Thanks and exactly

In the GAAP accounting of life, women are the FASB.

More like the SEC.

I agree with you, but the OP did imply that "making a living" was somewhere around $100k/year in his first few posts.

I think to play pro you need a cushion. It could be other sources of passive income, having a ton of money to weather downswings, or being able to move down and still maintain a similar standard of living are all cushions. Playing 20/40 with a small roll leaves none of these cushions. You can't move down and maintain an income level that supports your spending and you don't have backup money or other sources of income.

At least playing 40/80 with a nice roll, you can move down to 20/40, you can run good and move up again which leaves you with even more downside cushion. Or you could run good and choose to pad your bankroll/immediate cash savings so you don't have to move down in the future. Can you scrape by only playing 20/40? Sure, but your chances or succeeding are not high and your ability to make a lot more money is also not high.

I think OP still doesn't understand that even winning players have years where they show a loss, or maybe only a slight win.

Which is a big part of the reason that everyone says you can't play $20-40LHE for a living. Especially in the places where those games are the best and something like $50-60K a year isn't all that much money.

This thread is hilarious, and will surely be locked soon, but Howmany/ikijigoku has had easily some of the best posts in regards to exactly what it takes to "play for a living" and just what the true swings look and feel like.

He might read 2+2 for entertainment, I read his posts for insight (and to confirm I don't have anywhere near what it takes to play poker for a living).

i just wanna say that the lavate las manos ep of american dad had me laugh till i cried the first prolly 5 times i watched it during the scene from ur avatar

Alright, since this has somehow spiraled out of control...

You can play 20/40 for a living. You need to be really good, be able to play a ton without degradation of your game, and have pretty low expenses since unless you're a superstar rebuilding, or in the greatest unknown goldmine somehow, it's going to be hard to earn above $20-$30 per hour. While that number seems like you can do it, unlike a real job you're not guaranteed it. There was an interesting thread on 2p2 probably in the '04-'06 range about how much of your winrate would you give up to guarantee it, and that answer was often 50%+. Then there's the problem that you don't have much of a chance to get a promotion (moving up may require changing locations) and that your game may be dying/dead already. In direct contrast to nl, where your friends (probably running hot, you wouldn't believe some of the people that are "pros" at that stake in terms of playskill level) have a chance to play 5/10 or bigger down the line that are way more likely to be there in a few years.

If somehow after all that you still want to do this, you're probably sick in the head, but at least update us.

Does one really want to spend that many hours per week/yr in a joint like Commerce playing 20/40 with some of the most irritable, janky, self loathing, depressed jackballs around?(and these are there good qualities)

You'd still be spending a good portion of your life with them. You really want that?

FW is tougher. Borgata has plenty of tough regs but is way more likely to get a couple of idiots at the table at any given time.

Everyone sucks in both games.

While this is true, until one believes this to be true one shouldn't be playing for a living. And once one does believe it they should be playing bigger.

Everyone does suck in the borgata game. Just take a shot and see what happens.

Wait, what?

The Foxwoods 20-40 is tougher than Borgata's?

The. Foxwoods. 20-40. Is. Tougher. Than. Borgata's???

You just broke my brain. I think I need to book a trip to Atlantic City.

In two years as a 20/40 and 40/80 "weekend warrior" my hourly rate was more than 2X what I was making at my day job. A few months ago I finally decided to go pro and...

I'll be looking for another job very soon.

Playing your A-game hour after excruciating hour, day after day (which is required to make a living) is not an easy thing to do. It's much easier to play that A-game when you walk into the casino all pumped up and ready to crush after a week of anticipation. And without the stress of not having any other form of income.

How isn't playing your "A" game like doing a good job in anything else? Off days in any profession are normal.

True, but at most jobs if you have an off day, you don't lose money.

Agreed. I would assume that the person attempting to play poker for a living would be able to remove emotion from their play since it has become a "job" and accept the reality that runs of losing will happen.

The 20 game at FW now sucks. Or at least I now suck. One or possibly both of those is true.

See you in AC...

fasb sec and the irs with a wage garnishment sprinkled in

+1

Also, once you get to that point you will never be able to beat 20/40 again.

I do not have great experience with many other venues. But I agree with Alan the FW 20 is not "tough"

This hasn't been a big issue in this thread but I'm a nit so I'm going to call it out anyway. First of all, the online guideline wasn't 15-20k, it was like 150-200k. Secondly, online guidelines and live guidelines are hugely different because of the SD/WR ratios possible. 15-20k hands as statistically significant sample sizes only happen with the highest of winrates and lowest of standard deviations - like the kind you're able to generate at 20/40 live or 2c/4c online. When you look at 2/4 or 3/6 OL, you're looking at pretty small winrates for FR, and pretty large standard deviations for 6-max / HU.

It's always been the case that on a per-hand basis, live converges faster than online. But online, hands per hour dramatically increases, so a live pro who needs 20k hands and an online pro who needs 200k hands may have the same length of downswing on a per-time basis.

Yes, you will probably need several months as a live pro or several years as a recreational player to prove that you're a winner. No, the rationale for that isn't derived from a comparison to online play.

I would leverage every single thing I own that there are not 1 million people who been relying on poker as a living and been in black over a 3-4 year time period.


Biggest poker forum in the world. And yet not one person who posts in MSLHE has come forward to make this assertion. Is it a) because it's some elaborate ploy and they want to keep this goldmine to themselves or b) because no one does it.

Occam's razor in effect.

You already got advice from another live pro. I seriously doubt any real lhe pro will state LHE = less variance than NLHE.

It's disgusting how sick it is.




[IMG]http://*******.com/uploads/generated/g1337436914921846786.jpg[/IMG]

Love the pic lol