Is This Feasible?

[BWToth 0]

Ok, so I just recently got rakeback, and I haven't been a big ring game player up to this point, but I was doing some thinking and come calculating and want to know if this is attainable, or if anyone does something like this and has a long term result. This is just a theoretical idea by the way.Bankroll: $5000 (25 buy-ins @ $200NL)Assuming you were to play 2 Shorthanded Tables at this level 8hr/day, 40hr a week. Winrate: (very modest, just above break even) 3BB/100So: 2 tables x 80 hands per hour = 160 hph x 40 hr = 6400 hands/week x (3 x $2) = $384 per week x 50 = $19000/YearPlus Rakebake: (plugging this number of hands per month into their calculator (Rakebreak.com)) = $1017 per month x 12 = $12204/Year19000 + 12204 = $31,204 per yearThis seems to be a pretty awesome figure considering the low limit, and low winrate. It seems to be easily attainable if you could commit yourself to playing full time. Bump up the limits and inflate the figures accordingly, 40hr a week even seems like a lowish number.So my question is:Is this an attainable long term method of poker income? What are some things that i have failed to consider? Does anyone do this, at these or other limits and has anyone done this over a 'long-term' amount of time, if so what were your results?This isn't something I'm attempting to do, yet, or anything, just food for thought.What do you think??Toth.

[Zach6668 513]

Well, ya. All else being equal. As in, your skill stays the same relative to the competition, and the online poker environment doesn't change drastically.

[BWToth 0]

Well, ya. All else being equal. As in, your skill stays the same relative to the competition, and the online poker environment doesn't change drastically.

I was thinking about other variables that can, and probably will change. It just seems so easy that with a little disicpline these kinds of results are possible, I am curious as to why more people don't do this, maybe they do but just dont' want to broadcast it for to the world. I dunno.

[David_Nicoson 1]

Playing that many hours made me a little loopy. It's easy to stray from +3BB in expectation to something negative as the sanity slows drains.

[TheCinciKid 0]

I was thinking about other variables that can, and probably will change. It just seems so easy that with a little disicpline these kinds of results are possible, I am curious as to why more people don't do this, maybe they do but just dont' want to broadcast it for to the world. I dunno.

Mainly I think, this requires you to be a winning player and put in a ton of hours for a relatively low return in the amount of effort you have to put in. Plus, you don't have things like health insurance and you haven't paid taxes yet so your $31k a year is going to be lower. Oh and 3 big blinds per 100 is a pretty low winrate. You could probably do a lot better if you're competent. The big thing though is being able to keep something like this up while managing your money properly, not burning out, etc.

[offset 0]

People don't do it because it would be incredibly boring. I don't think I could become an online poker pro.

[Abbaddabba 0]

There's nothing modest about winning at 1/2NL online.The average person loses.Every single plyaer who plays thinks they're well above average.A lot of the losers even read (and post) at forums.There's no way of knowing what is realistic for you from our perspective.But yeah. 30k a year is possible if you do fit that 'winning player' definition.Very easy, in fact.If you can win at 1/2 for those rates, are willing to put in 40 hours a week and only make 30k that year, i would see that as a huge disappointment.

[BWToth 0]

Well, I figured I would make the number so low so it would be more easily done over a long period. 40hr a week isn't that much time, and playing poker all day is less boring and more flexible than many jobs that pay equal or less.I think that's a pretty good number for such low limits, if you could do that same thing at 2-4 you're talking $60,000 a year, 3-6 $90,000 etc. etc. Granted it would take some self discipline, but i'd much rather play 2-4 for 8 hrs a day than do what i do now for my job. Which involves sitting in front of a computer for 8 hrs a day as it is. I don't know what you guys do for a living, or how old you are, but in my situation (graduated from college last may, working my first 'real' job for a marketing company) the idea of being able make more than i make now by playing poker an equal amount of time as i work presents a nice little fantasy in may head, however impractical it might be.abbaddabadoo, don't you play cash games for a significant, consistent amount of money? How much do you play and what limits etc.?

[iggymcfly 0]

It's certainly practical. I'm not disciplined enough to keep from ever playing a little over my head and I probably only average about 25 hours a week, but I've made about $45,000 in the last 9 months playing poker. The fact is that a lot of people do make a living playing poker. I think the biggest obstacles are that the allure of gambling has people jumping to limits they can't beat and that the tilt factor often makes people who have the ability to play winning poker become losing players.

[BWToth 0]

It's certainly practical. I'm not disciplined enough to keep from ever playing a little over my head and I probably only average about 25 hours a week, but I've made about $45,000 in the last 9 months playing poker. The fact is that a lot of people do make a living playing poker. I think the biggest obstacles are that the allure of gambling has people either jumping to limits they can't beat and that the tilt factor often makes people who have the ability to play winning poker become losing players.

Yes, good point, I guess it really does all boil down to disicpline.

[mtdesmoines 3]

160 hph x 40 hr= $31,204 per year

I don't know about the math, but who would work a 40 hour week just to gross $31K a year?

[iggymcfly 0]

I don't know about the math, but who would work a 40 hour week just to gross $31K a year?

About 30% of the American work force.

[BWToth 0]

I don't know about the math, but who would work a 40 hour week just to gross $31K a year?

What planet are you from?

[ChrisRichey 1]

I don't know about the math, but who would work a 40 hour week just to gross $31K a year?

Obviously if you live in a major city, 31k a year isn't going to cut it. But for a majority of cities in the US, $31k a year is enough to live on, especially if you don't have a family. I don't think grossing $31k is enough though, because you need to factor in taxes and health insurance.

[mrdannyg 274]

my advice is to put a lot more work into your estimates. sit down for a week or two and see how many hours you actually get in. see how much your winrate declines as the hours add up.on the positive side, 2 tables is very few. no reason you can't work up to 4 or more tables, and move up in limits as your bankroll grows.it seems easy to just keep the estimates conservative, but in my experience, it is very important to make sure they are not overly conservative, otherwise you'll always have some imagined numbers in your head that may be above a realistic goal.

[bdc30 0]

you need to factor in taxes and health insurance.

I will guarantee you he has no intent on paying for either of those.

[BWToth 0]

'he'? ME? IF so, I don't have any intent on embarking on this plan at all. cool out.Also, my point was that i was that my estimates WERE on the very modest side so if someone to test this out and be successful they could probably do much better.

[Actuary 3]

About 30% of the American work force.

but he's a college graduate.I wonder what that median is

[TheCinciKid 0]

but he's a college graduate.I wonder what that median is

In today's economy, a large percentage of college graduates are working for less than $30k a year.

[TwoFourOffsuit 0]

About 30% of the American work force.

Yeah, and a good chunk of the remaining 70% works that for even less. And many of those are not only college grads, but are paying off student loans too, so their actual net income is even less. With all these college grads hitting the job market, it simply isn't an automatic ticket to big money careers anymore.

[Abbaddabba 0]

A college degree is the new highschool diploma.Wont do you jack ****.

Well, I figured I would make the number so low so it would be more easily done over a long period. 40hr a week isn't that much time, and playing poker all day is less boring and more flexible than many jobs that pay equal or less.I think that's a pretty good number for such low limits, if you could do that same thing at 2-4 you're talking $60,000 a year, 3-6 $90,000 etc. etc. Granted it would take some self discipline, but i'd much rather play 2-4 for 8 hrs a day than do what i do now for my job. Which involves sitting in front of a computer for 8 hrs a day as it is. I don't know what you guys do for a living, or how old you are, but in my situation (graduated from college last may, working my first 'real' job for a marketing company) the idea of being able make more than i make now by playing poker an equal amount of time as i work presents a nice little fantasy in may head, however impractical it might be.abbaddabadoo, don't you play cash games for a significant, consistent amount of money? How much do you play and what limits etc.?

40 hours a week is a lot.Playing more than 2 tables is easy.If you could get yourself to play 6 tables (which isnt really hard at no limit) you could make about triple that, or work 1/3rd of the time.It's tough to see as you're doign your thing. But you really do make a proportional amount to how many hands you play.Last year i played a mix of 2/4 and 3/6 limit for about 10 to 15 hours a week, since i was in school full time and working full time towards the end. I made about 60-70k over the year, which includes a couple moderate tournament wins.I play 5/10 and 10/20 now, 12,000 hands a week, playing 6 tables. It takes me between 25 and 30 hours of play.If im a 1BB/100 winner, i expect to make about $4,000 a week on AP.

[BWToth 0]

A college degree is the new highschool diploma.Wont do you jack ****.40 hours a week is a lot.Playing more than 2 tables is easy.If you could get yourself to play 6 tables (which isnt really hard at no limit) you could make about triple that, or work 1/3rd of the time.It's tough to see as you're doign your thing. But you really do make a proportional amount to how many hands you play.Last year i played a mix of 2/4 and 3/6 limit for about 10 to 15 hours a week, since i was in school full time and working full time towards the end. I made about 60-70k over the year, which includes a couple moderate tournament wins.I play 5/10 and 10/20 now, 12,000 hands a week, playing 6 tables. It takes me between 25 and 30 hours of play.If im a 1BB/100 winner, i expect to make about $4,000 a week on AP.

I think it's a lot easier in limit, where you can pretty much make robotic decisions, So do you attribute this to just having the will power to sit there for that amount of time without getting bored, or doing something stupid? and so far is your winrate at 1BB/100?

[homnig 0]

I'd say the decisions at 1-2nl are more robotic than the decisions in Abba's games.

[BWToth 0]

I'd say the decisions at 1-2nl are more robotic than the decisions in Abba's games.

Possibly, I wouldn't know, I don't play that high, probably for a reason. But I don't think I could ever 6-table shorthanded no limit and keep my wits about me, I can do three and I feel like i'm not able to make the best decisions all the time, like trying to keep all those plates spinning on those old variety shows.

[myenemy 0]

Yeah, and a good chunk of the remaining 70% works that for even less. And many of those are not only college grads, but are paying off student loans too, so their actual net income is even less. With all these college grads hitting the job market, it simply isn't an automatic ticket to big money careers anymore.

Welcome to 1990.