Can I make a living playing poker with my current plan?

[SELFMADE]

I am deciding on whether to play poker for a living. I have classes from Mon to Thurs, so I'll most likely be playing Thurs to Sunday (half day on Thurs maybe). I'll play live poker in a casino which is located 30-45min shuttle ride. Shuttle is free, plus I'll be bringing my own meals so the overhead cost is almost non-existent and I will keep the tips to minimum. Half the players that play live seem to be weak. Other half seem to have some fundamental knowledge about poker. Field is very different in online poker.

Do I have a sound, tested, 100% reliable plan? No. What I'll do is play ABC poker: tight and aggressive. When thinking opponent adjusts and starts to play loose and passive on me, I'll switch gears and adjust accordingly. Other than that I'll play the players and most importantly I'll work relentlessly to build tight and aggressive image.

Aiming for 100-150/day.

Any input from physicsforums community is appreciated

 

[Cyrus]

I hope you like grinding it out. It will start to SUCK very quickly. Youtube all the pros on the grind - they all can't stand it anymore. Do you really want to play 12-14 hours to make cash, day in and day out. It's not a nice lifestyle.

 

[rootX]

Why don't you just drop out and do that full time if that's what you want to do for a living :). I hope you meant to support your education.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I hope you like grinding it out. It will start to SUCK very quickly. Youtube all the pros on the grind - they all can't stand it anymore. Do you really want to play 12-14 hours to make cash, day in and day out. It's not a nice lifestyle.

This. More or less.

Its possible to make your quota quickly but it will not always happen. I have had it happen frequently that I play for hours and only get a few decent hands and even those will not pan out. Playing in tourneys in particular I have many times found myself only recouping the chips I was paying to stay in by stealing blinds here and there.

Personally I would suggest online poker. You can sit down to it at any time and walk away from it rather easily. You can switch up tables in a matter of seconds or just take a break and come back when ever you feel like it. You will find far fewer people who know what they are doing but you will also wind up with a lot of crazies who go all in on weak hands and win. I suppose it is also harder to read your opponents.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I know of at least one recent PhD who uses it to pay the bills:
http://talentdevelop.com/3461/youre-smart-enough-for-a-phd-wheres-your-career-or-even-a-job/

Frustrated with the limited opportunities and grueling lifestyle of academia, Stover, 29, decided to eschew a career in cognitive neuroscience for one playing online poker.

 

[BobG]

If you've taken the Myers-Briggs personality test and are an INTJ or INTP, you might have a career as a poker player. (If you can pull yourself away from your computer - INTJs and INTPs are the two rarest personality types, except on internet forums where they seem to be very common.)

And, if you're one of those people that tend to be detached from your own feelings, you might have a career as a poker player. (Hmmm, I wonder if that's the reason for the saying, "Lucky in cards, unlucky in love".)

 

[rewebster]

Here's another thing to think about:

1) How many actual times have you played poker for cash? (no estimating-keep track)

2) Of those times, how many times have you made 100-150? (have a separate fund, are you over all in the red or black)

3) How many times have you lost money?

 

[Jack21222]

I don't know about the win rates live, but keep in mind that you see far fewer hands live than online. The best forum to ask this question (and one they get all the time) is the 2+2 forum.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/27/brick-mortar/ is their "Brick and Mortar" forum.

Here's another thing to think about:

1) How many actual times have you played poker for cash? (no estimating-keep track)

2) Of those times, how many times have you made 100-150? (have a separate fund, are you over all in the red or black)

3) How many times have you lost money?

That's not the best way to look at it. The best way to look at it is to consider a large number of hours played and see how much you're up (or down). Then, divide by the number of hours to give yourself an hourly rate.

If you just do it pass/fail, where $100+ is a success and under $0 is a failure, you fail to take into account variance properly. For example, if I play 10 sessions, 8 hours long each, break even 9 times, and end up $1000 in the green once, your count may say "you only hit your goal once." However, averaged out, he is making $100 a day.

Keep in mind, though, 80 hours is not a long enough time to get a good win rate. In live poker, you might only see 20-30 hands an hour. Let's average that out to 25. In 80 hours, you only see 2,000 hands. Online, I can play 2,000 hands in a day. That's 4 hours of work. I've had stretches of 2000 hands where I made a ton of money, and I've had stretches of 2000 where I've lost a ton. To nail down a good win rate, you'll need 10x that number of hands.

Now, if you are genuinely pretty good at poker, I'm sure you'll crush the lower limits, but there is less money at the lower limits. You might beat it by 10 big blinds every 100 hands (which would be difficult online), but if you're only playing $1/$2 blinds, that's $20 dollars every 4 hours. You'd need to play 20 hours a day to hit your goal.

Anyway, check out the 2+2 forums that I linked to. There is more detail there.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Doesn't seem very reliable, unless you're extremely good. Also seems like it could be really stressful.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

If you've taken the Myers-Briggs personality test and are an INTJ or INTP, you might have a career as a poker player. (If you can pull yourself away from your computer - INTJs and INTPs are the two rarest personality types, except on internet forums where they seem to be very common.)

Funny, I've always gotten either INTJ or INTP whenever I did Myers-Briggs tests. Don't some people even consider them DISORDERS?


Also, professional poker playing strikes me as stunningly anticonstructive. How about you do something productive instead?

 

[zomgwtf]

Play online sit n goes small ones, really small ones. Play multiple at a time...

 

[zomgwtf]

Now, if you are genuinely pretty good at poker, I'm sure you'll crush the lower limits, but there is less money at the lower limits. You might beat it by 10 big blinds every 100 hands (which would be difficult online), but if you're only playing $1/$2 blinds, that's $20 dollars every 4 hours. You'd need to play 20 hours a day to hit your goal.

This isn't really true, playing no-limit hold 'em 1/2$ blinds are actually pretty big. In order to play at that level you SHOULD have at least 600$ bankroll, and that's a minimum. If you are good you should be able to move up blind levels quickly per 100 hands. I'd say after around 1000 hands or so you should have built up a decent bankroll.

You will make a lot more than 20$ in 4 hours, if that's all you make then just quit poker. I can make 20$ every 4 hours at the penny blinds.

++ As well variance is probably one of the most important things about poker to learn, especially online poker. Just because you win an entire tournament doesn't mean you are a great player. It matters how low of a variance you can get too. On the flip side, just because you are losing a lot doesn't mean you are a bad player. It's just 'bad luck'. To get a low amount of variance is a great way to start to build a steady bankroll.
The definite most important thing to learn before playing any type of poker is odds. You have to be able to calculate pot odds, direct and implied right there at the table in your head. You have to know before action comes to you what you're going to do in every situation and whether or not it would be worth it. Reading your opponents isn't so important in poker, I mean sometimes it's useful to be able to do so you can get out of a situation that will just cost you.

In my opinion you shouldn't be setting out to play 'tight or aggressive' you should play the hand how it comes. I would suggest playing small-ball to start off.

 

[BishopUser]

Going pro at a casino is hard because rakes tend to be high at brick and mortar. You have to be much better than everyone else and even then the margin tends to be small, so you will have to play higher limits to make a decent wage. I forget what lower level pros play at casinos, but I imagine either $10/$20, $15/$30, or maybe $5/$10 at a minimum. At $10/$20 your buyin will be around $2000 and your bankroll should be around ~$15,000. Can you afford to lose $15,000 in poker? Keep in mind the skill level goes up exponentially as you step up limits.

To determine whether you are ready for a particular limit you need to look at a large volume of hands. Jack said that he has gone on 2000 hand swings, but I have seen online pros complain about 50,000 hand downswings. 50,000 hands is a blip to online pros playing like 100,000+ hands a month though. I think 25,000 hands is a good number to look at when evaluating whether or not you can beat a certain limit.

Remember, poker is not like chess. A good chess player might beat a bad chess player 98% of the time. A good poker player might beat a bad poker player 55% of the time. Factor in rake and well.. you are either losing, breaking even, or barely making a wage.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Poker is trendy right now. And anyone you talk to who plays online wins more often than they lose. Apparently everyone is winning and no one is losing.

 

[zomgwtf]

Poker is trendy right now. And anyone you talk to who plays online wins more often than they lose. Apparently everyone is winning and no one is losing.

Hardly, it's just that those people who win talk about it. People who lose don't have anything to go around bragging about, unless they think that's a feat. to be bragged about.

On pokerstars I've gone from a freeroll and built my bankroll up to 100$, I've done this twice. It took about a week to do both times... I thought that was pretty cool, had I decided to continue building my bank I probably could have made it up to 1000$ but it would have taken too long for me because I can't sit at multiple sit n goes, we're talking like 40 tables at a time.

@Bishop, I think that if you are a good poker player you will overcome the bad players more like 90% of the time. Just because you lose some pots to them doesn't mean anything, it's about making them bust. A good poker player will bust a bad poker playing quite frequently... not comparable to chess but it's far from 50/50. You're making it seem like it's all luck and no skill.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Hardly, it's just that those people who win talk about it. People who lose don't have anything to go around bragging about, unless they think that's a feat. to be bragged about.

Or some of those people are lying.

With the way some people talk, they could be making a good living from playing poker. I think there's very few people actually doing that.

You're making it seem like it's all luck and no skill.

There must be skill, but I don't get it. How do you read people? A person will get a good hand, bet a lot and sit there like a gargoyle the entire time. Then they'll get a bad hand, bet a lot and still be sitting there like a gargoyle. Unless you have them hooked up to an EKG, there's nothing to read.
But if you're online, I guess you don't have to worry about any of that. What is there to read?

 

[BishopUser]

Hardly, it's just that those people who win talk about it. People who lose don't have anything to go around bragging about, unless they think that's a feat. to be bragged about.

On pokerstars I've gone from a freeroll and built my bankroll up to 100$, I've done this twice. It took about a week to do both times... I thought that was pretty cool, had I decided to continue building my bank I probably could have made it up to 1000$ but it would have taken too long for me because I can't sit at multiple sit n goes, we're talking like 40 tables at a time.

@Bishop, I think that if you are a good poker player you will overcome the bad players more like 90% of the time. Just because you lose some pots to them doesn't mean anything, it's about making them bust. A good poker player will bust a bad poker playing quite frequently... not comparable to chess but it's far from 50/50. You're making it seem like it's all luck and no skill.

It's not that poker is "all luck and no skill", it's that a large amount of skill is required to offset the effects of luck. I don't want to argue too much about % w/l in a headsup match but I'm pretty sure I could do better than 90% against a player a bit better than me just by going all in randomly every 1-4 hands. At the limits that are required to play pro, you won't find many bad players. You will find "ok" players, good players, and really good players. As a really good player you will be playing other really good players, other good players, and other "ok" players. Coupled with the rake, your margin becomes somewhat small and it requires you to grind out long hours at high limits to make a good wage.

 

[BishopUser]

Or some of those people are lying.

With the way some people talk, they could be making a good living from playing poker. I think there's very few people actually doing that.

There must be skill, but I don't get it. How do you read people? A person will get a good hand, bet a lot and sit there like a gargoyle the entire time. Then they'll get a bad hand, bet a lot and still be sitting there like a gargoyle. Unless you have them hooked up to an EKG, there's nothing to read.
But if you're online, I guess you don't have to worry about any of that. What is there to read?

There are many common reads in poker. For example many people who get really a good hand start to stare into space, around the room, and pretend to not pay attention. It's like "yup nothin to see here, I'm bored and I'm definately not holding a monster". Another common read is the person who puts (or slams) a bet down and then stares into your soul not blinking an eye like "yeah I have a really good hand here".. of course that person is bluffing. Then there's the people who do those things on purpose when they have the reverse. It's about observing the person over time and trying to predict his pattern of behavior/play. The most common thing I see is the person who picks up good cards and his hands shake (with anxiety, excitement, etc) whenever he makes his bet. Almost always a sign of someone who doesn't have much experience playing live.

Reading people on the internet is much harder, but the there's just as many things to see as in live. Online there's always the person who minimum raises you preflop and its like "yeah this is a weak minimum raise, don't worry about it" whenever he's holding AA. Then there's the person who minimum raises late in a tournament when the blinds are a high % of your chipstack which surely says "I really need these blinds, but I'm too afraid to commit a significant portion of my chips with this hand". If you play online the key is to focus on the game and not space out, watch tv, etc. You need to try to observe, and take notes on betting patterns.

 

[leroyjenkens]

There are many common reads in poker. For example many people who get really a good hand start to stare into space, around the room, and pretend to not pay attention. It's like "yup nothin to see here, I'm bored and I'm definately not holding a monster". Another common read is the person who puts (or slams) a bet down and then stares into your soul not blinking an eye like "yeah I have a really good hand here".. of course that person is bluffing. Then there's the people who do those things on purpose when they have the reverse. It's about observing the person over time and trying to predict his pattern of behavior/play. The most common thing I see is the person who picks up good cards and his hands shake (with anxiety, excitement, etc) whenever he makes his bet. Almost always a sign of someone who doesn't have much experience playing live.

I realize some people can develop patterns, but then there's the gargoyle people who do absolutely nothing different if they have 7 high or if they have a royal flush.

Those tells you named seem like amateur mistakes.

 

[BishopUser]

They are amateurish, but it's what you expect to see at any amateur poker game. There are other more subtle tells. The person who bets then glances at the pot/your chipstack has a strong hand. The person who eagerly looks at the next card to come has a draw. The person who makes a subtle sigh or "tsuh" (tongue and top of mouth) sound has a strong hand. The person who rechecks his hand after the next card may have forgotton his suits (a person typically doesn't forget his suits if he is playing suited cards). The person who bets and rests his hand on his cheek/mouth could be bluffing.

It is pretty hard to contain all of your emotions when you know therse a whole table of people staring at you trying to figure out why you just bet what you did. The ability to control all of your emotions is a skill that takes a lot of time at the poker table. The gargoyle person you describe is probably pretty experienced. I think at the professional level (pros vs pros) there are probably very little "physical reads" and a lot more "playstyle reads" (i.e. "Everytime person A calls the blinds in early position preflop then check raises the flop has a set", or "Person A missed his flop whenever he makes a continuation bet of 80% of the pot after raising in early position")

 

[gravenewworld]

I know someone personally who turned poker pro while an undergrad. He would play online during the week and then hit up Atlantic City every weekend. Needless to say, he finished near the bottom of the class grade wise, but he did manage to make a lot of money playing poker. Well over six figures. However, later on out of college he went on a terrible losing streak and lost a ton of cash. Being a poker pro is definitely possible, but extreeeeeeeeemely stressful. 100-150 a day? Are you kidding? Just get a job. If you want to do it for a living you will be putting up 150 pre flop at times with no problem on a single hand at no limit tables.

 

[Jack21222]

This isn't really true, playing no-limit hold 'em 1/2$ blinds are actually pretty big. In order to play at that level you SHOULD have at least 600$ bankroll, and that's a minimum. If you are good you should be able to move up blind levels quickly per 100 hands. I'd say after around 1000 hands or so you should have built up a decent bankroll.

You will make a lot more than 20$ in 4 hours, if that's all you make then just quit poker. I can make 20$ every 4 hours at the penny blinds.

First of all, I was talking about live games, not online.

Second of all, $1/$2 blinds live is the smallest I've ever seen anywhere.

Third of all, post your stats for the penny blinds. I call shenanigans.

If you 24-table, you're pulling in what, 1500 hands an hour? You can make more than 5 dollars an hour at .01/.02? That's 33 cents per 100 hands, or 16.5 ptbb per hundred... while 24-tabling.

If you're going to make such a wild claim, post your stats.

Fourth of all, 1000 hands is nothing. In that time frame, you would have been dealt each pocket pair, on average, about 4 times. THAT'S NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. Any actual serious online poker player will tell you that you need AT LEAST 10,000 hands to even BEGIN to get a decent idea of your win rate, 100,000 is much better.

Fifth, $600 is too low of a bankroll for those stakes. Online, that's only 3 buy ins. You can't even sit down at more than 3 tables with only 600 dollars. You would need a bankroll of at least $3000-$4000 to play online. Perhaps slightly less than that for live. And these numbers are being quite aggressive.

It's not unheard of to go on a 5-10 buy-in downswing, even for very good players.

Here is a graph of a professional online poker player. He dropped down to the 0.10/0.25 level for one month as an experiment. In that time frame, he played nearly 280,000 hands (and then made those hands histories publicly available for examination.) Try to pick out any 1,000 stretch of hands that you want, and you'll notice that they vary WILDLY. In this graph, you'll also notice a 40,000 hand losing streak.

Keep in mind, this is from an actual winning professional poker player who does this for a living, and he was playing at lower stakes than he usually does.

Please stop posting poker advice, you're going to cause the OP to go busto really quickly.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The gargoyle person you describe is probably pretty experienced. I think at the professional level (pros vs pros) there are probably very little "physical reads" and a lot more "playstyle reads" (i.e. "Everytime person A calls the blinds in early position preflop then check raises the flop has a set", or "Person A missed his flop whenever he makes a continuation bet of 80% of the pot after raising in early position")

From what I have seen many of the pro players do not use the gargoyle routine. I think that some people just can't pull it off and know it. Phil Laak is a funny example, bringing his hoody and pulling a Kenny to keep people from seeing his face. I doubt Hellmuth or Mattesow could play more than a few hands without opening their mouths. Both of them seem to use table talk as a screen against tells though I think that Mattesow also likes to use it tactically.

 

[Chi Meson]

I say go for it!

I also say ignore any advice i give on poker; the best I have ever done is winning back almost as much as I've put into a tournament.

The only thing of value I can add to the conversation, and only something you can ask yourself: Are you sure you are not just rationalizing a reason to play poker every day?

 

[TMFKAN64]

@Bishop, I think that if you are a good poker player you will overcome the bad players more like 90% of the time. Just because you lose some pots to them doesn't mean anything, it's about making them bust.

I hate to put words in anyone's mouth, but I think you are misreading what Bishop said. I believe he was talking about a single hand... and in that case, 55% is probably not an unreasonable percentage. Winning or losing *one* hand is mostly a matter of luck.

The key is that over time, a good player will manage to win a big pot when he wins, and a small pot when he loses. So in a match, it's probably closer to the 90% you mention.

 

[zomgwtf]

First of all, I was talking about live games, not online.

Ok then...?

Second of all, $1/$2 blinds live is the smallest I've ever seen anywhere.

You only play at casinos? On weekends at night time? Obviously that'll be the lowest blinds. The lowest tables you can find for blackjack at that time are 25-50$ too.

Third of all, post your stats for the penny blinds. I call shenanigans.

Which stats? Winning 20$ in penny blinds? Come watch it be done on pokerstars sometime. At those levels people buy-in and give their money away. 20$ in 4 hours is nothing... of course we have to include variance.

If you 24-table, you're pulling in what, 1500 hands an hour? You can make more than 5 dollars an hour at .01/.02? That's 33 cents per 100 hands, or 16.5 ptbb per hundred... while 24-tabling.

Sit'n'goes don't have .01/.02 tables I don't think... unless you're talking about multitabling cash tables, which I never once talked about. If you have any hope of making money in poker online I think sit n goes are the best way and the more you play the higher probability you have of making money.

Fourth of all, 1000 hands is nothing. In that time frame, you would have been dealt each pocket pair, on average, about 4 times. THAT'S NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. Any actual serious online poker player will tell you that you need AT LEAST 10,000 hands to even BEGIN to get a decent idea of your win rate, 100,000 is much better.

I never said it was a good amount of hand to make any decent claims on your average. It IS however enough hands to be able to build a bankroll to move up blinds at lower levels. If you lose then you move back down. You don't stay in the same blinds for ever... that's a given. You also don't wait after playing 100,000 hands in order to move blinds. Maybe 1000 was a bad number but it was just to show that it doesn't take a significant amount of hands to move up in blinds.

Fifth, $600 is too low of a bankroll for those stakes. Online, that's only 3 buy ins. You can't even sit down at more than 3 tables with only 600 dollars. You would need a bankroll of at least $3000-$4000 to play online. Perhaps slightly less than that for live. And these numbers are being quite aggressive.

I forgot a 0. It should say 6000$, the minimum bankroll you should have is 30 times the max. buy-in. The typical max buy in will be 100x the big blind. 100x2x30=6000. That's a huge amount of money, I hardly think that the OP has that kind of bankroll. 1/2$ blinds are too big for him and he should start off lower, work his way up.

Here is a graph of a professional online poker player. He dropped down to the 0.10/0.25 level for one month as an experiment. In that time frame, he played nearly 280,000 hands (and then made those hands histories publicly available for examination.) Try to pick out any 1,000 stretch of hands that you want, and you'll notice that they vary WILDLY. In this graph, you'll also notice a 40,000 hand losing streak.

Indeed it does vary wildly... he probably should have dropped down another blind level if it were ACTUALLY the blinds he was supposed to be playing at. Of course it wasn't and his bankroll could sustain such a hit. You can see in the graph though that it does not take a huge amount of hands to move up in blinds. Maybe not 1000, I guess your fixated on that number because I said it but it doesn't take 280,000 hands to be able to move up blind levels at lower blinds.

 

[zomgwtf]

I hate to put words in anyone's mouth, but I think you are misreading what Bishop said. I believe he was talking about a single hand... and in that case, 55% is probably not an unreasonable percentage. Winning or losing *one* hand is mostly a matter of luck.

The key is that over time, a good player will manage to win a big pot when he wins, and a small pot when he loses. So in a match, it's probably closer to the 90% you mention.

Ok yeah this is true.

 

[Santa1]

Imo you should def learn cash instead of sngs, it's more stable, also the fish can reload at cash ;)

The winrate live for a good player is much bigger than online, also the games are much bigger, however the amount of hands/hour is much, much smaller.

If you can handle the grind and multitabling go for online, else go for live but make sure you're rolled for it, no point in playing otherwise due to variance.

 

[russ_watters]

There must be skill, but I don't get it. How do you read people? A person will get a good hand, bet a lot and sit there like a gargoyle the entire time. Then they'll get a bad hand, bet a lot and still be sitting there like a gargoyle. Unless you have them hooked up to an EKG, there's nothing to read.
But if you're online, I guess you don't have to worry about any of that. What is there to read?

Against casual players, you don't need to read people to win at poker. You only have to know/play the odds. The same principle is true in any game of chance: some bets are better than others, so if you play the bets with the best odds, you'll do the best. If you play blackjack and hit on 17 all the time, you won't do as well as if you stop at 17. The difference between poker and blackjack, though, is instead of of playing against the house, you play against other players. There really are people who making a living taking money from causal poker players at resort casinos.

That said, "reading" a player isn't primarily about reading their facial expression, but rather about tracking their actions. If you see a player do something stupid once, the next time you're playing against them you can bet against the possibility they will be stupid again.

 

[russ_watters]

Personally I would suggest online poker.

My concern with online poker and no-limit poker is who you are playing against. I suspect that you get more serious poker players in those games than you would in a beach-front $1-$2 limit game and as a result the risk of losing and the swings will be larger. Due to the rake, you need to be a fair amount better than average in a game to make a long-term profit and it is easier to be better than average when the competition is lower.

So a lot depends on your ability.

 

[Cyrus]

My concern with online poker and no-limit poker is who you are playing against. I suspect that you get more serious poker players in those games than you would in a beach-front $1-$2 limit game and as a result the risk of losing and the swings will be larger. Due to the rake, you need to be a fair amount better than average in a game to make a long-term profit and it is easier to be better than average when the competition is lower.

So a lot depends on your ability.

Online poker and even in real life, is full of donkeys who chase cards. Just watch youtube clips of the top pros like Mattasow complain about people chasing and catching cards against them, and these guys don't play low limit games.

 

[russ_watters]

Well if you don't chase a flush every now and then, you're a robot who nobody will bet against. Mattasow's a trip, but he complains too much: it's called "gambling" for a reason.

 

[Cyrus]

Well if you don't chase a flush every now and then, you're a robot who nobody will bet against. Mattasow's a trip, but he complains too much: it's called "gambling" for a reason.

Helmuth is a trip, Mattasow complains a lot, but that doesn't detract from what he says: people chase him 2 to a flush after he makes large raises in high stake games. If you want to do this for a living, get ready to have your blood boil from bad beats to donkeys (at any blind level). All I am saying is, don't make the mistake of thinking large blinds equals good players - it doesnt.

 

[russ_watters]

Helmuth is a trip, Mattasow complains a lot, but that doesn't detract from what he says: people chase him 2 to a flush after he makes large raises in high stake games. If you want to do this for a living, get ready to have your blood boil from bad beats to donkeys (at any blind level).

Understood and agreed. At the same time, Matusow goes on tilt too easily because of bad beats. He'd be a true superstar if he could control his temper a little better.

All I am saying is, don't make the mistake of thinking large blinds equals good players - it doesnt.

Well, the thing about the WPT is for the most part, there aren't any skill-based barriers to entry, so $10k will get you a spot on the big stage. If $10k would get me to a lineup of the baseball World Series, I'd sure as hell do it (and I'm a shockingly bad baseball player). So for the WPT, I'm not sure the money is a real barrier.

But I get what you're saying - the guys at the high rollers tables aren't there because they are good, they are there because they are rich and they can. Perhaps the same principle applies all the way down. I'd be really curious to know what the real skill level distribution is like from table to table at a casino on a random day.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Online poker and even in real life, is full of donkeys who chase cards. Just watch youtube clips of the top pros like Mattasow complain about people chasing and catching cards against them, and these guys don't play low limit games.

I have only ever played small blinds with .25/.50 being the highest. I saw some people pulling in $50-$100 over a couple hours. Like you say, my biggest problem was with the donks. They would go all in on crap cards and pull an amazing hand out of their ***.