Printable View
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?
x= $10
You're dumb.
Next.Quote:
(6:45:01 PM) ***euphoricism went pro way before 25nl :P
I'll give an example. Suppose you're in school and you only have about $400/month in bills. What happens then?
X is a constant, whereas poker is a variable.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Should we ask Y?
If you don't have something to contribute then shut the fuck up.Quote:
Originally Posted by seren
Going pro doesn't mean you can't go get a job if the poker thing doesn't work out.
I'd think that as long as you are bringing in enough money to pay your bills, live as comfortably as you would with a regular job, and still be adding to your bankroll to move up, then you are OK to try...but thats coming from a guy who is a long ways from that point
20 x 30 = 600
9 x 40 = 360
600 - 360 = 240
still no answer for X
Assuming no benefits from the job, playing poker is better in this case.
20x30x4=2400/mo
9x40x4=1440/mo
You also have to add in a factor to correct for some things in poker, variance being the greatest. Plus your taxes will suck a little more (you will probably pay more). The games might get harder, etc. So I multiply the 2400 by 0.8 and get 1920.
Next you have to figure out your monthly budget, bills plus irregular expenses plus lifestyle costs. If this number is less than 1920 (which it should be if you're only making 1440 a month now). Then you have to decide if the difference is enough. For example, if you're total expenses are 1200 a month, your difference would be 720, and your bankroll would grow this much per month allowing you to take shots and have more cushion. If however, you're bills are 1900/mo, then your BR will grow by 20 a month and you will pretty much grind 25nl forever.
So I'd say x = 1500. If you spend less than that a month (including everything) then go for it.
disclaimer: needless to say i'm oversimplifying a lot. you could find a better job, get sick of playing 30 hours a week plus the study it would take to stay sharp, etc.
If potentential income from poker is that significant (~1k$/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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry, but you're wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by seren
Yes, but you didn't answer the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
There's a reason I chose these particular variables. DOUCY?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
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.
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.
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...
Having 3-6 months expenses saved is a pretty good standard for anyone, poker player or otherwise.
You can not quit a job and go pro with a $1100 bankroll. Insanity!
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.
$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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swiggidy
I'm trying to reply to everyone, but if I miss you don't take it personally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daven
What if X is close to 0?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocco_Bill
But that's more than our current bankroll...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
This is the most logical response so far, imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by pgil
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)?Quote:
Originally Posted by d0zer
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dev
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dev
There's much more to it than the strict math, DOUCY?Quote:
Originally Posted by cowboyardee
The question is misleading with the "should" being in there instead of "when could".Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
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".
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
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dev
There's much more to it than the strict math, DOUCY?[/quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by cowboyardee
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasta
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.
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.
Nearly any discussion that involves paying anything with a credit card in this scenario is going to fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasta
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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
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.
Ignore those; I misunderstood the parameters of the original question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocco_Bill
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
This response reveals a bit about your misunderstanding, and I'll try to explain the best I can without coming across as condescending.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasta
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: :P
(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
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.
oh and sn/site.
+ HU4ROLLZ.
or should i say HU4CCs
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
So the answer is it's a trick question. We shouldn't be quitting our job and playing poker given the situation quoted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoonitnow
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
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 $8,500. With even half that much, your chance of staying the head and paying the bills is well over 99.9%.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
i gots a better solution. You say you has 8.5k limits , deposit 8k play 2 tables of NL5k , 4k at each table , double up twice , then you dont have to grind 194hr/month. If it faills just get another CC(s), and while you wait for the new CC(s) use the 500$ to pay for food/hookers.
But srsly spaghetti go for it. WHERE ARE YOU WITH UR NUMBERS SPOON
couple things that I don't think are being taken into account Re: using CC's to pay bills.
First, you realize that cash advances on CC's start to accrue interest immediately. And usually at a higher rate than purchases. So, you are starting off taking a hit there.
Second, by adding monthly CC bills to the occasion you are increasing your monthly expenses, or X, right off the bat. With the small starting bankroll this spells disaster.
Also, thinking long term. You will be stunting the growth of your bankroll by having to constantly withdraw from it. This stunts your progression up stakes, and stunts your potential earn. This could set you back a year or more from where you could be if you waited until properly rolled to take a shot at going pro.
If, instead of going pro immediately, you worked your soul-sucking job for 6 months while building a roll and moving up in stakes, you could conceivably be playing 100NL properly rolled, and earning much more than $20/hr. At that time, going pro can be done more easily. You should be able to have enough in reserve to cover a few months, while still having the bankroll to play properly.
By taking the shot too early and bringing in credit cards, you would severely reduce your chances of making a long-term living off of poker, and would increase your chances of going busto, and having CC debt to work off at your new $8/hr job.
Consider the following.
If a decent 25nl player started playing 25nl with about a $500 bankroll and ran 4.5 ptbb/100 over 30k hands, he will have around $1175. Getting 900 hands/hour (16-tabling) yields $20.25/hour. This fits the profile of the Hero we have mentioned in the original post. Over those 30k hands of 25nl, he or she will have stats similar to this:
35 hours played
4.5 ptbb/100 winrate
32 ptbb/100 standard deviation
What level of confidence can we have that Hero is a winning player?
Answer: No more than 59%.
So we have a 40% chance of going back to our $9/hour job with credit card debt.
This is the correct reply and thus concludes the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by pgil
by bills do you mean cost of living?
Yes. Cost of living would probably be a better wording for the purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Massimo
I guess I misunderstood the problem. I thought we knew could beat the game at $20/hr. Your point about uncertainty in win rates is something that I think anyone considering going pro would want to think long and hard about, but I thought we assumed this out of the problem. How do you do this calculation, btw?
Also, I did not think we had the option of building our bankroll for 6 months, since we only were interested in finding the current value of X. Of course, if you have the option of waiting until you have a bigger roll with a buffer to pay bills, you definitely should.
I was imagining a player with closer to 300k hands of history that, for whatever reason, had spent most of the money he made. I also had in mind a player that was playing fewer tables with a win rate around 8ptbb/100. This player is in a vastly different situation than the player you had in mind.
going pro is overrated.
So the value of X is irrelevant.
Miffed is back, Miffed is back, Miffed is back!!!!!!
yo, what's crackin' Miffed?
Fun one spoon. Here's my take.
Hero needs to plan only making about $5 an hour to cover expenses, so assuming 70 hours of poker per week, $350 can be life expense. The other $15 an hour goes to downswings, building bankroll, paying taxes, etc.
The other consideration is whether, if times get rough, hero can play 90 or 100 hours in a week at his best level - all while running bad. If he's running bad, he will have to keep playing well and play more hands to make ends meet.
Of course, there are safer ways, like earning $600 bucks a week for a month playing poker 30 hours while keeping the job and launching the pro career 4 weeks late. But that wasn't the question.
So X = $350 / week. Which is less than he's making now with the day job, although it appears we're assuming $9 an hour is take home pay.
In all honesty, the point of this thread was as follows.
In the past week I've heard at least 4 different people talk about how they should quit their job and "go pro" at 25nl just because over a relatively small sample they've made approximately twice at 25nl that they do at their job.
Unfortunately none of those people posted in this thread, but I'll refer them to it the next time I see them.
Is it safe to say that you would want at the absolute minimum 200k hands of history at 8ptbb/100 or 400k hands at 4ptbb/100 before you could ever quit your job, regardless of bankroll?
there is probably no ftr member, ever, who as attained either of those milestones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasta
Why the fuck would you play that many hands of 25nl and not move up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasta
I might come close to the 400k at +4ptbb/100 at 100nl before it's over with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
i think a notable sample showing you earn $100 per hour is more realistic and achievable for anyone who has expectations of going pro.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasta
As long as we can define "notable sample" (10k? 50k? 100k?) this makes the answer so much simpler.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miffed22001
I think having a job is overrated, so the value of X is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miffed22001
I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miffed22001
do you guys ever see beyond the end of next year?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I did closer to 6ptbb/100 over 400k hands. Sorry I don't mean to brag, but what you say is simply false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miffed22001
yup
much beyond
so why are you quitting to go pro now when the money you are putting away to create the rest of your life with is pitifully small, and not enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Going Pro is about creating savings and buying houses etc not just earning enough to pay the rent for the month like a large majority of 'pro's' on here do, except the notable exceptions ofc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miffed22001
Yeah, I remember a thread at 2+2 about being pro and someone smart (nycballer I think) said "the best pros here will be making less than 20% of their income from poker in 10 years time".Quote:
Originally Posted by Miffed22001
Go pro when you feel confident enough to be able to pay for everything on a constant basis with your winnings.
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.
I went pro when I got fired from work for skipping work to play poker. I recommend this method.
I dunno personally I'd prefer to win all the money I wanted first (say enough for 6 months) then quit. Seems like as soon as poker becomes a job it'd start sucking ass.