Anyone tried poker as vacation work?

[Waggho]

I don´t know if you have three semesters or something in the US, but in Sweden universities we have a summer break for three months when people desperately work in bars, stores and restaurants to have an income so that they don´t go broke during summer. I was thinking that maybe I could try playing some poker this summer and make some money that way. That would really be terrific, no boss and no early mornings.

Has anyone of you tried this? What is a reasonable goal? Do you get bored after playing several hours a day? Is it more painful to lose when it´s your income?

I think I will try to have so much money that if I don´t win, things will still be fine. It wouldn´t be nice to lose $2000 instead of winning $2000, and if I do I don´t want to get broke.

If I set three weeks off for this, what do you think is a reasonable goal? I´ll probably play .25/.50 tables. $1000 profit would be just fine for my economy. Realistic?

Any thoughts on this are welcome.

[ake]

I don't know how much you usually play, but I'm a slacker myself so I pretty much have all day to play. And it does get boring. Of course, making money is never boring, but I need sessions that are several hours long to be successful. So I only sit down when I really feel like it. Otherwise I might end up leaving after losing my initial 20BB or so.

1000$ is not at all unrealistic at those stakes. You can make 100$ a day with enough patience. Counting in cold cards and bad beats I'd say 1000$ goal over three weeks of intense quadtabling is very realistic.

Oh yeah, on a side note.. like I said I'm a slacker atm but I'm going to the university this fall. And I can tell you for sure I won't be working at my first summer vacation, 2006.

[SmackinYaUp]

I think its very realistic. Including bonus whoring, I made $1300 last month at the $25NL tables around the net.

[ensign_lee]

I'm in my second semester at the UW right now, and after my job got eliminated (used to be what i used to fund my poker hobby until I got better at it. :P) from the budget, I started playing poker a little bit more, and now it's my source of fun money.

If I lose, I try to chalk it off as "entertainment cost" because I do it on the weekends when I don't ahve anything to do or anything, but yeah.

Unfortunately, because it's my only flow of income, yes it DOES hurt when you lose more than it used to...just because it's YOUR money and you were trying to turn that money into more money, not lose it. and you can't rationalize "OK. Well I'll just have to work another day this week" or something like that, because poker for that day IS your work.

That being said, it also feels good at the end of the day when you win, thinking "If I'd gone to work today, I would have earned $55. But instead, I played and own $100" or something like that.

I'd suggest looking for a job a little in the beginning and seeing how poker treats you in your first week or two of vacation. If you can't handle the swings (I know I've thought about stopping sometimes in bad runs), then perhaps it ain't for you. It might be worth a shot, though, if your bankroll is nice and healthy.

Anyhoo, I hope this helps and good luck hitting the card rooms...just try not to use any of it against me, ok?

[SmackinYaUp]

Yea, and dont feed the kids with it. Play within your bankroll. Bad beat? Take a walk, smoke, or chug a 40 oz of Old English. No tilting! And ignore that Old English thing...dont do that. Make a written contract with yourself citing rules about withdrawals, stakes of play, etc

[wobbler]

Poker has another advantage over a "real" job. In Sweden there is a limit on how much a student is allowed to earn a year before he loses his financial aid. So if he works too much during summer he will actually end up with less money. With poker you won't have this problem since you won't be declaring your profits as income.

[RERAISE5823]

I would suggest live play over online play for income. I don't know many WINNING players who win more online than live.

[gabe]

I would suggest live play over online play for income. I don't know many WINNING players who win more online than live.

I do.

[JeffreyGB]

I would suggest live play over online play for income. I don't know many WINNING players who win more online than live.

There's many of them here on FTR. Fnord, soupie (ok...wins more online than live may be a stretch, since he's done a ton of live games), Rippy, ilikeaces, elipsesjeff, b00n, sed...Assuming equal availability, you'll probably win more in live games because of the inequality in skill transfer (a 3/6 live game is around about equal to a .25/.5 online game, from what I've heard), but it's certainly possible to win big online, and if you don't have easy access to a consistent source of live games, it can be the way to go.

- Jeffrey

[Molinero]

It's funny you mention this, Wag.

Since I am a teacher and have summer vacation coming, I've been talking to LeFou (who lives near me) about the following:

--Reactivating my internet and playing online a lot
--taking money out-of-pocket and beefing up my BR to play at 1-2 NL games here in town

I was thinking that I might be able to make some good money over the summer...kind of a part-time job.

BTW, anyone else who's in Europe: I'll be in Italy for 2 weeks in June, and wouldn't mind finding a low-to-medium stakes game (if you care a flying turd).

[RERAISE5823]

I agree it's possible to win online, but there is no comparison to live games IMO. I'm aware of the big winners on here, too.

There is no replacement for live experience, period. This dude asked if poker would be a good job, and my opinion is that live poker would pay him better and train him better as well.

[Spook]

Live poker is not a viable solution for everyone. If you don't live near a casino it could be out of the question. Sure almost anyone can find a weekly home game here and there.. but to find enough of them to make a living on it? I don't see it.

On-line poker is available to everyone 24/7/365. Maybe its not quite as lucrative (you still have to convince me of this), but it makes up for any shortcoming there in sheer volume.

[iwa]

Playing live for a living can be quite difficult.. Online provides several tournaments and the ability to multitable. Since you sound like you dont have a large bankroll... I would stick to multitabling online.

[Waggho]

Live play is out of the question for me, as the swedish government has a casino monopoly, and there are only three (I think) casinos in the whole country (and they appeared just a few years ago)... home games are allowed but as soon as anyone earns (not wins!) money on it (like rake) it is illegal. Also we must pay 30 % tax on all our winnings... that we won after investing a piece of our monthly income which we payed 30 % of in tax before we got it. I don´t think we can discount for losses though! This is an odd country.

[wobbler]

1. I think very few people declare and pay tax on online winnings. It's just like having a Swiss bank account--you are supposed to report it, but hardly anyone does.

2. Aren't winnings in the state casinos taxed as rake, so they don't count as income on your declaration? That's what I though.

[KingDan]

If you want to win $1000, i'd say move up from .25/.50

I suppose you could, but the play at .5/$1 is nothing to fear... I doubt your win rate is double at .25/.50. By staying at low limits you might just be costing yourself time and money.

[JeffreyGB]

If you want to win $1000, i'd say move up from .25/.50

I suppose you could, but the play at .5/$1 is nothing to fear... I doubt your win rate is double at .25/.50. By staying at low limits you might just be costing yourself time and money.

True...except when underbankrolled for the .5/1 stakes. If you can't afford a game, don't play there. Doing otherwise is an easy way to bust out due to natural variance.

- Jeffrey

[KingDan]

It says his bankroll is 1100 in his signature. That is more than enough for 1/2.

[a500lbgorilla]

It says his bankroll is 1100 in his signature. That is more than enough for 1/2.

1/2 NL?

-'rilla

[JeffreyGB]

It says his bankroll is 1100 in his signature. That is more than enough for 1/2.

To expand on what 'rilla said (and because I happen to know that he does play NL): 1/2 NL is NL$200. That's all of 5.5 buyins. VERY underbankrolled.

Even .5/1 NL is NL$100, giving him 11 buyins. It's possible to work with that size of a bankroll, but the comfort factor says to me that sticking to the arena where he has 22 buyins is much better.

- Jeffrey

[KingDan]

It says his bankroll is 1100 in his signature. That is more than enough for 1/2.

1/2 NL?

-'rilla

Oh my bad... I thought we were talking about limit...

[Waggho]

yep No Limit is the game for me.... but I´m hoping of course that my bankroll will grow enough so that I can play the .5/1 tables this summer. Just don´t want to take out anything in advance though... but as my bankroll grows over $2,000 and up, I´ll probably be taking shots at .5/1.

[SmackinYaUp]

Good luck! If you arent comfortable playing those higher stakes just remember that its very possible to make $1,000 playing $25NL and $50NL during your summer break. A couple bonuses wouldnt hurt much either.