Oh, please. Everyone does that. It is almost assumed on resumes these days...

Wow

Quote:
August 1992 - April 2005

In these times, that seems like an impossibility to work for a single tech company that long. I've been working tech since 96, and have 4 companies on my resume. (well, 5 names due to mergers, but only 4 jobs). One company tanked completly, the next one slimmed down before being bought and closed by a competitor, the next shrank back to their home town due to mistakes made before the tech crash, and now my last job has been a constant ladder climb as the bottom rung falls off.

Some days I wish I hadn't gone into tech.

Yeah, I consider myself quite lucky to have been so stable for so long.

That's actually two sequential companies. It was originally Comtrain in 1992, a small startup that got bought up by Kelly Services in 1994. They hung onto us for 10 years and change before deciding they could outsource what we were doing for them.

Funny thing is, that's how we started. They were outsourcing, and we were their supplier. They wanted to completely own our technology so that their competition didn't have it. Hence, the purchase in 94. Times change I guess.

Tony,

There is some huge money to be made in online poker. I'd be willing to help you get on the right track, which could speed your learning curve tremendously. It will take some serious study on your part, but it is very fun and immensely profitable. Every hand is a little logical problem to solve. You need to have some aptitude for thinking mathematically, and some understanding of statistics is helpful.

When playing poker seriously, as an expert plays, you only play about 15-17% of your hands, maybe as many as 19-20% if you are against incredibly weak and predictable opponents and you play quite well. Most people don't have the discipline to play so few hands. Their lack of discipline and lack of self-honesty means money flows right into your bank account.

In a "live" or "B&M" (brick and mortar) card room, you just sit there while you fold hand after hand, observing your opponents. An expert can beat a live middle-limit game ($10-$20 up to $75-$150 is probably considered middle limit) for about 1 to 1.5 big bets per hour (BB/hr). That's great if you're playing higher than $30-$60 and expect to win over 60/hour, but not so good otherwise.

Online is a whole other deal. First, the games are much faster -- about twice the speed. I average 62 hands per hour, where a fast live game is only about 35 hands per hour. Second, and this is the best part, you can play multiple games in multiple windows.

I am currently playing the $3/$6, 6 tables simultaneously. I'm averaging about 2.25 BB/100 hands or about $13.50/100 hands. But at 62 hands/table/hour and 6 tables, that's just over $50/hour.

I've set a goal to reach a certain number of hands at this limit (30,000), then I'm moving up to the $5/$10 6-max game (maximum of 6 players at the table, which means faster games). The 6-max games are reportedly softer as well as faster. There are quite a few college kids playing the $5-$10 for a living and making around $100/hour. After 30,000 hands of $5/$10, I plan to move to $15/$30. My goal is to be beating $15/$30 for at least 1.5 BB/100 by June (you do the math). 30,000 hands doesn't take all that long online! That gets to be some interesting money for playing a game. Of course, I really enjoy the game and not everyone does. It requires concentration and constant thinking and decision making, which I love. Fundamentally, the game is about making decisions. If you make better decisions than your opponents, you win in the long run. These decisions can be extremely complex, which you may enjoy as I do, depending upon your personality.

At lower limits (below $15-$30), online win rates of 3-4 BB/100 are possible. Win rate diminishes somewhat as you move up because the game gets tougher, and as you increase the number of simultaneous games because you have less time to consider each decision. On the other hand, statistical software tools exist to help you profile your competitors and make better decisions in less time.

I seem to recall you asking about Holdem several months ago. Hold'em is considered the most complex form of poker because of the intricacies of the common cards. Post-flop play can really be a brain-teaser, and "any two can win." This creates the perfect balance of luck and skill. There must be a balance because if a game is too skillful, bad players stop playing. If a game is too easy, there is no edge available to the expert. The first reason is the reason why most no-limit games eventually dry up; the expert has a much larger edge because he can manipulate the odds his opponents are getting with much more precision, and eventually the fish won't play with him.

If you are reasonably bright and study hard, you ought to be able to pay the bills while you look for another job. In a few months, you could easily be out-earning your old colleagues. You may decide, as I did, that there is no way you could ever work another office job.

Working for yourself is a great experience. Your time is your own. Your income potential is up to you, especially in poker. It is an incredibly liberating experience! I've struggled to figure out "what I want to do when I grow up". I stumbled across this poker thing and it really seems to fit my personality and the lifestyle I desire (lots of free time for motorcycle trips).

PM me if you want to get into more detail.

Either way, good luck with your job search.

Jim

I would like to know more. Where do you live? If you're local to NY, I would love to check out what you're doing.

I love blackjack myself. I consider myself a knowledgeable player. Last year it seems like I won $2,000 and lost about $1,500 ($500 up). I only play about 6 times per year in real casinos and never play poker. I would be interested to see how you're doing this poker thing. I don't think blackjack is as easy to make a living out of unless you're playing $100 per hand.

If you're not local, I would love to read more about this.

Thanks for the suggestion. I have a friend who does a lot of online poker, and also real-world poker a lot.

It's a fascinating game, and one that I enjoy recreationally. But I'm not particularly good at it, and I don't think I'd enjoy it if I were doing it for a living. I don't think I've got the necessary personality to be able to do it well.

On the other hand, I actually do really enjoy IT jobs, I'm genuinely good at it, and would be perfectly happy doing that for the rest of my life. Despite my songwriting to the contrary.

Do what you love, Tony!

Always.

Jim

Rob, send me a PM and let me know what you're interested in. I would be happy to share my perspective. I played BJ as a pro for a year, but poker offers a higher return for a vastly lower variance.

And, unlike blackjack, I assume it's entirely legit to count cards (at least, the cards you can see). Still, if I was a gambler, I'd be nervous of online play. In addition to the fact that you could be playing against computer-augmented human players, like you described, you could also be playing against an entire table of virtual opponents controlled by one actual person, who would have a significant edge in terms of visibility of hidden cards and whatnot. Also, what assurance do you have that the house isn't cheating behind your back and biasing card draws or feeding information about your own hand to opponents? What assurance do you have that the house hasn't been hacked by one of your opponents?

At least, with a physical game, these sorts of attacks are much harder to pull off, even if you've got conspirators with a private signalling strategy (ala the MIT blackjack team).

There is absolutely, unequivocally nothing illegitimate about keeping track of seen cards in blackjack. There is also nothing illegitimate about the casinos not allowing you to play. They do this not because playing with an advantage is illegal or "illegitimate", its just that they don't want anyone playing who isn't going to lose in the long run. It is perfectly legal to count cards. This has been upheld in several court cases. In fact, in Atlantic City they can't even ask you not to play if they *know* you are counting (but they make the game unbeatable in other ways).

I typed up a long message responding to the rest of your points, but lost it to a misclick. Maybe I'll do it again later. The bottom line is that online poker is real poker, it is safe and your concerns are not practical concerns in real life day-to-day play. Maybe I'll write the whole thing up again if there is some interest. Your "assurance" is your knowledge of the game, the ability to assess your opponent's play, and to keep statistics on your own play. Results don't lie (at least, long-term results don't!)

Preferential shuffle is illegal. I've seen it happen, but most casinos don't do this. Its easier to just ruin the penetration. Very, very few dealers know how to count. Surveillance people are the ones who know about that stuff.

You're right about everything else except the advantage. It is possible to gain up to 2% advantage using a sophisticated system, more in some special situations. This may not seem like much, but it is 2% compounding hourly, or something of that order. If you are playing 100 hands per hour averaging $100/per hand, you have $10,000/hour of action. 2% of that is not a "slight advantage" by any means. It is many times the advantage the house has against a perfect basic strategy player and is plenty to make a nice living, if you can find enough games.

The issue is not the small advantage (because the advantage is rather large), the issue is the variance. Variance comes from how the game is constructed and is the real reason why it is difficult to play blackjack successfully.

Many people learn a basic +/- count and think they have the advantage. Doing it correctly is much more complex.

Oh, and usually its a very pleasant woman...

Interesting. I didn't know preferential shuffling was illegal.

The amount of advantage for a counter varies according to the particular table rules, of course. I've noticed that tables with good rule sets are getting more and more rare these days. I'm seeing a lot of things like single deck games, but where the blackjack payout amount is 6 to 5. (Thus reducing the advantage for a counter who keeps a side count of aces in a single deck game, in addition to simpky reducing the overall player advantage.)

I'll bet it's all part of the casino backlash against the increased availability of information on blackjack strategy and counting in this internet-age.

The way I've heard it described is that a very good blackjack player can keep close to even over most hands and then make money back on his natural 21s. Reducing the payoff to 6-to-5 puts it below the statistical average to come out ahead.

This is correct. 6:5 is unbeatable. "Naturals" are a major reason for the advantage, but this is because you bet more when you know you are more likely to get a natural. Playing a "full index" system allows you to make (or save) a lot of money on all the other plays, especially doubles and insurance. Perfect insurnace play is a huge advantage, but it is very difficult to play insurance perfectly (you also need to side-count tens). In a "full index" system, insurance still accounts for around 50% of the total advantage of an expert player, even more if you side-count aces and adjust for this.