This strikes me as the most responsible way to do things. If at the end of the year you've earned a lot more than you budgeted for, you can always pay yourself a bonus.

I agree with Rob that paying yourself based on hours played makes more sense than a fixed amount per month. I also think it should be less than 100 percent of your long term win-rate so you can continue to grow your bankroll and diminish your risk of ruin that will approach, but never reach, zero.

Morrissey?

I see a ton of shows these days, usually traveling about an hour each way to get there. I've been very lucky not to have more issues like this. The worst one in recent memory was going to see Jane's Addiction (opening for Smashing Pumpkins) and when we got there finding out that JA had to cancel because PF injured himself during warmups somehow. Very deflating. Luckily the venue refunded like 99% of the ticket price after I complained, even though we had gone in to see SP. Free show!

No, but he is notorious for cancelling shows. This was a semi-local band at a tiny venue.

You were lucky to get a refund - sometimes they won't give money back based on opening acts changing. Especially surprised they did so after you had used the ticket.

Yes, I know he is. That was why I suggested it!

I agree. I was hoping to maybe get something, but had resigned myself to it probably ending up as pissing in the wind. Then they just...refunded all but like $7 (I'm sure that was their box office fee or something). Probably helps that it was at Wells Fargo Center, which does all the ticketing themselves, they don't use TM or any of the big players in ticketing. Their systems are awful, but worked in my favor this time I guess.

They were telling people that they could get full refunds as we were entering, but the line for that was long and we all liked the SP anyway, it just wasn't why we were there. Jane's Addiction touring for the first time in 25 years was. I think that was true for many people.

They ended up canceling out of the next 5-6 stops on the tour too. I'm not sure they ever disclosed exactly what happened, just some sort of injury.

Q: Knock, knock.

A: Who's there?

Q: Morrisey.

A: Morrisey who?

Q: I knew it! Nobody remembers me any more. Nobody cares about me. Life sucks.

WSOP got rid of the 3k 6max LHE

Unless my eyes deceived me it’s on June 8th at 2 PM.

Who is awake that early?

In CrazyLond's defense, I'm pretty sure it wasn't listed there earlier.

Yeah, I looked through it several times earlier and it wasn't there, I think they had it listed as 3k nlhe originally. Would be awesome if it gets some random nlhe players who read the schedule early and planned a trip around that one.

That's a bit of a stretch.

Are NL pros still trash at LHE? It used to be funny how reliably they would overfold every street.

I doubt these people in my sample size are usually pros but when I see players that are almost exclusively NL guys, they tend to overbluff and try to bulldoze their way through hands.

I've always paid myself a salary that's related to my hourly rate, but no way would it all of it like you're saying. If I was averaging 8k a month, I'd pay myself 5 to 6k a month depending on br size. Remember that if you don't build your BR, then no matter how large it is, your risk of ruin is 100%.

I've read this as well, but I've never thought it made any sense when applied to real life. First, it only means your risk of ruin would be 100% if you gambled for an infinitely long amount of time, which isn't realistic. Second, the fact that your bankroll is growing doesn't ensure that you don't go broke. If you start with a very small bankroll and/or grow it very slowly when compared with the amount you are gambling, you still can have a very/somewhat high risk of ruin. You don't even have a defined bankroll amount while you're gambling, only between sessions, and between sessions you can't go broke anyway.

I've never even tried to grow a bankroll, but I have over 10 years worth of money to cover my necessary spending which I did not win from gambling.
I spend pretty much all of my poker winnings, but I know my risk of ruin is 0%, because I never risk much when compared with the amount of money I have in the bank, and if I started losing and having to take money out of the bank often to gamble (which I haven't had to do for years), I would just stop gambling and either get a job or live only off my investment income and gradually reducing the principle.

I'm assuming you your net worth isn't entirely comprised of poker winnings which began with a decent, yet vulnerable bankroll. Yes you're right that RoR can still be prohibitively high even when you do grow your roll. What I'm talking about is if you have no means to replenish your BR other then winnings, then if remove every cent you win, your roll will shrink infinitely because it will only go down when you lose, your winnings will not balance this. Of course if you have some ridiculous amount, this 'ruin' is unlikely to occur within the span of any human career (or human lifetime) but in the realm of the reasonable, it is a worry.

When I started playing for a living, I played 30/60 with a little over 400bb. If I didn't use a portion of my winnings to build the roll, then I'd have gone broke ten times over during the first few years. I had 2 150bb downswings within my first two years of full time play, and countless smaller ones. They didn't effect me much, as I'd been growing my roll at a faster rate then losses would drain it, but had that not been the case, the 400bb would not have lasted. How many 100bb downswings have you had in your life? I'd venture to guess at least ten. That means that 1000bb doesn't cut it for live LHE (Which is nuts, because of course it does). Of course if there's any alternate income or savings in which we can replenish rolls, this is moot, but as in so many cases there simply isn't, so the spectre of 100% RoR does remain.

How would a 150bb downswing make you go broke if you had a 400bb bankroll?

I've had several 100bb downswings, but they all had large upswings between them. If anyone had a 1000bb downswing, I would say they almost certainly were not a winning player.

I said my combined downswings would have made me go broke if I hadn't added to the roll. I had upswings between them too, but we're talking about removing every cent earned, so the upswings wouldn't make a difference. I've never lost 1000bb, but I have lost at least 100bb ten or more times. I've also won large amounts, but had I removed the winnings, they wouldn't have made a difference and my accumulated losses would have added up to 1000bb.

Try looking at your past few years, but filter out all your winning sessions. Your graph would look pretty bad, right? That's tantamount to never adding to br.

Just to fully articulate the scenario, I'm saying you can't even add money to your roll after losing chunks of it. The ONLY thing that affects your roll is losses. Every winning session goes to strippers, coke, or whatever preferred vice served this hypothetical scenario. How is your risk of ruin anything short of 100%

Oh, I can't imagine anyone doing that. I figured not adding to your bankroll meant trying to keep it the same as where it started. So if you lost $1000, you wouldn't spend the first $1000 you earned after that.

Yeah, that one's a bit fuzzier. Theoretically, it's still true that any capped bankroll has a 100% RoR, but if you're well financed enough and continue playing with a +EV, doubt you'll live long enough to go broke. Large numbers I guess. Still, your background is more a 'moved from corporate to poker and it worked out' type of story. Of course I highly respect that, although I can't relate to it. Before poker only real incomes I had were flipping burgers and running short cons like 'follow the lady' in lower manhattan. I think building a bankroll from almost nothing and the high risk entailed in doing it left me with a real appreciation for RoR. Although I probably would've gotten better quicker if I had a good career swap cause I'd never have to overcome playing with scared money. Wtv, success is success. Poker ain't so easy as it used to be, so any long term winning is an achievement.

Actually my experience was I got laid off from a job that I didn't like that much anyway and didn't pay well or have good benefits. I was already making more money playing poker than at my previous job, so I just started doing that more.

My invested money came from selling a house that I owned for 17 years and made a very nice profit from. I have used a lot of the income from that but still have the principal. Plus I have always been pretty frugal and don't have expensive tastes in anything.

Always refreshing to hear somebody has a background outside from that stupid poker boom cliche so any millennials share. You know the whole 'i saw moneymaker win in 2003, then in college deposited $50 on PP a few times and blah blah blah. ' obviously I have nothing against that meme (nothing wrong with being born in the right place and time to just effortlessly print money) but it's so common I'm sick of hearing it. Its like all the musicians who learned guitar after seeing Marty mcfly play johnny b. Goode in back to the future. All around cliche

I'm definitely too old to be a millennial, and I did play some online but never made any serious money from it. I enjoyed playing live more.

I did catch the poker bug by watching the 2003 WSOP, but I learned how to play well from reading books and practicing in a 1/2 LHE game where a few others took the game seriously and I learned to play with little risk among people with different levels of skill and different reasons to play.

I never really did any gambling before that, but I always loved playing games and was always good at most of them.