Poker viability in 2014-2020 (and beyond)? - Page 2

Y'all motherfuckers need repost.

On May 12 2014 19:31 Sliggy wrote: All fair points, but if you'd read the thread and my comments prior you'd know that I don't have plans to make poker a primary career and that my reasons for wanting to monetize it as a hobby are as a supplement to another aspiration. This renders most of your post vaguely relevant at best. "It's a no brainer $20/h is doable in 2014 and will be doable in 2020." That's all I needed / wanted. Your 2c. Believe it or not, not everyone agrees with you, so posting such an opinion is interesting and relevant. Giving me shit about some RWA I did years ago and following it up by giving me a bunch of obvious hints about the difficulty of poker that I've already addressed in this very thread = not productive. I appreciate your opinions and advice as someone experienced with poker. I don't appreciate comments like "I can already guess you might respond with" or assumptions that I'm going to regret learning poker if I don't make returns. You know poker, you don't know me. Your post was literally just: - Assumption of no confidence. - Assumption of ignorance. - Assumption of possible response. - Assumption of satisfaction from poker. - "You shouldn't do it because I wish I hadn't done it. Go to school."

Eh don't mean for u to take the rwa comment the wrong way, nobody can seriously give anybody shit for something they did as kids. Just got a little chuckle out of remembering something so obscure like that and thought you might as well. I guess tone doesnt really come across on the internet, esp when I don't use smileys.

- Assumption of no confidence.
Not exactly something I assumed out of thin air.. if you had confidence you wouldn't be asking whether its possible to net $20/h in 2014, you'd know in your bones this is very much doable and that you're a few months away from doing it. You'd jump at the chance to bet some nontrivial amount on the side at even odds against anyone who doubted you could.

- Assumption of ignorance.
True this is just an assumption. I assume this because I think everyone is necessarily ignorant about what it takes to walk the walk until they actually do. Thinking you understand, and saying words like "savagely finding and trying to eradicate weaknesses" ain't the same thing.

- Assumption of possible response.
I got it exactly right though

- Assumption of satisfaction from poker.
Ye another assumption, but based on seeing countless early-stage players experience it all in the past. It's easy to be enjoying it and enthusiastic now when you're dedicating minimal time to it and get that first sweet taste of some small progress, but "everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth", and poker serves up punches in the mouth on the regular. It's one thing for you to know this already, but something very different for you to really know.


As for the $20/h "debate", show me someone who disagrees and I'll show you a fool. It has been possible to make the PPP equivalent of $20/h in 2014 dollars in poker specifically for at least the last 100 years, and there is evidence of humans liking a gamble from as early as the Stone Age. What kind of drastic change is going to undo that in 6 years?

Here's some more of what you want:

In the very long term poker will continue its slow decline and settle on some post-boom equilibrium which is still quite a bit higher than the pre-boom equilibrium in the 60s-90s due to solid global exposure during the boom period. There will be shocks in the short and medium term that have lasting effects to disturb this very-long term trend.

Making bots better than humans is an academic exercise. The real damage bots can do is take lots out of the games from the low levels of the pyramid, where currently existing bots are already plenty good enough. There is already evidence from bots having done exactly this on a large scale, that we know about. If it gets worse it will have the mid-term effect of loss of trust playing online, especially on smaller sites, and a migration towards the best businesses (pokerstars), allowing them to increase their monopoly profits and be in a position where they can invest heavily in trying to curb the bot problem (they have to - too much at stake for them). This has already been an ongoing cat-and-mouse battle for years, and today poker on pokerstars still seems plenty trustworthy and profitable. Finally on bot issue, op didn't even specify he was talking about online poker, making bots even less of an issue in the medium-term.

Drastic decrease in players barring extreme shocks just can't happen in poker because you have to understand at the micro level, players play out of habit and habits are persistent. A fish always losing won't necessarily quit for a while. A breakeven player will not quit for life the instant game conditions get marginally worse and make him a small loser, it'll take time. New players continue to keep entering and forming their new habit to offset the gradual outflows of players, and habits are formed faster than they're broken, especially when dopamine is involved.

On May 13 2014 05:14 Romm3l wrote: Here's some more of what you want: In the very long term poker will continue its slow decline and settle on some post-boom equilibrium which is still quite a bit higher than the pre-boom equilibrium in the 60s-90s due to solid global exposure during the boom period. There will be shocks in the short and medium term that have lasting effects to disturb this very-long term trend. Making bots better than humans is an academic exercise. The real damage bots can do is take lots out of the games from the low levels of the pyramid, where currently existing bots are already plenty good enough. There is already evidence from bots having done exactly this on a large scale, that we know about. If it gets worse it will have the mid-term effect of loss of trust playing online, especially on smaller sites, and a migration towards the best businesses (pokerstars), allowing them to increase their monopoly profits and be in a position where they can invest heavily in trying to curb the bot problem (they have to - too much at stake for them). This has already been an ongoing cat-and-mouse battle for years, and today poker on pokerstars still seems plenty trustworthy and profitable. Finally on bot issue, op didn't even specify he was talking about online poker, making bots even less of an issue in the medium-term. Drastic decrease in players barring extreme shocks just can't happen in poker because you have to understand at the micro level, players play out of habit and habits are persistent. A fish always losing won't necessarily quit for a while. A breakeven player will not quit for life the instant game conditions get marginally worse and make him a small loser, it'll take time. New players continue to keep entering and forming their new habit to offset the gradual outflows of players, and habits are formed faster than they're broken, especially when dopamine is involved.

Thank you for this, and your other poker related insights.

In regards to your assumptions and life coaching:

If a beginning guitar player asked me how much a musician could realistically expect to make in 2014, I wouldn't do the following:

1. Assume he will never play the guitar well because by asking for general realistic expectations, he clearly hasn't the confidence to do it and should just give up.
2. Assume he doesn't realize he's going to have to practice religiously and work until he's sick to make any kind of impression.
3. Assume that when I answer "well it's tough" he's suddenly going to be pissed and lose all passion for guitar.

I wouldn't take it upon myself to advise him on what he needs to do instead of playing guitar.
I wouldn't come in as someone with 10+ years of experience and just say "knowing what practice is and KNOWING what practice is is different. As a dude who doesn't know you, I can safely say that you've never actually dedicated yourself to anything and therefore don't actually realize what it is to work towards something."
I wouldn't presume to know how he's going to respond and arrogantly assess his possible responses ahead of time.

I'd just answer the kid's question and leave it at that.

Where do you guys see poker going in the coming years? Is it possible to make a living of $20.00/hr or so at NL50 and/or NL100 in 2014? Will it be possible for years to come?

Will the fish dry out and the regs get too solid for any kind of living to be made? What are your opinions?

I just ask because I'm dedicating a lot of effort into poker right now. It's just a hobby because I love strategy games, but the more videos I study, the more session reviews I conduct, and the more I start to make tighter folds and thinner valuebets and bluff more effectively, the more hooked I get.

My goal is to be playing NL50 by the end of the year. I'm at NL10 now and I expect to be at NL16 next month. Is it still possible or viable for someone in my shoes (if I work hard enough) to be a solid NL50 reg and be able to make a decent wage for a few years?

These questions don't have definite answers, but I'd love for this post to be a discussion of qualified speculation.


Poker going: I think of this in terms of market/product/company cycles. Poker appears to be nearing the end of its S curve. So my extremely unqualified opinion is that playing numbers will shrink a bit for a few years (as they have been) and stabilize. Online poker won't go away because it's too lucrative/fun/convenient. Good times for stable market leaders like Stars to print money indefinitely though.

However, all of that is irrelevant because you are aiming for $20/hr...so, meh. Disregard.

$20/hr possible/years to come: Yes and yes.

Fish dry out/regs too solid: No.

Comment on the next sentence: sounds like an addiction.

Last question: Yes it's possible, if you want it, get it.


So in short, the general gist of your question is "I play $10 now, my goal is $50, can I get there and make $20/hr?". My answer to that question is yes.

I'd think more about what you do after you get there though.
Me in 2009: "exact same question, except I was playing 100nl and my goal was 400nl"
WCG|Rider in 2014: got to the highest stakes, secured his financial freedom, observing lack of drive ("the fire", is the phrase he uses) to continue to strive for greater results..."not sure what to do" (also his words)

didn't read the thread before I posted.
We're basically in agreement but Romm3l made a good post.

What rwa?

Romm3l's poker related insights were greatly appreciated.

It seems that people mistake passion for addiction / overinvestment a lot, which is sad. I don't bother doing anything unless I'm willing to do it right. Free time, TV, relaxing etc. all sound like a waste of time to me. I worked hard on my Brood War game long after it died just because I like to work hard, not because I wanted some huge return on that investment. Working hard in and of itself is a fun endeavor. Like it says in the Bhagavad Gita, we are not entitled to the fruits of our labour, only the labour itself. To assume that working on my poker game will suddenly be viewed as a waste of time if I don't get some whopping return on that investment is just a gigantic misunderstanding of my character, which is exactly what is liable to happen when people start making assumptions based on one post.

As poker players y'all ought to know what happens when you trust your stats too much with only a sample size of 6 hands. Same principle here.

I was only inquiring as to the possibility of the $20/hr because it'd be a very convenient source of income as a touring musician in an ideal lifestyle, so all answers and insights in regards to the state of poker are greatly appreciated.

If the answer was a resounding "no way" I would still play as many hands a week as I am now and study videos and read articles and look into coaches and be active in my Skype group. It's fun to invest.

As for what to do after, my passion has and always will be music first. That's covered