Live data from Hacker News

Quitting the full-time poker scene

team-bhp.com

81–90 of 197 posts

Re: Quitting the full-time poker scene

#81
post #15

I played back during the glory days of 2000-2004 and through the net-teller shutdown for America. Back then the money was absolutely absurd, because the game was very new online and very few people understood basics. This combined with the massive amount of marketing that was going on for television, tons of people were addicted to the thrill of the game. Every single year the game became more difficult as more peopl…

Not much has changed in the current live poker meta. Yes, the average player may be better, but if you put in the consistent time to study/solvers/hand reviews, IMHO that puts you in the top 20 percentile. It's getting to the top 5-10 percentile that is killer. Ultimately, like life, the only true edge you can control is game selection. Hence, that Rounders quote that rings eternal: "Listen, here's the thing. If you…

[flagged]

Re: Quitting the full-time poker scene

#82
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Live poker is still quite soft. While you do have to be better compared to years past, it's also far easier to get better because you can study solvers. I used to be a "good but not great" online player, but the extent to which you could truly understand hands was limited due to the limitations of the software at the time (mostly equity calculators that could not truly calculate EV). That changed with the release of…

Yes, live poker is still pretty soft, and since the players are worse, your winrate and edge should be better. But then again, I'm not sure you can get enough hands/hour to be as profitable as an online player--everything is just so much slower. You could have a year long downswing live where, if that happened online you are probably just a losing player. So you need to spend all your time at the casinos. You can't m…

Well, there's obvious problems with online, starting with that it's technically illegal and unregulated in most US states, which is a pretty big one. Secondly, the rise of solvers and other AI have greatly increased the risk of your opponents using them to beat you (RTA aka real-time assistance). Besides that, many other forms of software assistance such as HUDs and database datamining were pretty much always accepted so if you don't want to do those things you're at a disadvantage. There's also serious risk of collusion , team play, card sharing, doubly so on unregulated sites.

It's hard to overstate the difference in skill between online and live. You see VERY weak players buying into games with $5k stacks live while online games with $200 buyins are considered very tough. Even regular players in high stakes live games make surprisingly fundamental mistakes, like checking back extremely strong hands on the river rather than betting them for value, or almost never bluffing.

I would say that if someone plays poker 20+ hours a week and has a losing year live they are also probably just a losing player. I'm friends with many live poker pros, and I've never heard of any of them having losing years. Obviously they pick games they know they can beat and mostly stick to them.

Tournament variance is extremely high and I think being a live tournament pro is unnecessarily risky unless you sell / swap action which most pros do. Or pray you run good and win one. But cash is a safer bet.

As far as spending all your time in a casino in order to make a living, that's basically the equivalent of spending all your time in an office, it's a job and you go to it. It certainly can be grindy. I understand it's not for everyone. But it's not super far removed from many other in-person jobs. And as others have said, it can actually be nicer than staring at a screen 10 hours a day, especially staring at a screen to play poker, because it has the social aspect with the other players and the dealers, the tactile aspect of the chips and the cards, etc.

I'm not advocating for anyone to become a live poker pro, certainly I'm sharing my project on hacker news with the hope that some "serious recreational" players take interest in it since very few poker pros lurk here. Most people should not play pro poker for various reasons - on Hacker News the obvious one being they can almost certainly make more money and easier money with plain software engineering, software engineering is generally more intellectually engaging, and also most people aren't mentally equipped to deal with the swings.

I'm mostly doing it currently because it's a niche that I understand well having done it in the past, and I wanted to do an indie software project and "make money playing poker to reduce my burn rate while building a poker blog and training app" has a natural synergy to it as an entry point into bootstrapped software entrepreneurship. Plus so far its my best received project, has a small but growing audience and respectable retention on the app despite it being an MVP.

Moreso than advocating people become live poker pros, I'm just noting that basically anyone who wants to can win a bunch of money at poker, if they're willing to study the massive amount of resources that exist now. Those resources always existed but the advent of solvers has changed those resources from "these are very good heuristics beating the games" to "this is the solution to the game under certain constraints".

Based on experience talking to "hacker news" type people, they tend to be introverted and so would strongly prefer the nature of online poker rather than casino poker, but I would again warn people that online games are both far tougher and require a lot of extra tooling and precautions that aren't necessary in a casino game.

Plus, at some point, in live poker, you get to put all the solver nonsense away and just look a man in the eye and decide if he's bluffing you or not :)

Re: Quitting the full-time poker scene

#83
I played for a living during 5 years in the early 90's. So before the Internet took off. Of course there were some differences with OP's situation, e.g. because games were scarce I didn't play only poker but also backgammon, and basically any other game that had any skill and could be played for money.

Like OP, I decided to become professional because of the freedom, but also because I just liked games. But after a couple of years these advantages start to fade away. First of all, you are not really free, especially when games are scarce: you have to be always available because if you miss a good game, it can take days before another one comes along. Also, the fun in playing games erodes if you play them day in day out. Also, like OP points out, variance is brutal. The downswings can wear you out, sometimes I had to take a few days to recover.

But the main reason I eventually switched to a career in IT was something that OP also mentions: the main skill in making a lot of money, especially in live games, is not how well you play, but how good you are in finding wealthy suckers that want to play against you. This part really put me off in the end, it just wasn't me.

Re: Quitting the full-time poker scene

#84
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not much has changed in the current live poker meta. Yes, the average player may be better, but if you put in the consistent time to study/solvers/hand reviews, IMHO that puts you in the top 20 percentile. It's getting to the top 5-10 percentile that is killer. Ultimately, like life, the only true edge you can control is game selection. Hence, that Rounders quote that rings eternal: "Listen, here's the thing. If you…

[flagged]

> This also applies to the crypto world, which, like poker, is zero-sum or worse.

Can we please avoid derailing this interesting topic by mentioning the inflammatory crypto scene?

We all know everything about it, and have all made up our minds about it, and no new information is being said about it.

Thank you!

Re: Quitting the full-time poker scene

#85
post #21

I find interesting that no one (yet) in OP or in the comments has talked about my main complaint about playing Poker as a living: it's a zero sum game where you basically only take money from other people. It's not productive. For me, that in itself is as depressing as the grind. But it appears most players don't really care about this, maybe because life oftentimes is not fair and thus being productive is not seen a…

The poker player is providing entertainment for others. It's really not much different than working on a company backed by a rich investor where the CEO skillfully plays their cards to maneuver more money out of the rich fish while the other players also try to get what they can out of them.

Poker players search for weak opponents to extract money from them in games where no one watches.

That is the income of full time poker players.

Re: Quitting the full-time poker scene

#86

What does this mean, I can't tell if it's a poker term or keyboard term "without tilting"

Going “on tilt” is when you make emotional decisions because you are chasing the wins or running from the losses.

Thanks! Makes sense. Looks specific to poker but I can see it easily applying to other parts of life too

Re: Quitting the full-time poker scene

#87
post #52
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> looking for soft players that I had datamined I knew someone on the other end of this. Back in the early 2000s, the wife of a guy I worked with fancied herself a decent poker player. She lost some non-trivial amount of money in an online game and was worried about telling her husband. So, she tried to win it back and lost even more. I think you know where this is going (if not, see Gambler's ruin). She lost all of…

This is why you always keep separate savings accounts away from a spouse.

> Help me get to 1000 karma and I’ll stop posting forever.

This beautiful, it has a hook in both directions. Like a little piece of art sitting here on the site.

Re: Quitting the full-time poker scene

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going “on tilt” is when you make emotional decisions because you are chasing the wins or running from the losses.

Thanks! Makes sense. Looks specific to poker but I can see it easily applying to other parts of life too

I suppose things like succumbing to the sunken cost fallacy would count?

Re: Quitting the full-time poker scene

#89
A few of my friends at uni were into poker. I started to get into it myself. But what really put me off was the game does not work without money. People can't seem to play poker just for fun and that makes it a thoroughly inferior game in my opinion. Also, I couldn't get people interested in anything except Texas Hold'em despite the fact 7 Card Stud is clearly a much better game.
Post reply on HN