work. It's hard to ladder up when your priorities are out of order. Just make up your mind that no one is going to out work you and see where that takes you.

I've been thinking about this recently and I think that one important factor many people are missing here is for how long you were a losing player before you start trying to improve. There's a reason with most poker pro stories you hear, these players say something about "picking the game up very fast" - the longer you play, the more set in your ways you become, and some bad habits can become more or less impossible to overcome.

So, yeah, I'd say that for you avarage recreational players, who's been a small loser for few years or more, it would be pretty much impossible to even become a decent winning player, stricly because of how many bad habits they have. I am a former online pro who plays live recreationally these days and I'm friendly with some rec players. One of those guys took a year off work to try and pursue playing poker for a living - but it turned out not feasable, due to how many harmful patterns in his game he had after years of playing recreationally.

He still became a small winner thanks to live games being super soft, but he will never become a good player, even though he is a very smart guy, very successful in his field.

No.

Well..if we're talking 'poker pro' (i.e. self employed) he's sorta right.

2k $ is about what you'd earn at minimum wage with a standard 40hr workweek in a month in germany (at current rates it's more on the line of 2.1k $)
So yes, you can survive off of this - even in Western Europe (because healtcare and pension plan etc. are already covered. You're 'just' paying for rent and basic necessities).
However, you're certainly not splurging on...anything.

But self employed as a "poker pro"? No way. Because then healthcare, etc. isn't covered...then 2k $ will not get you anywhere. At this point you should be looking at an income of 4k $/month at an absolutely bare minimum to survive.

As for the OP:
Math is one of those things that you can learn. Yes, it comes harder to some than others, but - particularly the low level math needed for poker - isn't something that you need a genetic gift for (unlike some athletic occupations).
It's not like someone is going to ask you to solve differential equations in your head. It's just a bit of basic arithmetic and probabilities (and if you feel fancy: game theory) - and most of this can just be memorized.

Without a good appreciation of math/theory I don't see it happening that anyone can make a living at poker. If you don't have it then those who do will walk all over you. Even at very low stakes.
(Certainly the higher the stakes the more you need to be comfortable with the math/theory side.)

Your issue with this type of game is not that you can’t win. This game likely is MUCH more profitable than a tighter, higher stakes game. Your issue is really the variance. Your variance in a game with mostly multi-way pots is going to be much higher.

Let’s simplify by considering a toy game. You automatically get dealt AA every hand. You have two choices: play against 9 opponents playing random cards or play against one opponent playing random cards. In the either case each player puts $1 in the pot and the dealer runs the board as normal and best hand takes the pot.

Let’s now analyze these cases. I’ve read (not sure how accurate this is) that AA has about 33% equity against 9 random hands. EV is $2.63. In the second case, let’s assume 80% equity vs ATC. Your EV is $1.40. You increase your profit by $1.23 per game by choosing the multi-way game. Variance is a different story. It’s 26.75 for the multi-way game vs. 1.44 for heads up. Admittedly this is an oversimplification (and by all means, if you can find opponents willing to play either of these games please let me know), but the analogy with your game options should be clear.

If your goal is to avoid bankroll swings as much as possible, by all means play the tighter, higher stakes game. If your goal is to make money, the fishing expedition is probably your best bet, assuming you can keep your emotions in check and avoid tilting when you suffer the inevitable ridiculous bad beats.

When your winrate is lower, you will get swing more. As a poker player, just learn to develop stronger mental game. It's easier said than done, but it's a necessary skill to learn, so don't avoid it.

But what's important is that you shake off the fallacy that people playing poorly is going to make it harder for you to win. That's just shifting blame. This is poisonous.

"Proper poker" is making the most EV. That's what it is, not "using position" or however you think poker is supposed to be played.

No it does not. It only has merit for rake reasons.

ofcourse, why not? I think the 1000-hour rule will also work here. and if you understand a little more in psychology, then this is a privilege