James Vogl
19 points
Yes, I meant it was nor right for me. Anyone feel free to do what they are happy and comfortable with.
But I would add, (and this is in response to Zenfish also), that morality issues aside, from my experience you see very few pros that over a long period are particularly satisfied. I can count on one hand the number of successful pros with a happy family (understood, not for everyone), but also due to the binary nature of the game, ten years and millions of hands later, you may not find poker quite as captivating as you do now.
Sept. 8, 2014 | 8:43 p.m.
Great article. However, it does not at all address the main point Colman was trying to make by declining to give an interview, according to his 2+2 post... That poker has a darker side and that net, poker players are losers financially and emotionally.
Poker is a zero sum game, so after rake, the poker playing community must overall lose money. Television shows or the wider poker press never mention this. One sees leaderboards in total tournament prize winnings, but have you ever come across net winnings? Subtract all non-cashing entry fees over the years (yet alone including travel expenses), and I doubt more than 15 percent of players are net positive.
What percentage of online or live players in cash games are winners? I have no idea but I would estimate 10% at best. So where is the poker press or glamorisation of those 90% of losers? Perhaps the vast majority enjoy their poker experience and view their losses as a cost of entertainment like any other. But what about the small minority of players who have gone broke and ruined their life from poker gambling losses?
Professional poker players may view themselves as entertainers. Perhaps though, digging deeper, on reflectional, pros are vultures that exploit weakness to "grind" money from "fish". Have you ever thought about how disgusting those two terms are at heart?
To me, like his game theory beautiful poker playing, Colman is being totally logical. He plays, enjoys, and benefits from exploiting the game but sees no upside in advertising poker.
Aside from the financial aspects, Colman made an incredibly insightful point in his 2+2 post... Poker is not a constructive use of time. Pro or amateur, a large minority become addicted and absorbed by what is in essence just a card game. Hours upon hours of your life may be passed away sitting huddled around a poker table surrounded by a majority of other men or sitting solitary clicking a mouse button. This is time spent away from family and friends or time taken away from spending or doing or creating anything productive.
I was a poker pro back in the day and enjoyed the game immensely. However, there was always an angst in the forefront of my mind that playing poker for a living, even if successful, was not the right way to spend a life.
After a winning session against a poor player but a successful businessman, we had dinner together. I will never forget what he told me, "James, there are no winners in poker. The losers lose and the winners, if they are smart enough to make a living playing poker, could make infinitely more in other endeavours in life."
I am not so puritanical as to criticize anyone that wants to gamble with their own money and I still enjoy playing at relatively high stakes as a hobby, but I totally agree with Colman, who has no interest in essentially helping advertise gambling and promoting onlike poker sites via the television networks.
Grafton's article makes very valid points but does not at all address the more negative sides to poker that Colman did not want to promote. He made his point ingeniously via his silence after scaling the peak of the game. Colman, unwillingly has become a poker role model.
Sept. 7, 2014 | 6:44 a.m.
Is there anyway you clever people at runitonce could come up with a hand replayer for the forums where users could enter the action step by step like using a hand analyser and others could then watch an animation of the hand play out.
Posters could leave question marks at various stages with options and members could vote on their play. A distribution poll will give a good idea of consensus answers and there would still be the same comment/discussions below.
Www.bridgewinners.com is using this model. Problems are shown on a standardised diagram and the voting polls really get members more involved.
Feb. 2, 2013 | 6:05 p.m.
Feb. 2, 2013 | 5:04 p.m.
Jan. 7, 2013 | 3:38 p.m.
Jan. 7, 2013 | 8:52 a.m.
Jan. 7, 2013 | 8:49 a.m.
Jan. 5, 2013 | 6:02 p.m.
Jan. 5, 2013 | 5:54 p.m.
1999/2002 - I studied economics at LSE but spent the vast majority of my time playing backgammon and poker, live then online and travelling to major tournis across the world. I wanted to turn pro but my parents pleaded with me to complete my degree so I did.
2002/2004 - Pro backgammon and poker, won a bracelet in my first WSOP event. Poker was just taking off and it was lucrative and the lifestyle was a lot of fun.
2004 - Job offer from Goldman Sachs to trade equities. This was the toughest decision I ever had to make. I was under a lot of pressure from my parents and a serious girlfriend at the time to get a "legitimate job". Poker was going well though and i had a decent sponsorship offer from a big site. In the end I thought trading may be fun too and a lot more lucrative and respectable if it went well and so I took the job thinking poker would always be there if it didn't work out but if I didn't give trading a try I may never have another chance like it.
I have been trading ever since and am now a portfolio manager at a large hedge fund. I have played basically no tournaments since 2004 but still play some relatively high stakes live cash games probably once a month or so.
I am not one for regrets but I often think how things would have turned out if I carried on with the poker instead of the route I chose.
In some respects, I was wrong as poker as I knew it would not always be there to return to in the future: If I approximate my expectancy was $500k/year in 2004 and perhaps even higher for the next 5 glory years of poker, i doubt it would be more than 100k these days. I went back to Vegas only once for WSOP in 2009 I think and at 29 I was one of the oldest at the table and all these kids were talking of "floating flops" to "jam the turn" at the table!... educating everyone else. These were not ideas that the vast majority of players knew about even when I was winning yet alone having their own terminology. Backgammon used to be lucrative and there were huge skill differentials. Then a program called Jellyfish came along that morphed into Snowie then XGgammon and now the game has basically been solved. Everyone can now learn from playing the bot and improve their game to near enough a world class level. One has to use the machine to be competitive and as everyone does there is basically no skill differential between anyone anymore. Backgammon for money is now dead as the weaker players have been crushed by the know all pros and one can't play online as someone could use a machine to cheat. Poker is heading the same way. Eventually there will be a bot and it will kill the game. Intellectually this site is fantastic but with everyone learning so much so easily without paying for their mistakes the playing field will become narrower day by day. When I used to play live at a casino an average game would be 5 amateurs 2 solid players and 2 pros. Now, for any decent stake it is 7 pros, 1 solid player and 1 amateur. As poker is a zero sum game, it will become even more of a dog eat dog world and i can not see how your yearly win rate can ever expect to increase (perhaps for a year or two if the US online is opened up). Going forward it will reduce and reduce until it wont be worthwhile. Sure there may be one or two Phil's out there but the rest of you who think you are clever earning say 200k a year now will probably be on minimum wage equiv within 5 years. Backgammon died around 2000, sadly poker is heading that way.
Life is not just about money. Poker is great when you are in your twenties but after that it is not much of a life. How many poker pros do you know that have a happy family life and are not divorced after more than ten years of marriage? A handful. Sitting 60 hours a week around a table with 8 or 9 other men, or playing alone on a laptop, eventually however much you love the game, you will get bored and it may become a job like any other. One of the biggest arguments for being a poker pro is that you can work when you want and be a free spirit. PLEASE. I have not met one top player that doesn't dedicate their entire life to playing and thinking about the game and put in a lot more hours than they would if they had any conventional job. The difference is that few think of poker as work, they think of it as a game. Therefore perhaps the key is to find a job or career that you enjoy and don't think of as work. They are out there. (not sure I felt this way when I joined GS and had to be on the trading floor at 6am and go get coffee for my boss).
Don't get me wrong, poker has it's attractions and I often am jealous of my friends who continued and are at the top of the game now and are semi-celebrities even. If you are great and love it that much and don't have a lot of other opportunities go for it. Just think long term about what kind of life it really is to be a poker pro forever and cut your options down for later before you make the move.
ps. if you are interested in trading I highly recommend you read "market wizards" and "new market wizards" by Jack Schwager. It is a collection of interviews with the worlds top traders. There are numerous analogies between poker players and the traders and there is even one chapter where a top trader hired a bunch of games players he called "the turtles" to see if he could train them.
pps. the level of thinking on this site is superb and if you can take poker so seriously in such a professional and analytical manner, I am sure you will have a mind and work ethic to crush almost any endeavor.
ppps. you can still be a winning poker player and will probably enjoy the game more when you do play, without being a full time professional.
Jan. 5, 2013 | 10:40 a.m.
I made the move from poker into trading back in 2004 and think there is the highest skill crossover there. However, it is super competitive, you need a degree and be lucky to get a first job in the current environment and then work incredibly hard at it for a long time to get anywhere.
Jan. 5, 2013 | 8:53 a.m.
You are in year 1. Switch to a 3 year course rather than 4. (Standard in UK). Holidays are almost half the year so you can play poker all that time.
Net you are then giving up about 1 year to leave your options open.
How much is your realistic expectations you can make in 1 year extra playing? If it is not life changing it is a no brainer to finish your degree.
Jan. 5, 2013 | 7:43 a.m.
Woody Deck, remind me am racking my brain here. 10 years is a long time????
Good point on not everyone having the same opportunities I had. And yes, poker can be great for some people. Phil Laak reminds me every time I see him! However, opportunity or not, the path of least resistance may not be the optimal one. At the grand old age of 31, I am sure there is plenty of time for one of your businesses to cash.
Sept. 12, 2014 | 7:25 p.m.