| Author |
Message |
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 6:42pm Post subject: "Going Pro"
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind

Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 3547 WPP: 101
Location: The Grind
|
|
Suppose you play 25nl full ring on a $1100 bankroll and for whatever reason you make $20/hour and are able to play for 30 hours/week. If your job pays $9/hour, and you get to work 40 hours/week, you should quit your job and play poker if your bills are lower than X.
What is X? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 6:45pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House

Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 947 WPP: 117
Location: Vancouver
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 6:49pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind

Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 3603 WPP: 99
Location: Your place or my place
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 6:50pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind

Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 3547 WPP: 101
Location: The Grind
|
|
| Quote: | (6:45:01 PM) ***euphoricism went pro way before 25nl |
Next. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 6:57pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind

Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 3547 WPP: 101
Location: The Grind
|
|
| I'll give an example. Suppose you're in school and you only have about $400/month in bills. What happens then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 7:15pm Post subject:
|
|
|
High Card

Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 13 WPP: 207
|
|
| spoonitnow wrote: | | What is X? |
X is a constant, whereas poker is a variable.
Should we ask Y? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 7:33pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind

Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 3547 WPP: 101
Location: The Grind
|
|
| seren wrote: | | spoonitnow wrote: | | What is X? |
X is a constant, whereas poker is a variable.
Should we ask Y? |
If you don't have something to contribute then shut the fuck up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 7:59pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 306 WPP: 145
|
|
Going pro doesn't mean you can't go get a job if the poker thing doesn't work out.
I'd think that as long as you are bringing in enough money to pay your bills, live as comfortably as you would with a regular job, and still be adding to your bankroll to move up, then you are OK to try...but thats coming from a guy who is a long ways from that point |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 8:08pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House

Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Posts: 1011 WPP: 103
Location: Hartford, CT
|
|
20 x 30 = 600
9 x 40 = 360
600 - 360 = 240
still no answer for X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 8:46pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Straight

Joined: 14 Nov 2005
Posts: 154 WPP: 102
Location: not playing much
|
|
Assuming no benefits from the job, playing poker is better in this case.
20x30x4=2400/mo
9x40x4=1440/mo
You also have to add in a factor to correct for some things in poker, variance being the greatest. Plus your taxes will suck a little more (you will probably pay more). The games might get harder, etc. So I multiply the 2400 by 0.8 and get 1920.
Next you have to figure out your monthly budget, bills plus irregular expenses plus lifestyle costs. If this number is less than 1920 (which it should be if you're only making 1440 a month now). Then you have to decide if the difference is enough. For example, if you're total expenses are 1200 a month, your difference would be 720, and your bankroll would grow this much per month allowing you to take shots and have more cushion. If however, you're bills are 1900/mo, then your BR will grow by 20 a month and you will pretty much grind 25nl forever.
So I'd say x = 1500. If you spend less than that a month (including everything) then go for it.
disclaimer: needless to say i'm oversimplifying a lot. you could find a better job, get sick of playing 30 hours a week plus the study it would take to stay sharp, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 8:47pm Post subject:
|
|
|
High Card

Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 13 WPP: 207
|
|
| spoonitnow wrote: |
| seren wrote: |
X is a constant, poker is a variable. |
If you don't have something to contribute then shut the fuck up. |
If potentential income from poker is that significant (~1k$/month more than a job), and there is enough leeway in that extra money to cover variance, then the value of X as asked is irrelevant. It becomes an abstract incorporating the mental preparation, self-motivation, time management etc needed to turn pro and be, effectively, self-employed.
Ultimately, bills will always need to be paid, but poker is not a guaranteed source of constant income. In terms of bills, everyone will have their own value of X that will mark the threshold between playing scared and playing well, and their own abstract of X that will determine whether they have the right mindset to do it successfully as their sole source of income.
Not quite as pithy as my first attempt, but the thrust is the same. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 9:33pm Post subject:
|
|
|
HABITUAL LINE-STEPPER

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 5718 WPP: 72
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
|
|
i made 17 dollars an hour at my dayjob. I went pro once I had a solid sample size of making over 100 dollars an hour at poker.
my bills were prob 1.5k a month. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 9:51pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind

Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 3545 WPP: 106
Location: Collecting $eV
|
|
you need a non BR cushion W, and a proven history of Z hand being a winning player at some rate.
This is why most people don't qualify. If you've played 100k hands making $20/hr you should have way more than $1k. If you haven't you probably shouldn't rely on it for income.
Although this is basically what I tried and I was up $2k after 2 weeks then UIGA hit and fucked it all up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 10:23pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Two Pair

Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 25 WPP: 78
|
|
I always get a kick out of those silly micro-grinders who call themselves online pros but then get frustrated when they can't get their BR up past a $2K. But anyway...
Yeah, I would have to be making at least $20/hr for every 100K hands to even consider "going pro", not to mention withdrawing a certain amount each month but at the same time growing my BR and taking shots. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 11:01pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind

Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 3547 WPP: 101
Location: The Grind
|
|
| seren wrote: | | spoonitnow wrote: |
| seren wrote: |
X is a constant, poker is a variable. |
If you don't have something to contribute then shut the fuck up. |
If potentential income from poker is that significant (~1k$/month more than a job), and there is enough leeway in that extra money to cover variance, then the value of X as asked is irrelevant. It becomes an abstract incorporating the mental preparation, self-motivation, time management etc needed to turn pro and be, effectively, self-employed.
Ultimately, bills will always need to be paid, but poker is not a guaranteed source of constant income. In terms of bills, everyone will have their own value of X that will mark the threshold between playing scared and playing well, and their own abstract of X that will determine whether they have the right mindset to do it successfully as their sole source of income.
Not quite as pithy as my first attempt, but the thrust is the same. |
Sorry, but you're wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 11:02pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind

Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 3547 WPP: 101
Location: The Grind
|
|
| Renton wrote: | i made 17 dollars an hour at my dayjob. I went pro once I had a solid sample size of making over 100 dollars an hour at poker.
my bills were prob 1.5k a month. |
Yes, but you didn't answer the question.
There's a reason I chose these particular variables. DOUCY? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 12:09am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind

Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 3392 WPP: 82
Location: the ether
|
|
regardless of x, hero shouldn't go pro. (conservative)
if you're already living comfortably off your day job, then take a shot (idealist)
There are many external variables beyond those you gave, i'm interested in your thoughts.
maybe x is the square root of -1
imagine that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 12:40am Post subject: Re: "Going Pro"
|
|
|
Straight

Joined: 28 Dec 2007
Posts: 202 WPP: 171
|
|
| spoonitnow wrote: | Suppose you play 25nl full ring on a $1100 bankroll and for whatever reason you make $20/hour and are able to play for 30 hours/week. If your job pays $9/hour, and you get to work 40 hours/week, you should quit your job and play poker if your bills are lower than X.
What is X? |
I think I read on here somewhere that you shouldn't be thinking of going pro unless you can make poker-wise double what you need to make outside of work p.m so as to protect yourself from variance etc.
Which means, $20/hr x 30hrs x 4 weeks = $2,400.
Half that = $1,200.
So as long as your bills are less that $1,200 a month then you should think of going pro.
Just my wild ass guess. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 12:41am Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House

Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 1103 WPP: 142
|
|
| x = about 200. our hourly rate is irrelevant at this point. more important is our bankroll. We would ideally want 3-4 months worth in reserve, over and above what we need to play. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 12:53am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind

Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 1630 WPP: 84
|
|
Until I'm making about 1.5-3x (depending on how bad variance is up there) my current income, I wouldn't...
pgil's definitely onto somethin' with the reserve... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 12:57am Post subject:
|
|
|
Straight

Joined: 14 Nov 2005
Posts: 154 WPP: 102
Location: not playing much
|
|
| Having 3-6 months expenses saved is a pretty good standard for anyone, poker player or otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 1:01am Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House

Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 1254 WPP: 83
Location: Sweden
|
|
| You can not quit a job and go pro with a $1100 bankroll. Insanity! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 1:55am Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1477 WPP: 98
Location: swonging and swonging
|
|
Very few responses here are original. This is a topic that's been rehashed repeatedly in magazines, articles, books, and message boards.
A quick look at that tells me X has to be next to nothing, we're talking about an $1100 roll, but we're asking the wrong question, and I'm going to cop out just like everyone else and say something I heard: Going pro is as easy as quitting your job. Assuming you're an adult and capable of going broke and surviving the ordeal, fuck it. Take your shot. Learn your lesson. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 5:39am Post subject:
|
|
|
3-of-a-Kind

Joined: 03 Aug 2005
Posts: 66 WPP: 118
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
$600/week is more than $360/week, so assuming your benefits at work suck, x is a non-factor. Or I guess you could say that if your added expenses (medical insurance and such) after quitting your job add up to less than $240/week, you should do it in a strictly financial sense.
However, swiggidy's quote below pretty well sums up the realities of the situation, which is why quitting your job in the scenario is at the very least a gamble. Go right ahead if you're fine with gambles and don't have any dependents.
| swiggidy wrote: | you need a non BR cushion W, and a proven history of Z hand being a winning player at some rate.
This is why most people don't qualify. If you've played 100k hands making $20/hr you should have way more than $1k. If you haven't you probably shouldn't rely on it for income.
Although this is basically what I tried and I was up $2k after 2 weeks then UIGA hit and fucked it all up. | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 8:12am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind

Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 3547 WPP: 101
Location: The Grind
|
|
I'm trying to reply to everyone, but if I miss you don't take it personally.
| daven wrote: | | regardless of x, hero shouldn't go pro. |
| Cocco_Bill wrote: | | You can not quit a job and go pro with a $1100 bankroll. Insanity! |
What if X is close to 0?
| Andrew wrote: | | So as long as your bills are less that $1,200 a month then you should think of going pro. |
But that's more than our current bankroll...?
| pgil wrote: | | x = about 200. our hourly rate is irrelevant at this point. more important is our bankroll. We would ideally want 3-4 months worth in reserve, over and above what we need to play. |
This is the most logical response so far, imo.
| d0zer wrote: | | Until I'm making about 1.5-3x (depending on how bad variance is up there) my current income, I wouldn't... |
Again, what if X is close to 0? Also, if there was little to no chance of getting a raise or any type of advancement in your job (which is typical of the jobs college students get)?
| dev wrote: | | Very few responses here are original. This is a topic that's been rehashed repeatedly in magazines, articles, books, and message boards. |
I agree, but perhaps that's because it's sometimes hard to be creative when there is a limited window of correct ways to do something and be successful.
| dev wrote: | | Going pro is as easy as quitting your job. Assuming you're an adult and capable of going broke and surviving the ordeal, fuck it. Take your shot. Learn your lesson. |
This is soooooo wrong, but like you said it's just something you heard. There is so much more to it than "quit your job and see what happens", and the likelihood of succeeding with this approach depends heavily upon X.
| cowboyardee wrote: | | $600/week is more than $360/week, so assuming your benefits at work suck, x is a non-factor. Or I guess you could say that if your added expenses (medical insurance and such) after quitting your job add up to less than $240/week, you should do it in a strictly financial sense. |
There's much more to it than the strict math, DOUCY? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 10:47am Post subject:
|
|
|
Straight

Joined: 28 Dec 2007
Posts: 202 WPP: 171
|
|
| spoonitnow wrote: |
| Andrew wrote: | | So as long as your bills are less that $1,200 a month then you should think of going pro. |
But that's more than our current bankroll...?
|
The question is misleading with the "should" being in there instead of "when could".
You're right, that's more than our current bankroll but if we're making $20 an hour but our bankroll is only $1100 we've either not been playing very long or are withdrawing money all the time. 25nl x 30bis = min of $750 needed at this level. That means we've only played for an additional $350 (~20hours play).
We have no clue if this is our skill level or if it's a huge heater, we have no buffer in which to cover our bills if we go on a downswing. However, this is only because we have a job and bills. A student with little to no obligations might be able to go for it in our current situation and go with the flow.
But my initial answer was why "should" we go pro, this is my answer to why we "shouldn't". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 10:51am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind

Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Posts: 1611 WPP: 61
Location: Cheshire, UK
|
|
Really I think we should have 6th months of bills in our roll inclusive of minimum roll for 25NL.
Lets presume we need 20BI so 500 and our bills for 6months = 600. Therefore x= 100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 11:10am Post subject:
|
|
|
Two Pair

Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 31 WPP: 216
|
|
If X is less than the monthly income from your day job (1440), if you are sure your beating the game at $20/hour, and if you are willing to spend the 40 hours a week you were working playing poker in addition to the 30 hours you already spend, you can do it:
If you are 6-tabling with win rate of 8ptbb/100 and a SD of 35ptbb/100, and willing to put in 40 hours a week, X is around 1750. Bump that up to 70 hours a week, and X can be as high as 3700. If you are 12-tabling 40 hours a week with a win rate of 4ptbb/100 and a SD of 40ptbb/100, X is about 900 in the first two months and 1100 thereafter (need to increase your bankroll), and at 70 hours X would be about 2200 in the first month and 2700 after. This assumes 80 hands/hour/table.
To see the numbers for X, just plug the stats into uDevil's calculator and look at the lower 99% confidence interval:
www dot castrovalva dot com/~la/win.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 11:13am Post subject:
|
|
|
Almost as bad as that idiot redgrape

Joined: 29 Oct 2004
Posts: 6594 WPP: 74
|
|
If X is 0 that pretty much means we live with our parents and they pay for everything. Therefore, playing poker for 8 hours a day I would not consider going pro.
On the relevant side, my guess would be around $300, which is still living with your parents, or living in a rural area and your parents give you food money. Though this is assuming you have no way of borrowing money or whatnot other helpful variables. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 11:30am Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1477 WPP: 98
Location: swonging and swonging
|
|
| dev wrote: | | Going pro is as easy as quitting your job. Assuming you're an adult and capable of going broke and surviving the ordeal, fuck it. Take your shot. Learn your lesson. |
This is soooooo wrong, but like you said it's just something you heard. There is so much more to it than "quit your job and see what happens", and the likelihood of succeeding with this approach depends heavily upon X.
| cowboyardee wrote: | | $600/week is more than $360/week, so assuming your benefits at work suck, x is a non-factor. Or I guess you could say that if your added expenses (medical insurance and such) after quitting your job add up to less than $240/week, you should do it in a strictly financial sense. |
There's much more to it than the strict math, DOUCY?[/quote]
This is precisely what I'm talking about.
You have no idea what it does to your life to go pro. Despite being something of a newbie to grinding online poker, I supported myself on poker for over a year. I went broke repeatedly and had some pretty sick swings of course but I didn't understand variance, etc. at the time. I didn't have any semblance of a schedule except that I knew certain really soft games were held on certain nights, and I even managed to miss those sometimes because I was drinking that morning before I went to bed at noon. Trust me on this one, a total lack of structure can't be understood unless you do it. The only way to know if you have the discipline to deal with that (or the only way to develop it if you don't) is to try.
Of course, I don't think many people here are as reckless as I was, so everyone will come up with their own "X", but whoever is going pro needs to figure that out, the rest of us can't do it for them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 11:47am Post subject: Re: "Going Pro"
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind

Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 1630 WPP: 84
|
|
| spoonitnow wrote: | Suppose you play 25nl full ring on a $1100 bankroll and for whatever reason you make $20/hour and are able to play for 30 hours/week. If your job pays $9/hour, and you get to work 40 hours/week, you should quit your job and play poker if your bills are lower than X.
What is X? |
You're looking for X, which isn't how I would go about it. To me the question of "when should one give up the dayjob to play" is more simply answered by looking at your current income. If your current income is sustaining you, paying the bills just fine, then one could make an argument that you should start playing fulltime as soon as you can replace your current income or better.
But there's other factors to consider as well. If you have a soul-sucking job with no potential for advancement, and you really like playing poker, you could argue that by making a few financial compromises (less money allocated to beer?), you should play for less than your job since you'll be happier.
In my case, I have a fairly decent day-job which is relatively enjoyable, pays fairly well and has potential for advancement etc... so I would need to make quite a bit more to make it worth my while because of the career compromises I would make being out of the job market for potentially years in what may not be sustainable career in the long term.
So the question "when should you quit your dayjob" really depends on a lot more than just how much your bills are. If I was a broke-ass university student again, I'd play cards as soon as I had a 3-month buffer & could make as much as I needed to replace my $9/hr job. Someone with kids & a mortgage is probably going to have considerably higher standards than just simply replacing their current income 1:1. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 2:15pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind

Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 1715 WPP: 58
Location: UK
|
|
X = $50.
We need to equip ourselves for 8 weeks of negative variance, 4 weeks of studying/breaks. This is $150. Let's say we lose 15 buyins over this period, that's $375. We then have $575 - just enough bankroll to play poker.
IMO quitting your job is sub-optimal until you have >6X and 60BI.
Therefore our 25NLer needs a minimum of $7500 to quit his job if his bills are 1k/mo. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 3:04pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Two Pair

Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 31 WPP: 216
|
|
Eight weeks is way overkill if you are multi-tabling 30-70 hours a week and beating the game. You will be up after two weeks over 99% of the time, which is probably as good as the chance you will not get layed off in a month. As long as you can pay your bills with a credit card the first month so your bankroll stays intact, X hardly matters.
The huge assumption in this thread is that you know you are beating the game for $20/hour. Not many people could make that claim after having won their first $500-$1000 playing poker. But if its true, and you have a credit card or two as a buffer, then you are financially better off going pro as long as X is less than your current income. Do you want to? Are you psychologically capable of relying on poker to pay your bills? Can you handle multi-tabling 30-70 hours a week? These are all good questions, but they have nothing to do with the value of X. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 4:03pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1477 WPP: 98
Location: swonging and swonging
|
|
| Pasta wrote: | Eight weeks is way overkill if you are multi-tabling 30-70 hours a week and beating the game. You will be up after two weeks over 99% of the time, which is probably as good as the chance you will not get layed off in a month. As long as you can pay your bills with a credit card the first month so your bankroll stays intact, X hardly matters.
The huge assumption in this thread is that you know you are beating the game for $20/hour. Not many people could make that claim after having won their first $500-$1000 playing poker. But if its true, and you have a credit card or two as a buffer, then you are financially better off going pro as long as X is less than your current income. Do you want to? Are you psychologically capable of relying on poker to pay your bills? Can you handle multi-tabling 30-70 hours a week? These are all good questions, but they have nothing to do with the value of X. |
I agree, but you need to try it before you know whether you can handle it or not.
I think the main reason for the $100/hr rule (ilikeaces I think) is that multitabling for 70 hours per week will burn you out quick. I don't think anyone would be able to sustain their starting winrate if they quit their job and aimed for even 50 hrs/week. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 4:16pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush

Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 505 WPP: 136
Location: Miami, Florida
|
|
My comments are similar to Dozer's comments. I think the easy answer is the X is whatever you can handle, comfortably or not, but there are a few questions that you should ask as well.
- What are the benefits to the day job? (HEALTH INSURANCE, 401K, did I mention health insurance?). Can you get these from a different source (family, spouse, etc.)
- Do your expenses vary greatly from month to month, or if they are fixed, are you satisfied with them being fixed and for how long (i.e., parents basement)?
- What is your earning potential over time with the day job or does this experience set you up for a better job (intern now, solid pay in a year...)
- Do you have other obligations that would need a steady income (Kids, wanting kids, whoops, your what??)?
I am a little older than most posters (35, ugh) so I have a different perspective, but to me, whenever I see this thread resurface on going pro I analogize going pro to jobs that pay on full commission like realtors or car salesmen. At first, a few sales give great income bursts and it is easy to take a few good months and project them over a few years for potential earnings, but as life goes on and the responsibilities increase (or you increase your spending to accomodate the temporary rush), more people move to steady income jobs because of the benefits and the certainty; it is hard to always live feast to famine and it can wear you out. Also, if you are smart enough to make a living playing cards, you are also likely smart enough to also make a lot of money doing something else.
All this being said though, if you are young, just out of school or looking to take a break, why not give it a try. Keep your business connections in place in the meantime and if it doesn't work out you can always go back. I just don't think you can go into it thinking you will retire a poker player. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 5:27pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind

Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 3547 WPP: 101
Location: The Grind
|
|
| Pasta wrote: | Eight weeks is way overkill if you are multi-tabling 30-70 hours a week and beating the game. You will be up after two weeks over 99% of the time, which is probably as good as the chance you will not get layed off in a month. As long as you can pay your bills with a credit card the first month so your bankroll stays intact, X hardly matters.
The huge assumption in this thread is that you know you are beating the game for $20/hour. Not many people could make that claim after having won their first $500-$1000 playing poker. But if its true, and you have a credit card or two as a buffer, then you are financially better off going pro as long as X is less than your current income. Do you want to? Are you psychologically capable of relying on poker to pay your bills? Can you handle multi-tabling 30-70 hours a week? These are all good questions, but they have nothing to do with the value of X. |
Nearly any discussion that involves paying anything with a credit card in this scenario is going to fail.
Assuming that we are beating 25nl for $20/hour is a main part of the post, so of course it's a huge assumption -- just as it's a huge assumption that we play 25nl, or that our bankroll is $1100.
Whether someone can handle multi-tabling 30-70 hours a week is fairly irrelevant since we're assuming 30 hours of play each week.
All of these questions have EVERYTHING to do with the value of X.
On a side note, just something no one has pointed out yet, but a restriction is X <= $360/week, or about $1440/month, just based on the current income (assuming we're currently capable of paying our bills). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 5:59pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Two Pair

Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 31 WPP: 216
|
|
| spoonitnow wrote: |
Nearly any discussion that involves paying anything with a credit card in this scenario is going to fail.
|
Why? As long as your minimum win over a month is at least X+2% or so, then even if you have a few bad months in a row you will be able to pay off your credit card every month.
| spoonitnow wrote: |
Whether someone can handle multi-tabling 30-70 hours a week is fairly irrelevant since we're assuming 30 hours of play each week.
|
Ah, I misunderstood. I thought 30 hours a week was how much you were playing now. That makes things easier. If your 6-tabling at 8ptbb/100 with a SD of 35ptbb/100, then X is about 1200. If your 12-tabling at 4ptbb/100 with an SD of 35, X is around 750. But if your SD is 45, X is around 330. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 7:16pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House

Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 1254 WPP: 83
Location: Sweden
|
|
| My hands this year 2008. I am putting in 211,8/11 = 19.2h/week and am finding it really hard to motivate myself and have the discipline and energy to play much more. These 40-70h week estimations just blow my mind. unless you sacrifice other parts of your life almost completely. In addition to these hours you need to spend time studying and discussing the game to improve, how one can have time for that with such workload is beyond me. |
Last edited by Cocco_Bill on Fri, 21 Mar 2008, 9:46am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu, 20 Mar 2008, 7:51pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Two Pair

Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 31 WPP: 216
|
|
| Cocco_Bill wrote: | These 40-70h week estimations just blow my mind.
|
Ignore those; I misunderstood the parameters of the original question. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri, 21 Mar 2008, 1:02am Post subject:
|
|
|
Two Pair

Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 31 WPP: 216
|
|
| spoonitnow wrote: | | Pasta wrote: | | ...Do you want to? Are you psychologically capable of relying on poker to pay your bills? Can you handle multi-tabling 30-70 hours a week? These are all good questions, but they have nothing to do with the value of X. |
...
All of these questions have EVERYTHING to do with the value of X.
|
I respectfully disagree. Either your ready to make a living play poker, or your not. If you can double your current income playing 25NL, and you are mentally ready, then bankroll is irrelevant and expenses are irrelevant if they are less than your current income. You can get sufficient credit to sustain any initial downswing from any credit card company, and even if you end up paying 5% in interest and penalties, you will be way up vs. your day job after the first 3-4 months. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri, 21 Mar 2008, 6:24am Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind

Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 3547 WPP: 101
Location: The Grind
|
|
| Pasta wrote: | | spoonitnow wrote: | | Pasta wrote: | | ...Do you want to? Are you psychologically capable of relying on poker to pay your bills? Can you handle multi-tabling 30-70 hours a week? These are all good questions, but they have nothing to do with the value of X. |
...
All of these questions have EVERYTHING to do with the value of X.
|
I respectfully disagree. Either your ready to make a living play poker, or your not. If you can double your current income playing 25NL, and you are mentally ready, then bankroll is irrelevant and expenses are irrelevant if they are less than your current income. You can get sufficient credit to sustain any initial downswing from any credit card company, and even if you end up paying 5% in interest and penalties, you will be way up vs. your day job after the first 3-4 months. |
This response reveals a bit about your misunderstanding, and I'll try to explain the best I can without coming across as condescending.
We are starting out with only 44 buy-ins. This by itself creates a situation where we are almost doomed to fail, especially since moving down to 10nl will not be an option. If you were in a similar situation at 100nl and had $4400 making $20/hour, then this would be a bit more reasonable since you have 50nl and even 25nl to fall back on if you start losing. Also, if you don't think 40+ buy-in downswings would happen, for whatever reason, then don't even bother replying to this because you won't like what I have to say about it.
Earlier I said that any discussion that involves paying anything with a credit card is doomed to fail, but it seems you've completely disregarded that statement without much consideration. If we break even for the first two months, for example, then we are fucked much harder if we paid everything with a credit card than if we paid it out of our bankroll and now have to get another job.
You suggested that whether or not Hero is psychologically ready to play poker as his or her primary source of income is irrelevant to the value of X. This statement, combined with how you've slipped in some post-whore like behavior in this thread, has led me to believe that your account is likely a spammer account just waiting to spring a leak or ploy on someone.
Edit: Oh wait. You said bankroll is irrelevant. On the one hand, I'd like to respect your autonomy enough to give a serious response to this. On the other hand, it's the most retarded thing that I've ever seen in this particular portion of the forum, and it completely undermines your argument as being unsound and you as having no idea what you're talking about.
To be sure that it wasn't just me, I asked someone in IRC about your credit card statements. Here is what he had to say:
(6:49:18 AM) fatb: Why? As long as your minimum win over a month is at least X+2% or so, then even if you have a few bad months in a row you will be able to pay off your credit card every month.
(6:49:21 AM) fatb: lol
(6:49:28 AM) spoonitnow: thoughts?
(6:49:29 AM) spoonitnow:
(6:49:41 AM) fatb: let him play and find hes sn imo
(6:50:02 AM) fatb: then you can read about the guy who comitted suicide after hugde gambling dept at hes cc |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri, 21 Mar 2008, 7:30am Post subject:
|
|
|
3-of-a-Kind

Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 101 WPP: 96
|
|
| Before you decide to go pro with CCs as roll ( like me ) , you first gotta raise your credit limit soo you can chase losses without having to get another card. Just a friendly advice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri, 21 Mar 2008, 7:32am Post subject:
|
|
|
3-of-a-Kind

Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 101 WPP: 96
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri, 21 Mar 2008, 7:32am Post subject:
|
|
|
3-of-a-Kind

Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 101 WPP: 96
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri, 21 Mar 2008, 7:33am Post subject:
|
|
|
3-of-a-Kind

Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 101 WPP: 96
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri, 21 Mar 2008, 10:42am Post subject: Re: "Going Pro"
|
|
|
Straight

Joined: 28 Dec 2007
Posts: 202 WPP: 171
|
|
| spoonitnow wrote: | Suppose you play 25nl full ring on a $1100 bankroll and for whatever reason you make $20/hour and are able to play for 30 hours/week. If your job pays $9/hour, and you get to work 40 hours/week, you should quit your job and play poker if your bills are lower than X.
What is X? |
| Spoonitnow wrote: | | We are starting out with only 44 buy-ins. This by itself creates a situation where we are almost doomed to fail, especially since moving down to 10nl will not be an option |
So the answer is it's a trick question. We shouldn't be quitting our job and playing poker given the situation quoted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri, 21 Mar 2008, 12:03pm Post subject: Re: "Going Pro"
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind

Joined: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 3547 WPP: 101
Location: The Grind
|
|
| Andrew wrote: | | spoonitnow wrote: | Suppose you play 25nl full ring on a $1100 bankroll and for whatever reason you make $20/hour and are able to play for 30 hours/week. If your job pays $9/hour, and you get to work 40 hours/week, you should quit your job and play poker if your bills are lower than X.
What is X? |
| Spoonitnow wrote: | | We are starting out with only 44 buy-ins. This by itself creates a situation where we are almost doomed to fail, especially since moving down to 10nl will not be an option |
So the answer is it's a trick question. We shouldn't be quitting our job and playing poker given the situation quoted. |
Not necessarily -- it's definite that an X exists that makes it correct to quit your job. I'm just asking peoples opinion of what that X is and why. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri, 21 Mar 2008, 12:32pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Two Pair

Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 31 WPP: 216
|
|
| spoonitnow wrote: |
We are starting out with only 44 buy-ins. This by itself creates a situation where we are almost doomed to fail, especially since moving down to 10nl will not be an option.
|
Of course a 44 buy-in downswing will happen eventually. Eventually is not the question. Will it happen in the first 2-3 months is all that matters. And well over 99% of the time, you will not go anywhere near 44 buy-ins in three months. By then, your bankroll is well beyond 44 buy-ins, because your average monthly earnings are double your expenses. Look at the 99% confidence intervals here. You are just using intuition, without any theoretical justification.
| spoonitnow wrote: |
Earlier I said that any discussion that involves paying anything with a credit card is doomed to fail, but it seems you've completely disregarded that statement without much consideration. If we break even for the first two months, for example, then we are fucked much harder if we paid everything with a credit card than if we paid it out of our bankroll and now have to get another job.
|
Your cannot break even over the first two months with any reasonable stats while playing 30h/week and beating 25NL at $20/hr. By cannot I mean the chance is well less than 1%, and that is a risk I think you are willing to take. Again, stop using intuition and start looking at risk-to-ruin.
| spoonitnow wrote: |
This statement, combined with how you've slipped in some post-whore like behavior in this thread, has led me to believe that your account is likely a spammer account just waiting to spring a leak or ploy on someone.
|
Ouch. I decided recently to start contributing to the community since I have enjoyed the site for so long. I guess I picked the wrong thread to start.
| spoonitnow wrote: |
You suggested that whether or not Hero is psychologically ready to play poker as his or her primary source of income is irrelevant to the value of X. ...
Edit: Oh wait. You said bankroll is irrelevant. On the one hand, I'd like to respect your autonomy enough to give a serious response to this. On the other hand, it's the most retarded thing that I've ever seen in this particular portion of the forum, and it completely undermines your argument as being unsound and you as having no idea what you're talking about.
|
If you could open a business that only cost a couple grand, that would double your income, and that would only go belly up well less than 1% of the time, you would find the money. This would be entirely different if we were talking 200NL, but we're not. The bankroll requirements for 25NL, in real world terms, are practically irrelevant because it is easy to get enough credit to get you off the ground. All that really matters is whether you know you can beat the game at $20/hr. The average credit card balance in the U.S. is around $8,500. With even half that much, your chance of staying the head and paying the bills is well over 99.9%. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri, 21 Mar 2008, 12:58pm Post subject:
|
|
|
3-of-a-Kind

Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 101 WPP: 96
|
|
| i gots a better solution. You say you has 8.5k limits , deposit 8k play 2 tables of NL5k , 4k at each table , double up twice , then you dont have to grind 194hr/month. If it faills just get another CC(s), and while you wait for the new CC(s) use the 500$ to pay for food/hookers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri, 21 Mar 2008, 1:01pm Post subject:
|
|
|
3-of-a-Kind

Joined: 24 Jul 2005
Posts: 101 WPP: 96
|
|
| But srsly spaghetti go for it. WHERE ARE YOU WITH UR NUMBERS SPOON |
|
|
|
|
|
|