Id prefer it if only poker players commented.
Perhaps you should review the game first, then rechange your post. Thanks.
Monkey, email sent.
To all the others, sorry, the reason I said rent was to tinker the idea about whether poker is stable enough too make a living off that I could warrant using the money to pay rent.
I already work, and that pays for food/rent, and a little bit on the side. My degrees got only a year and a half left, and I usually find myself with a lot of spare time late nights and on weekends.
Anyway, just checking up as an option, some good posts, I thank you all, continue to add ideas if you like 
Playing to pay rent at your stage probably won’t work.
The last time I played seriously (online) my monthly bankroll looked roughly like this. . .
$500 (Jan 1)
$750 (Feb 1)
$1200
$900
$950
$1200
$1100
.
.
.
$2500 (Dec 31st)
So, over a year, I made about $2K but that was playing probably at least 600hrs, a terrible wage, but it was like getting paid to have fun. But imagine if I’d been taking $250 out each month to pay the rent. The online “roll” would have been
$500 (Jan 1)
$500 (Feb 1)
$700
$150
$0 (May 1)
Now that looks bad, but its not really. You used $500 to pay the rent for 5 months – pretty good. But, if poker was all you were relying on, now you’re shit out of luck and you can’t prime the pump.
Even if you average 1BB/hour, let me tell you that your monthly averages are not at all like 1.1BB/hour, .9BB/hour, .8BB/hour, 1.BB/hour, etc.
They’re much more like 4BB/hour, 0BB/hour 2BB/hour, -3BB/hour. That is – they’re not consistently close to your average. They’re greatly spread out around your average.
So, you can’t really do it starting out with such a small nut – PROBABLY.
However, if you start out your “career” with a great winning streak, and you’re able to grow your roll while paying rent so that when a downturn comes (and it will) you can ride it out, then kudos to you. Maybe you can do it. But don’t think this is a likely scenario.
Also, if you’re a guy that doesn’t mind taking up waiting tables or some other job to get some scratch together and then quitting to play poker again, then its probably an all right idea for you too.
But just don’t think it will be easy, even if you have a good hourly average, to rely on poker for the essentials.
Note that the rake itself can be hard to beat especially at low limits. I’m not sure what the online rake structure is, but it can take a considerable amount of money off the table in a B&M cardroom. It hits you when you’ve been sitting at a $3/$6 table for 4 hours, and when you sat down there were some big stacks in front of some players. Later you look around and realize that the stacks are gone and no one has left the table. Where did the stacks go? Rake and tips.
Certainly there is no tipping online, but you still have to beat the rake. If that amounts from $1 to $3 on a $1/$2 game, you probably won’t make it.
Really? So perhaps I’ll keep my post the same, considering I’ve regularly played poker, both online and in-person, for quite a while.
Perhaps you should bite me. Thanks.
Online rakes typically get capped at $1 at 1-2 and under. They are typically 5% of pot size, capped at $3 for full games, or capped at $2 for 5 and 6 handed games.
If we took 3 individuals, each making 1BB/hour at these three different stakes, the ratio of house cut vs. winning player’s cut per table hour online:
1-2 Holdem, avg hourly rake = $25
5-10 6 handed holdem, avg hourly rake = $117
15-30 holdem, avg hourly rake = $156
Compared to a 1BB/hour earn rate at each level:
Player vs. House at 1-2 is $1:$12.5
Player vs. House at 5-10, 6 handed: $1:$11.70
Player vs. House at 15-30, $1:$5.20
The bigger games are “easier” to beat in the sense that because of the rake “cap”, you do not need to be better than the opposition by as much to show a profit. On the other hand, the games are generally speaking, populated by better players, so one needs to be a stronger player to begin with.
However, it is not always so clear cut that bigger games are necessarily tougher. It is more accurate to suggest that the presence of bigger stake games is a reflection of the kind of loose change that is floating around. It makes no sense that 10 professionals would volounteer to play in a 15-30 game against each other, making nothing against each other, for the privelege of paying the house its rake! They would sooner move to a smaller game where loose change is floating around. It makes more sense for them each to make 1.xxBB/hour at say 10-20, than to lose 0.xxBB/hour paying the rake at 15-30 (assuming they are break even against each other without a rake)!
A lot of money disappears from the table and goes straight to the house and/or dealers. Make no mistake that the house will make more per hour than any professional sitting in one of its chairs. And the rake at low limit is absolutely butal.
I would welcome comments from other more experienced players, but I have always found this to be a fallacy even in live games. The best decisions are made by analyzing an opponent’s previous bets and your memory of their tendencies in previous situations. I know that my face doesn’t change as I get dealt my cards.
I find it much easier to determine the cards my opponent holds by examining their previous bets than it is to make that determination by studying their facial expression. I know that I have a long ways to go in finding the correct balance between aggresive play and sane decision making. I don’t know how much better I can get at keeping a ‘poker face’.
It is a fallacy subscribed to by many beginners that is further perpetuated by hollywood and televised programs like the WPT, and by certain poker authors.
I don’t discount that fact that “tells” can sometimes save you a bet or win you the pot - I’ve certainly benefitted from a few in my career. However, it is a minor component of a winning player’s profit. There is a tremendous theoretical and technical side to the game that makes up the bulk of a professional’s profit. Theory and technique are not glamorous and do not sell movies or television.
If one’s theory and technique are inadequate, no amount of psychology or knowledge of tells will overcome the glaring shortcoming of expertise. Visual cues will pad your win rate, they are the gravy of a professional’s meal, but not the meat. Hollywood has a tendency to exaggerate the more glamorous component of just about anything (no matter how trivial a factor it plays), including poker, and often ignores the bread and butter material that is often too boring for viewers.
It’s true that ‘tells’ are overrated, in the sense of noticing that someone always taps the table when they are bluffing, or whatever. You’re right that betting patterns are much more indicative of what a player is up to, as well as position, relative chip stack, and a number of other things.
However, you DO lose a lot when you can’t see and hear the other players. For instance, it can be harder to tell when a person is on ‘tilt’, because you can’t see them throwing cards, swearing, etc. You can’t take advantage of the fact that weaker players often telegraph that they are going to fold long before the action gets to them. It’s harder to keep track of how many times a player had bought in, and all kinds of other subtle clues to their play.
However, the other players all lose that advantage as well, so it just changes the parameters of the game. It does hurt skilled players more than non-skilled players, because the non-skilled don’t use those observations anyway, and they certainly can’t use it against you, because you don’t do silly things like hold your cards out to the muck long before the action gets to you.
MonkeyNo1: I hate to be skeptical, but SIX tables at once? I have a hard time seeing that. Certainly you can’t be keeping track of any details of play in the games, and must be playing very mechanically. IMO you’re giving up a lot doing that. I occasionally play three games at once, but that’s pushing it. There are plenty of times even with just three games where I’m forced to make a snap judgement because I’m out of time, and it turns out to be questionable. Playing many tables at once is also bad advice for learning players. I know I couldn’t play three tables at once profitably without having years and years of experience.
All
Do not underestimate the bankroll you need to play poker if you are paying bills out of the bankroll. If your bankroll is not growing in size, you WILL bust out of the game at some point. The math guarantees it. For you to lower your risk of ruin, you have to invest your winnings in your bankroll, because your losses will also come out of it. One of the most common failings of wannabe-professional poker players is that when times are good and they are making tons of money, they spend it. Eventually, they hit the mother of all losing streaks, and if they haven’t kept their past winnings, the losing streak busts them out of the game.
then explain to me how casinos would be out of business? Casinos just ‘tax’ what players put in, but overall its the players that take money from each other. Your not playing the house per say, but you are racing against the clock to take enough money to make up for these ‘taxes’ insued by the casino.
Can you see now why I thought you were another anti-gambling one liner? Or was i wrong to think that?
As CrazyCatLady points out above, I play a lot of online poker. I’ve played seriously for about the last year, except for about four months when I didn’t play at all (when that whole practicing medicine thing was too busy to allow it). I’ve made enough to pay for a bunch of poker books, a few nice kitchen items, a decent bicycle, and a nice trip to Vegas, with a decent bankroll left over.
I didn’t set out to make money. I set out to be a good poker player, and I figured I might make enough to pay for a decent library of poker books. With those books, the 2+2 boards, and a lot of practice, my game improved to the point that I was making money fairly consistently.
Of course, “consistently” is relative; I’m currently at the bottom of a $200 dry spell over the last couple of weeks. That happens, and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it but expect it and have the bankroll to weather it.
So the answer to your question is yes, you can make some side money playing online low-limit poker, because I’ve done so. But I certainly wouldn’t count on it.
Well… like I said, I was just describing someone else in Ontario that does play six 1/2-1 (holdem) tables and do very well with it. I personally can’t! But! I did try it. I set up 2 x 19" 1600 x 1200 monitors - it fits perfectly 2 lobby screens and 4 game tables. Uhm… well… #^#@^ !!! Holeeeeee !!! How the #@^@#%@# does someone do SIX freakin tables!?
Since my first attempt at 6-tabling, I have discovered that one can play (very mechanically) 6 x low limit omaha hi/lo tables! Or at least, I can. On the other hand, 6-tabling low limit omaha hi/lo is not nearly as profitable for me as 2 tabling 10-20 holdem shorthanded. And I don’t think I could ever multitable 7stud, though I have witnessed people who can do one each of holdem and 7stud.
There is also one person I know of that can do a whole lot of low limit multitabling. He can do three 1-2 Paradise draw tables, while doing two UB or Party 3-6 limit full game holdem tables. His earn rate? It’s shocking!
Paradise, 3 x 1-2 draw = $21/hour
UB/Pty, 2 x 3-6 holdem = $14/hour
His per day income from 6 hours of low limit poker = $210!
I lived with this guy for three months last summer. We were working on a joint personal project, and it was agreed that we’d get more accomplished if I didn’t have to commute to his place all the time. I got to watch him in action and it was funny watching the pointer pop around so fast.
Now, I’m well aware that posting his earn rate at 1-2 draw ($7/hour/table) might get a lot of heat thrown at me from old timer draw poker players because it seems outrageously high. But think about it for a moment. 5 handed, 5 card draw takes a while to deal in a B&M casino; wheres, the deal is almost instantaneous online. You go from maybe 30 hands per hour to, suddenly 100+ hands per hour per table. The hourly rate, once you consider the sheer volume of hands per hour, now looks pretty normal for a professional.
I wouldn’t recommend multitabling for beginners either. On the other hand, all three students that I started this year progressed to 2 or 3 tables within a month’s time. I actually warned all three repeatedly about multitabling. But, I think sometimes older people just have to accept that the younger generation can be very quick at learning new skills (when they’re motivated), and are quite competent multitasking with their computers.
Reviewing their records, I would agree that they’ve taken a hit in their performance. When I review their hand histories, I sometimes laugh and sometimes cry - but not much more often than on a per hand basis anyways than if they were single tabling it. However, the small drop in per table performance in all three cases was more than made up for by the additonal games - or to say they netted more per hour because the added earn rate from the second or third game was more than the marginal decrease in performance at each table.
I paid for my college tuition playing Hold’ em. There is ALOT more to playing face-to-face than tells. But, if you don’t read people well then you’ll reap nothing from it.
Other than just reading people, you attempt to get them to read you incorrectly. and intimidate them into going on tilt. My mathematical understanding is probably at 97% but my big edge is reading/manipulating people and probably play an 25-95% statistical game depending on how many people are at the table. Since I’m more of a psychological player I prefer to play short-handed or ideally, heads-up no-limit, but that’s a tough game to find. If you are REALLY good at math, can do it on the fly, and have A LOT of mental energy, play 7-card stud.
I’d bet against you achieving your goal of paying the rent. Are you a disciplined gambler? Can you fold 15 hands in a row while waiting for the other 9 players to play out a hand? How long have you been playing poker? How are you at Rock, Paper, Scissors? Can you beat the following bot easily and for a prolonged period?
http://chappie.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/roshambot
A good statistical player can make money playing online. A good statistical player who knows people will make more. A good statisical player who knows people and plays face to face will make the most.
If you do decide to try, get a copy of Turbo Texas Hold’Em:
I should add that it’s a depressing lifestyle.
Amen to that.
Poker is a fine hobby, and one that can keep you in beer and maybe buy you the odd toy or vacation.
As a career, it sucks the big one. You have to spend all your time in smoky rooms, surrounded by people you wouldn’t give the time of day to, creating exactly nothing of value. It’s a dead-end lifestyle. And if you start doing it, the years can pass by pretty quickly. Eventually, you’ll realize how empty it all is, and long for something else.
The irony is, the people who are smart enough to make a living at poker are generally smart enough to do even better at something else. Those who would have a better lifestyle if they played poker instead of doing whatever it is they do now usually aren’t the types with the intelligence, or drive, or emotional control to actually succeed at it.