contrarian thinking here

[Fullhouse7 0]

Tired of threads that talk about successes---read cradplayer mag and get the truth that so FEW win OVER THE LONG RUN---start being honest. That said, read Cardplayer this month:The best of these players often make more money over the course of time than some of the “TV superstars” (the truth be told, some of the TV superstars have no money). That said, this business model is more like a job, with the need to grind out a living day in and day out, week in and week out, year in and year out. I'm just tired of all the BS about how ppl make a living---sorry to bust your bubble.Fullhouse7 :wall:

[crocd99 0]

can you post the link

[zimmer4141 0]

So if I read your post correctly, you explain that everybody who wants to make a living playing poker should just give up because it is not possible. Hey DN, better get a day job before they're all taken!

[PrtyPSux 0]

So if I read your post correctly, you explain that everybody who wants to make a living playing poker should just give up because it is not possible. Hey DN, better get a day job before they're all taken!

no he's saying that ONLY people DN can make a living out of poker. and its true, so everyone should stop trying. All I see now is a bunch of stupid twenty year olds trying to become "rounders" just because they think its "easy"....stupid kids.major sw

[pogiolithis 0]

So if I read your post correctly, you explain that everybody who wants to make a living playing poker should just give up because it is not possible.  Hey DN, better get a day job before they're all taken!

What's up with always coming off like a complete dck? I think it's a good post (would like the link too.) While I agree that very few can "make it" in the poker world on the level of say a DN or even in the top 100, I disagree that you should give it up. I think it would be better to ride it out and not quite school or you day job. Like Howard Ledder said on "Play with the Pro's" a few weeks back. "...most top players spent at least 10 years trying to go pro..." something to that effect.

[Fullhouse7 0]

Here's the link: http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/a....php?a_id=15055Fullhouse7 :wall:

[Hyaku-Shiki 0]

Um.....so?

[Jeepster80125 0]

Tired of threads that talk about successes---read cradplayer mag and get the truth that so FEW win OVER THE LONG RUN---start being honest. That said, read Cardplayer this month:The best of these players often make more money over the course of time than some of the “TV superstars” (the truth be told, some of the TV superstars have no money). That said, this business model is more like a job, with the need to grind out a living day in and day out, week in and week out, year in and year out. I'm just tired of all the BS about how ppl make a living---sorry to bust your bubble.Fullhouse7 :wall:

Your tired of people saying they make money over the long run, right?I think that 20% of the players at any given level will make the majority of the money at those limits.Well, you are probably correct in stating that people say they make more money than they do, or break-even players say they make lots of money, etc etc. I disagree in the fact that I think there are a lot of very good poker players here, and elsewhere, at all limits.Look at Teneight. I hate him because he likes the raiders (I refuse to capitalize that). sw. Correct me if I am wrong, but he just won $37K for finishing first in an online tourney. As big of a slut as Royal is, He is dominating his heads up SNGs. Start at www.thepokerchronicles.com or http://www.mattmatros.com/journal.htm, and look at blogs from there. Lots of winners.Lots of liars here as well. So I guess I agree and I disagree.

[Fullhouse7 0]

Another interesting link--watch the short video and the 3 radio shows are interesting, as well:http://www.pokerbustouts.com/content.phpI'm not saying there are no winners, but I also believe IN THE LONG RUN the variance returns to the mean or worse. I just posted this because I think an element of balance needs to be presented. Too many see the glamour from TV and don't know what a grind this lifestyle is like.Fullhouse7 :wall:

[alf13 0]

OH...it's a grind.....But if you dedicate yourself to being a good player and really work at your craft you can make a living....I have....a modest one...yes...but a living nonetheless.I still hedge my bets though...I still work about 15 hours a week to have some steady income...I do understand that not everybody can work a handful of hours a week and still make enough to pay the bills with those hours....so my poker winnings are all GRAVY....so I may be one of the lucky ones...As for Zimmer being a dik....he is hardly a dik.....a pus.s.y...yes....but a dik.....no. :wink: Hey Zimm...are you old enough to play in next year's WSOP?

[Sushiman 0]

Poker to make a living = grind.Poker as a nice 2nd income = win.

[agsa6079 0]

I posted a link a while back that showed a stat of less then 20% of all registered OL poker players show a profit over the course of a year. I know quite a few people who budget $100 a month to deposit OL, and NEED to every month. They claim they are winning players because they hit a SNG or place in the $ in a tourney every now and then. While OL poker has changed the face of the game, one thing that hasn't changed is the more people who play, the more people will lose. If <20% are winners, that makes the other 80+% losers. Doesn't matter if it's 80% of 100,00 or 1,000,000.

[Fullhouse7 0]

Like to know where u found 20% or so win on-line. I doubt it's that high over a year stretch---but, I acknowledge I could be wrong. Especially with rebuys to their accounts, are u saying that the same 20% win---statistically I would disagree. In video mentioned above within my post, Tomer Venvenisti (spelling?) said he thought 5% make any money OVER THE COURSE OF TIME. I can't prove that, but I would tend to agree.Fullhouse7 :wall:

[Sushiman 0]

I posted a link a while back that showed a stat of less then 20% of all registered OL poker players show a profit over the course of a year. I know quite a few people who budget $100 a month to deposit OL, and NEED to every month. They claim they are winning players because they hit a SNG or place in the $ in a tourney every now and then. While OL poker has changed the face of the game, one thing that hasn't changed is the more people who play, the more people will lose. If <20% are winners, that makes the other 80+% losers. Doesn't matter if it's 80% of 100,00 or 1,000,000.

Most of the online players are losers. How is this news? I don't think anyone here has the illusion that it is easy to make a living playing online poker.A lot of the winners are winners only in the sense that they do every monthly reload and get rakeback. If you take these things away the winners circle would go way down. I know tons of people in college who claim to be live/online winners, yet can't answer a question about thier bb/hr win rate or specific profits. When all your financial records on detailed on a site's cashier history and you'd rather guess that you're a winner instead of checking the numbers, there's something off.

[blueodum 0]

I've been playing about 30 hours a week online since June of this year. I keep records of my profits and losses for each site I play at, updated daily.I take advantage (though not full advantage) of bonuses. Basically bonuses and rakeback are nothing more and nothing less than discounts on rake. If you are a losing player you'd still be losing money even with bonuses and rakeback.I'm not going to say I'm a long-term winning player just yet (after only 5 months), but I've made decent profits playing 5/10 or lower limit HE.Assuming about 5% of players are long-term winners, it still adds up to a lot considering the number of active poker players worldwide (probably 50-70 million).

[Fullhouse7 0]

I was saying OVERALL 5% win----don't mean to sound too pessismistic. Interesting how one poster said he can't get straight answers to win rate/ BB win rate/hour from his college buddies----THAT'S MY POINT. I think most overestimate their "profit" and also overestimate their bad beats (BUT NOT LOSSES). Again, YES there are winners, but variance is a terrible witch that tends to be overlooked. I loved Raymer's comment and said here in other poster's comments very eloquently (paraphrased), "It's not how I played that hand, IT"S THE OVERALL RESULT." Likewise, the corollary to that logic is---"It's NOT this session, BUT how I played OVER TIME." This also goes to the Tuan Le's, whose aggressive play has them win 2 tourneys in a short period of time through aggressive play---but, IMHO will be a railbird in a few year's time. Also, to buttress this argument---who the hell was Joe Hachem, Greg Raymer, Chris Moneymaker, and Robert Varkonyi prior to their Big wins-----(yes---some of these players were quite good in local games, esp. Raymer) but it calls into question my original premise-------OVER THE LONG HAUL, how many are truly winners?Fullhouse7 :wall:

[agsa6079 0]

Like to know where u found 20% or so win on-line. I doubt it's that high over a year stretch---but, I acknowledge I could be wrong. Especially with rebuys to their accounts, are u saying that the same 20% win---statistically I would disagree. In video mentioned above within my post, Tomer Venvenisti (spelling?) said he thought 5% make any money OVER THE COURSE OF TIME. I can't prove that, but I would tend to agree.Fullhouse7 :wall:

It was less than 20%, and it was cited in one of the industry mags I get, I'll look it up. I'm in agreement with you dude, relax. I find it most annoying when people I know are losers tell me about how much they've won. If everyone who said they were a winning player was, no one would be losing.As for the 20%, it simply means what it says; of the millions of people who play poker OL since they started keeping inhouse stats on players, less than 20% show true winnings. I don't know if year in and year out the same people comprise that <20%.I get your take on the long run, my stats track my game going back to 1993. It may be hard for a lot of people here to grasp that poker, keeping records and stats, knowing how to calculate odds and whatnot predate 1999 (or 2001). I also notice that a good number of players today ignore this factor, living in the here and now. Which is cool for them, it just isn't my bag. Plus, I think the game will suffer because of this attitude. But that's just my take on it.

[Municipal Hare 0]

I don't pay contrarians to think.In fact... I don't pay them at all!

[PA32R 0]

I don't know. I started playing online in July of this year (though I've been playing in the California clubs since 1980) and using Poker Tracker since August. I play almost exclusively at Party Poker, 1/2 LHE (where, by the way, I played 100 or so hands with jfarrell the other night).I don't play a spectacular amount of hands per week, but in the 30,000 hands I've played since starting PT, I've played against 4,465 different players. The largest number of hands I've played with a particular player is 1,024 and the smallest is one. Of these players, 40.29% have won money in the total time I've been in games with them. The average "win rate" of all players in all hands I've played tracked by Poker Tracker, in BB/100, is -2.78.I know there are many flaws in trying to extrapolate these statistics to the universe of online poker players, but it is evidence that there may be a greater number of winners than 5%.

[Socrates 0]

Tired of threads that talk about successes---read cradplayer mag and get the truth that so FEW win OVER THE LONG RUN---start being honest.  That said, read Cardplayer this month:The best of these players often make more money over the course of time than some of the “TV superstars” (the truth be told, some of the TV superstars have no money). That said, this business model is more like a job, with the need to grind out a living day in and day out, week in and week out, year in and year out.  I'm just tired of all the BS about how ppl make a living---sorry to bust your bubble.Fullhouse7  :wall:

The problem with your logic here is that you assume all players are as good as those who hang out on message forums that discuss poker and strategy. For every 1 poster in our strat section, there is probably 5000 donkeys on a poker site somewhere giving their money away. Those who say they make a decent living are most likely not lying, they just happen to be informed players. YOur experimental sample (using poker message bord posters) is flawed. You need to find a few thousand random "poker" players and get responses from them.With that said - I sense some bitterness in your post towards winning players.

[kennyg1966 0]

I don't know. I started playing online in July of this year (though I've been playing in the California clubs since 1980) and using Poker Tracker since August. I play almost exclusively at Party Poker, 1/2 LHE (where, by the way, I played 100 or so hands with jfarrell the the other night).I don't play a spectacular amount of hands per week, but in the 30,000 hands I've played since starting PT, I've played against 4,465 different players. The largest number of hands I've played with a particular player is 1,024 and the smallest is one. Of these players, 40.29% have won money in the total time I've been in games with them. The average "win rate" of all players in all hands I've played tracked by Poker Tracker, in BB/100, is -2.78.I know there are many flaws in trying to extrapolate these statistics to the universe of online poker players, but it is evidence that there may be a greater number of winners than 5%.

i cannot back this up with anything...but i would be suprised if it was higher than 5%but ya never know

[Petoria 0]

I love play pokah. As for winning or losing, I suppose that I'm winning money bc I've never deposited into any online sites. Yet I now make my living part time doing that. Poker is a grind. I think the only way to be consistently successful is to have proper bankroll management. Without that, being a long term winner is impossible. I wonder how many players actually use bankroll management.The problem with statistics is that you can make them mean anything. There are 100's of thousands of online poker players and most of them dont take it seriously. If you're using all online players as your population for these statistics, then of course the number is going to be low. If you can use all players who play for a living, as a sample, I'd like to know how many of them are long term winners. The problem is that all online players are not equal. Swish. :-)

[Fullhouse7 0]

No, no anger in my post---just believe most are not anywhere near their supposed win postings or BB/hr over time (LONGER THAN 1 year). Appreciate the thoughts posted.Fullhouse7 :wall: