| Author |
Message |
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 3:42pm Post subject: "Going Pro" |
|
|
Strike 1

Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 2075 WPP: 108
Location: Winston-Salem, North Carolina
|
|
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, 3:45pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House

Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 943 WPP: 117
Location: Vancouver
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 3:49pm Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind

Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 3538 WPP: 96
Location: Your place or my place
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 3:50pm Post subject: |
|
|
Strike 1

Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 2075 WPP: 108
Location: Winston-Salem, North Carolina
|
|
| Quote: | (6:45:01 PM) ***euphoricism went pro way before 25nl |
Next. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 3:57pm Post subject: |
|
|
Strike 1

Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 2075 WPP: 108
Location: Winston-Salem, North Carolina
|
|
| 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, 4:15pm Post subject: |
|
|
High Card

Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 13 WPP: 202
|
|
| spoonitnow wrote: | | What is X? |
X is a constant, whereas poker is a variable.
Should we ask Y? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 4:33pm Post subject: |
|
|
Strike 1

Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 2075 WPP: 108
Location: Winston-Salem, North Carolina
|
|
| 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, 4:59pm Post subject: |
|
|
Straight

Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 244 WPP: 139
|
|
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, 5:08pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House

Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Posts: 744 WPP: 118
Location: Hartford, CT
|
|
20 x 30 = 600
9 x 40 = 360
600 - 360 = 240
still no answer for X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 5:46pm Post subject: |
|
|
Straight

Joined: 13 Nov 2005
Posts: 154 WPP: 100
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, 5:47pm Post subject: |
|
|
High Card

Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 13 WPP: 202
|
|
| 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, 6:33pm Post subject: |
|
|
HABITUAL LINE-STEPPER

Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 4991 WPP: 73
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, 6:51pm Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind

Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 2852 WPP: 109
Location: searching for something...
|
|
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, 7:23pm 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, 8:01pm Post subject: |
|
|
Strike 1

Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 2075 WPP: 108
Location: Winston-Salem, North Carolina
|
|
| 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, 8:02pm Post subject: |
|
|
Strike 1

Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 2075 WPP: 108
Location: Winston-Salem, North Carolina
|
|
| 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: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 9:09pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House

Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 1309 WPP: 68
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: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 9:40pm Post subject: Re: "Going Pro" |
|
|
Straight

Joined: 28 Dec 2007
Posts: 192 WPP: 167
|
|
| 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: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 9:41pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House

Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 1015 WPP: 139
|
|
| 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: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 9:53pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1054 WPP: 89
|
|
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: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 9:57pm Post subject: |
|
|
Straight

Joined: 13 Nov 2005
Posts: 154 WPP: 100
Location: not playing much
|
|
| Having 3-6 months expenses saved is a pretty good standard for anyone, poker player or otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 10:01pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House

Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 1251 WPP: 83
Location: Sweden
|
|
| You can not quit a job and go pro with a $1100 bankroll. Insanity! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 19 Mar 2008, 10:55pm Post subject: |
|
|
Full House

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 731 WPP: 111
Location: Watching spoon stroke his own ego
|
|
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, 2:39am Post subject: |
|
|
Two Pair

Joined: 03 Aug 2005
Posts: 47 WPP: 115
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, 5:12am Post subject: |
|
|
Strike 1

Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 2075 WPP: 108
Location: Winston-Salem, North Carolina
|
|
|