MoChipsPlese 0 Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 Just found myself thinking about the term 'Professional' Poker Player since more and more people seem to be calling themselves that these days. It was brought to light by a short conversation with an acquaintance who said he was quitting his job and becoming a pro. I thought to myself "WTF are you smoking dude? Have you ever had a winning month let-alone a year since you took up the game 'cause I haven't seen it?" Instead of voicing these thoughts however I just smiled and said "Wow, sounds interesting. Good luck!" Maybe I shoulda said something but some people just don't want to hear critical reasoning. Anyway, it got me wondering about the rest of the "pro's" out there and the actual definition of a professional.I thought that this definition made the most sense when talking about the poker industry and its professionals:"a person who earns a living in a sport or other occupation frequently engaged in by amateurs: eg. a golf professional."The phrase 'earns a living" is what I am focussing on. Can a losing player that has to keep being staked and/or paying off debts/loans truely call themselves a professional? Can a player who wins one large tourney, quits their job and only plays poker year after year call themselves a professional, even if they never have a winning year again? (i.e. they just made enough money in that one tourney to live without working a normal 9-5 job) Money from endorsements don't count otherwise Anna Kournikova was a pro and my question becomes moot.Should a guy/girl who wins the lotto, quits their job and lives off that win call themselves a "professional gambler"?What I'm getting at, I suppose, is that maybe there should be some type of initiation or time line of actually "earning a living" solely playing poker before someone can call themselves a professional. I think it would legitimize the profession and those "true" pro's that are actually doing it.What say you? Link to post Share on other sites
Ben_G 0 Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 I say you have too much spare time! Link to post Share on other sites
chgocubs99 0 Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 I think it's a pretty interesting topic but I am way too many beers in to make a serious contribution, but I hope others do. Link to post Share on other sites
fatman 1 Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 I think it's a pretty interesting topic but I am way too many beers in to make a serious contribution, but I hope others do. Link to post Share on other sites
DavidG 0 Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 Just found myself thinking about the term 'Professional' Poker Player since more and more people seem to be calling themselves that these days. It was brought to light by a short conversation with an acquaintance who said he was quitting his job and becoming a pro. I thought to myself "WTF are you smoking dude? Have you ever had a winning month let-alone a year since you took up the game 'cause I haven't seen it?" Instead of voicing these thoughts however I just smiled and said "Wow, sounds interesting. Good luck!" Maybe I shoulda said something but some people just don't want to hear critical reasoning. Anyway, it got me wondering about the rest of the "pro's" out there and the actual definition of a professional.I thought that this definition made the most sense when talking about the poker industry and its professionals:"a person who earns a living in a sport or other occupation frequently engaged in by amateurs: eg. a golf professional."The phrase 'earns a living" is what I am focussing on. Can a losing player that has to keep being staked and/or paying off debts/loans truely call themselves a professional? Can a player who wins one large tourney, quits their job and only plays poker year after year call themselves a professional, even if they never have a winning year again? (i.e. they just made enough money in that one tourney to live without working a normal 9-5 job) Money from endorsements don't count otherwise Anna Kournikova was a pro and my question becomes moot.Should a guy/girl who wins the lotto, quits their job and lives off that win call themselves a "professional gambler"?What I'm getting at, I suppose, is that maybe there should be some type of initiation or time line of actually "earning a living" solely playing poker before someone can call themselves a professional. I think it would legitimize the profession and those "true" pro's that are actually doing it.What say you? I asked my mom to write me a note but she just kicked me in the *** and told me to get a life! Link to post Share on other sites
chgocubs99 0 Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 I asked my mom to write me a note but she just kicked me in the *** and told me to get a life!lol? Link to post Share on other sites
FoxwoodsPro 0 Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 i used to be now ISAL and contimplating robbing a arabs convenience store Link to post Share on other sites
Pan 0 Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 Anna Kournikova was a hell of a doubles player. Link to post Share on other sites
redman311 0 Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 man im with these guys like 12 beers is way too mcuh to be bullshiting some1 2nite Link to post Share on other sites
Royal_Tour 0 Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 The term "pro" is lame. I think if you pay taxes on your winnings because your poker winnigs are your sole income, than you are a fulltime poker player.If you play circuit events and have POY points and play poker as fulltime income, you could be considered a poker pro i guess. but who cares. Link to post Share on other sites
mctrahan 0 Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 It's all about win-rate baby. Track your hours/hands played and how much you've won/lost vs. that. If you can clear more than you make at your day job per hour over about 2,000 hours live or 50,000 hands online (about 800 table hours) then you can consider quitting your job. Otherwise you're just holding dead money for better players. Also wise to have at least 6-8 months of bills saved up outside of your bankroll if you're considering full-time playing.I think bankroll should (at least) match or exceed the "emergency bill fund" and your stakes should definitely be appropriate to your bankroll. If you can't match the win-rate needed to keep yourself afloat then you need to reconsider your "profession" or your bankroll management skills.And those who say they're "pro" poker players because they won a tourney and got a big cash but have few results since......????They're not doing it for a living, they just don't have to show up to their jobs for awhile. Big difference (I really like the lottery reference btw). Link to post Share on other sites
mlholtzman 0 Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 As far as I can tell, to be a 'semi-pro' poker player, you need to call yourself a 'semi-pro'. to be a 'pro', well, then you need to quit your day job.Seriously, though, it's just a name. I've seen lots of people playing in casinos who call themselves 'pro poker players' just because they don't have any other job, and it seems like everyone who has ever had a winning year calls themselves a 'semi-pro'. In the end, I don't really think it counts for much. Link to post Share on other sites
looshle 6 Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 It's all about win-rate baby. Track your hours/hands played and how much you've won/lost vs. that. If you can clear more than you make at your day job per hour over about 2,000 hours live or 50,000 hands online (about 800 table hours) then you can consider quitting your job. Otherwise you're just holding dead money for better players. Also wise to have at least 6-8 months of bills saved up outside of your bankroll if you're considering full-time playing.I think bankroll should (at least) match or exceed the "emergency bill fund" and your stakes should definitely be appropriate to your bankroll. If you can't match the win-rate needed to keep yourself afloat then you need to reconsider your "profession" or your bankroll management skills.And those who say they're "pro" poker players because they won a tourney and got a big cash but have few results since......????They're not doing it for a living, they just don't have to show up to their jobs for awhile. Big difference (I really like the lottery reference btw).Yea, Alvarado, jigs up. We're not buying it. Link to post Share on other sites
Czech Razor 0 Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 Yea, Alvarado, jigs up. We're not buying it.Heh. +1. Link to post Share on other sites
a__thekevlar__2 0 Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 i didnt read the thread yet, but i have to say the title made me giggle Link to post Share on other sites
jmbreslin 0 Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 The term professional doesn't really make sense in the context of poker for one main reason: there is no such thing as an amateur poker player in the same way that there are amateur athletes (who don't get paid to compete). The only true equivalent would be people who play poker solely for play money, but there aren't many of those around. Thus, you can't really "turn pro" as a poker player in the way that other athletes turn pro. When people call themselves professional poker players or say they are turning pro, what they basically mean is that they are relying on (or are going to try to rely on) poker as their main source of income. I don't think you necessarily have to play poker full time to be a "pro" - someone might hold down a part time job while filling the rest of their time with poker, or perhaps work in an industry where they may work for only a few months out of the year and play poker the rest. Link to post Share on other sites
SpiderGuard 0 Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 Anna Kournikova was a hell of a doubles player.#1 in the world for a while, and was a top ten singles player in the world. She's always used as an example for style over substance, and shouldn't be. She's insanely hot, but was also a hell of a tennis player for a while (including an overall winning record at all four Grand Slams). She's not nearly the same as amateur poker player who makes a donkstrike to win a huge tournament. Link to post Share on other sites
HangukMiguk 8 Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 Anna Kournikova was a hell of a doubles player.TPIWWP. Link to post Share on other sites
Jam-Fly 8 Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 i used to be now ISAL and contimplating robbing a arabs convenience storeAn arabs, it's "an" when it comes before a vowel.Your right, you do SAL Link to post Share on other sites
DavidG 0 Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 #1 in the world for a while, and was a top ten singles player in the world. She's always used as an example for style over substance, and shouldn't be. She's insanely hot, but was also a hell of a tennis player for a while (including an overall winning record at all four Grand Slams). She's not nearly the same as amateur poker player who makes a donkstrike to win a huge tournament.She was never number 1 in the world with ZERO career singles titles. Her and Martina Hingis were ranked #1 as doubles partners. Kinda like Penn & Teller. Let's be realistic, she made the high majority of her money through endorsements, and riding the skort hem of Martina. Lindsay Davenport is a prime example at 51 career titles who made her living playing the game and not through endorsements.As far as doubles play is concerned, I think anyone could have won with Martina Hingis as their partner. I call that donking your way through a tennis career. Link to post Share on other sites
Czech Razor 0 Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 An arabs, it's "an" when it comes before a vowel.Your right, you do SALHe's not the only one, buddy ... Link to post Share on other sites
SpiderGuard 0 Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 She was never number 1 in the world with ZERO career singles titles. Her and Martina Hingis were ranked #1 as doubles partners. Kinda like Penn & Teller. Let's be realistic, she made the high majority of her money through endorsements, and riding the skort hem of Martina. Lindsay Davenport is a prime example at 51 career titles who made her living playing the game and not through endorsements.As far as doubles play is concerned, I think anyone could have won with Martina Hingis as their partner. I call that donking your way through a tennis career.Did you read the post I quoted, or are you just going to pull **** out of context? The original post I quoted was something like "She was a hell of a doubles player." To which I responded "She was #1 in the world." Thanks for arguing a point I never made though.Also, she made it to women's doubles tournament finals with 8 different partners. And two mixed doubles Grand Slam finals witih two different partners.But yeah, she sucked. 3 years as a top 20 ranked singles player, all of those doubles achievements...she's not an all-time great by any stretch of the imagination, but she was a hell of a player in her day. Link to post Share on other sites
jmbreslin 0 Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 #1 in the world for a while, and was a top ten singles player in the world. She's always used as an example for style over substance, and shouldn't be. She's insanely hot, but was also a hell of a tennis player for a while (including an overall winning record at all four Grand Slams). She's not nearly the same as amateur poker player who makes a donkstrike to win a huge tournament.It doesn't take much at all to have an overall winning record since you can't lose more than one match in a tournament. Someone who gets knocked out in the 3rd round of every tourney will still have an overall winning record.The problem with Kournikova is that she was seen as having huge potential to be one of the top contenders in the game, and yet she couldn't even consistently make it deep into major tourneys (she has a whole lot of 4th round Grand Slam finishes to her credit). Link to post Share on other sites
Eleusis 2 Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 What if you're 34 with a pregnant wife and have a note from her? What if at 35 with a baby, you're steadily winning, bringing home $3k/month (every month) with a $30k bankroll built from $100?What if then you go busto because you're an ******* who can't control himself when you get really really drunk?What if now you play freerolls for fun, win $3 here and there, run that up to $200 or so.... then get really really drunk again, and lose it in two hours?What if you're now back in school to become a residential real estate appraiser with a hobby?WHAT THEN? HUH!?!?!? Link to post Share on other sites
pragtyro 0 Posted June 24, 2007 Share Posted June 24, 2007 Not as many pros 'quit their job to play full time' as everyone seems to think, a helluva lot of us lost our jobs involuntarily and were more or less 'forced' into it (though sometimes with little resistance). I do have a note from H&R Block though :icon_dance:And it's "Arab's" since the store belongs to him. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now