I quit my job today to be a professional poker player...

Craven--

You're probably realizing all the temptations of superstition.

"Random" is a large concept.

Ouch, kid. Let's hope the quad threes are sign that the tide has turned.

I haven't been playing too much recently (been working on other projects more and was in Mexico for 2 weeks where there's little poker) but the times I have things have gone as I expect them to.

I'm spending all of June in Las Vegas where I'll be playing more poker than I'd like to.

Craven, Seems you're making a "living" off your poker-playing, so it can't be all bad. Let us know when you begin playing in the world poker competition in Vegas. We'll watch for you on tv. Good luck. T.

I would be lying if I said I wasnt the least bit jealous of ya.

I was never that much into gambling, so I'm not jealous. We have enough retirement savings to support us in the style in which I've become accustomed, so I have no complaints.

When I did gamble, socially, sometimes with work associates, and other times in Reno or Vegas, I always limited my loss to $100. That was my limit even when I didn't have any money until the last time I went to Vegas.

Sorry Craven. I can't condone this type of behavior. It's like encouraging an alcoholic to drink. I know man who lost everything including his job as a scientist at a famous research institution and now works as a security guard.

Uhh, I don't have an addiction to gambling. To be honest I don't really enjoy gambling at all (I'm one of the rare people who make a living in a casino who has never once played blackjack, roulette or craps).

I know that part and parcel of making a living this way is that most people just don't understand that there is a very small minority in poker (not the guys most people think are good, I make a living off those home game heroes) who are not gambling. Those guys usually head to the other table games in a casino if they want a gambling rush because poker isn't it.

Sure, there are a lot of people who walk away from poker with bumps and bruises. If there weren't I'd not be able to make a living this way, and as to losing my job and all that was the whole idea that's why I started playing poker instead of vice-versa.

I want out of the corporate rat race. I want freedom. I don't want to live in America as I enjoy other cultures and lifestyles. I want to be able to move my fewer (less consumerism with all the moving) things around to whatever corner of the globe I want to go.

Toward this end I have focused my income on revenue streams that allow me to choose my location. I work for myself on the internet, I consult for companies on technical issues and I play poker.

So wherever there is an internet connection and poker, I can make a living. This is nothing like encouraging an alcoholic to drink. It's a free man telling corporate America that he can make more money and have more fun on his own terms.

Right now, those terms are mainly poker, but that's a means to an end.

Actually, problem gamblers almost never play poker. Poker is a game of skill that doesn't give them the rush they seek. I can imagine Craven becoming a very good poker player. Hope I see him on the WPT.

Problem gamblers could never make a living at it either. As they would have to earn money elsewhere to be able to approach a card game.



Again.. Im green with envy.
And not out of the desire to gamble, but out of the desire to be able to do things on my own terms as well, the way you are.

Rock on, Craven!

I played my first live game today, im hooked. bein born in vegas a pro poker career looks nice, i might make it, good luck!

Log your results. Over 90% of the players I've met are not winners in the long run but most think they are. The ones that are winners always chide me for telling others to log their results and see (they make a living off people not figuring this out) but this is the first step.

If you can't maintain a winning balance over 100 sessions you aren't ready to think about it. Once you can you still need to figure out a crapload of other stuff but for the love of Jebus make sure to start a logging habit sooner rather than later.

hmm, funny i was just thinking of logging my wins/losses and had no idea it was a strategy other people used.

What sort of log should i be keeping? should i do it from like daily returns, or hand by hand?

Daily returns is the bottom line. It's all that matters and yet most players are oblivious to it, making them think that when they win it's dispositional ("Jean-Claude Van Damme I'm good!") and when they lose it's misfortune ("bad beats").

Hand by hand isn't practical in live games but is the best way to learn and improve (by having others review it and reviewing it yourself). Given that you can succeed (for a long time even) while making huge mistakes it will not always be evident to you whether you are making the right choices and winning in poker is all about actually finding out what those right choices are even if your experience tells you otherwise because it's all about the long run.

I've been playing a lot of home games lately. Once you find the right group of guys around here; there's a game every night of the week, most with no rake. Mostly I avoid the cash games, and just play in 1 and 2 table tourney's (for 50 or 100), with fast moving blinds. I figure it's a good idea to limit my exposure while I learn the nuances of in person (and sober) play. One of the regular hosts is currently in New Orleans for the WSOP event. I didn't see his name on any of the little boards, yet, and don't know if he'll pull the trigger for the big game (probable if he makes a final table earlier, perhaps even if he doesn't). I'm hoping he cleans house, because his skills are NOT superior to my own. :wink:

Care to share your fundamentals, Craven? I'm curious if you freewheel or abide by a strict program (percentage of loss acceptable, percentage of win before you must get up, percentage of roll you start/stop… etc) or any of that other good stuff I'd never trust another Pro to be honest about? I'd sure appreciate anything you'd be willing to share.

For clarification; I'm mostly interested in the roll management stuff. I long ago learned the math of the game, which doesn't change, and I've never been one to need a calculator.

At low stakes poker is formulaic. You don't need to make plays, you don't need to outplay anyone. You just play textbook poker and make money. For a game as complex as poker is, most people can improve their game by following two simple words "fold more".

Discipline is 98% of low stakes cash game poker. Everyone knows the basics of starting hand strategy and follows it over 90% of the time, but on most poker days a single decision makes or breaks the day, and that one time you make the wrong move is where the difference lies.

So if you know what to do the only trick is to do it (which is hard because it's boring) and if you are doing it then there are some tweaks needed in regards to what to do (there is a god-aweful amount of bad poker theory out there, even coming from the famous pros).

As to roll management:

1) Cash games and tournaments are different beasts. Tournaments aren't as reliable a way to make money and the swings in a tournament career span weeks months and years instead of minutes or days.

Don't take tournaments seriously as a way to make money unless you have regular access to the same structure tournament and have figured out that you win in the long run (tournaments have a longer long run than cash games).

What you intend to do makes a big difference in regard to what stakes you should play. For example, a limit poker player's bankroll can be smaller than a no-limit player's bankroll because the swings are smaller. Additionally the more risky a player's style the larger the bankroll should be. Furthermore if you are making a living off of it you want it even bigger, because an amateur who hits a ridiculously rare kind of bad run must give up a hobby while the pro may cease to be able to earn his living.

So as an example, I generally play low-stakes no-limit and do it for a living and I like to have 30 times my usual buy-in. The buy-in should correspond with the stakes. For example, I think that buying in for less than 100 times the big blind is not wise for most playing styles (though for beginners playing "short stacked" can limit initial losses).

So if I had to advise a new pro who wanted to play 1/2 no-limit I'd advise a buyin of 200 dollars or more and at least a $5,000 bankroll.

A single bad day in a 5/10 game can wipe out more than that bankroll, which illustrates how to pick stakes based on your bankroll (rather than perceived skill or degree of excitement).

Wow! Just stumbled across this and this is my bookmark until I've had a chance to read the whole thread.

Cool!

Thank you very much for the detail! I'd buy your book, before any other Pro's... though I have read a ton of their stuff online.

I realize it's tougher to make dough in Tourney's, though so far my short run is making it seem otherwise (more than a few calling stations, playing 40 and 50, sometimes even 60% of the hands religiously ). I figure it's good practice to get comfortable focusing on others, while sending tiny bogus tells, and spotting patterns. Learning online, of course, teaches none of that. Playing drunks 'after bar', while profitable, isn't much better. I'll be playing the home games until I know I'm the best player at each of them (instead of just thinking so, like I do now :wink: ). Your numbers sound about where I would have guessed, but only home games around here are that low. SunCruise is either 2-5 or 5-10 and the impression I got was only suckers sat down with under a G. Too much for me. Oh, I can't stand limit of any kind, don't much care for razz or horse, stud gives me a headache and would only play Hi-Lo Omaha for fun. Frankly; I'm glad No Limit Holdem is about the only game in town.
Thanks again for sharing!