How one guy turned his C&C skills into millions with online poker

If he a.) plays at stakes where he can lose over a million in a couple days and b.) bases his decision to play someone (especially another pro) on emotion and recent short term variance, it's pretty much guaranteed he will end up broke eventually unless he actually has many many millions (like possibly in the hundreds if we're talking about enough to cover the swings of heads up PLO games at those stakes with Gus Hansen).<p>It's hard to fathom how much variance really exists in poker. Lucky and unlucky streaks can and do last months to years for people who play thousands of hands per day. Statistics dictates that there will always be a number of outliers who, due to a combination of moving up aggressively and running hot at the right times, become millionaires in a short time and draw a lot of attention, but unless they're the real deal and sufficiently bankrolled to cover the swings, it will all go back, often as quickly as it came. Most of the famous players on TV actually fit this mold, go broke constantly, and only make consistent money due to endorsements. Among real high stakes pros (mostly math-oriented, highly self-disciplined nerds you've never heard of), a large portion of the TV stars are considered fish. I've always found it interesting how distorted the general perceptions are versus reality.

I played quite a bit of poker and blackjack to help pay for college; Some of my "not-really-friends" friends dropped out to play professionally.<p>Playing 6+ simultaneous tables isn't as romantic (it's a boring way to play) or hard (there's software to help you keep track) as this article makes it out to be, when you're essentially asking the same question every hand, doing the same calculation. It gets to be mind numbing. There are few situations in poker that are truly interesting when you've played tens of thousands of hands.<p>I'd liken the experience less to Command and Conquer and more to mining for gold in World of Warcraft.<p>And that was the difference between me and the others in my circle that still play full time: Mental stamina.<p>Seeing the chips as points and not money is really a defense mechanism to keep you playing rationally. Where many good, but not great, online players lose it is in the grind of constantly calculating pot odds.

I would badly like to sit this guy down with 'young poker hotshot' expected lifetime net worth graph, median lifetime net worth graph and 'likelihood you will go broke' worksheet, and convince him to dump $3mm into T-bills.<p>Oh well. I wouldn't have listened either when I was his age.

I recently started blogging at <a href="http://www.rationalpoker.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.rationalpoker.com</a>, there's an intro post at <a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/4yk/verifying_rationality_via_rationalpokercom/" rel="nofollow">http://lesswrong.com/lw/4yk/verifying_rationality_via_ration...</a>, if you're curious.

Its very common for high level rts players to also play poker. During the time of starcraft broodwar before starcraft 2 launched there was not much north american/european interest in the gaming scene. Professional players use to play poker by day to make money and starcraft by night to practice for their next tournament.

Semi related question: how do these guys keep their millions, from a banking and tax standpoint. Is it no longer illegal to gamble online in the us?<p>If I was him I'd be socking away a % monthly for saving and rainy day funds

I used to bet on sports. I've made 13k in 13 days. I've wagered 10k on a single game (numerous times). I've lost 14k in three hours. I've wagered my entire bankroll on a single day of NFL games.<p>And guess what? It was never about the money. Sure, I always wanted to see the number go up, but I had no intentions of withdrawing any of it. It was about being right. It was about pushing the envelope. And most importantly, it was about trying to figure something out.<p>I don't care if you make millions or go bust... or go back and forth between the two. As long as you leave your emotions at the door, you'll be fine. And to be honest, I was good at that (and still am). But it's probably not a life you want...<p>I mean, yeah, it's fun trying to solve something and seeing if you're right or wrong. But you're only doing it for yourself. You and no one else. And if that tickles your fancy, go for it - I have nothing against it. But what if you chose to share your passion for wanting to be right, for wanting to push the envelope, for wanting to figure something out...<p>In my eyes, it wouldn't necessarily make you a better person, it'd just be hard to call that bet a loss.

I'm going to make a prediction and say that this kid is flat broke in the next 2-5 years.(if it takes that long) The article seems to gloss over the sickening amounts of variance that poker can have. Just like you can run up from nothing to millions in year, you can go from living in the penthouse to sweeping the lobby over a few bad sessions. Especially at the stakes he's playing at. Ask Mike Matusow about being a pro who's borrowing money to pay bills.

C&#38;C = Command and Conquer (game) for other curious folk

ps...check out the mathematic models/programs that play out and distill "variance", the "long term", and 'luck' in poker..It's remarkable stuff.

The prob with..every..mainstream story on (e)poker is the unflinching marketing élan of the writers, and necessity to give a (stil truly) sub-terranean slice of life immediate resonance to the audience.<p>Not too encroach upon anyone's character or existence, let alone the actual people in the article...<p>Poker is an inexorable gambit; both in lifestyle (subjectively define by 'sanity', and career (objectively define buy debt and financial bottoming out.<p>Poker is a fairly pure, distilled hologram of the caprice/randomness, and skill/will that resides over living and life itself, and a stripped bare interplay of emotional and psychological alchemy that everyone has, and lives with.<p>The greatest poker success carries little to not weight, in terms of posterity. IMO, greatest difference between poker and "other jobs".<p>Even aject fail in other occupational pursuits almost always carries over some tangible good productive benefit for you and your career. Whether it's contacts, savings, reputation, experience itself.<p>Contra poker; even after enormous success, the above benefits are a double edged sword at best, where your experience and connections (ability to get back in) are as likely to be the underpinnings of cyclical, fixed failure.<p>At best, it's a totoal unknown; emoyrically, it's pretty obvious.<p>And either way, poker is devoid of true metrics...in the same way -- IMHO -- other businesses get/should be hinged upon.<p>Ironic, since poker is all about a scoreboard and 'statistics'. But the living and breathing reality of metrics is a seperate (undomesticated) species from standard business metrics.<p>One more thing, hopefully more concrete (I'm reticent to be too specific since I know/knew a lot of the actual ppl involved),<p>The luck of poker, applied to people otherwise talented and able, is most profound in the beginnings of their poker experience, most often at adolescent ages where an underlying emotional caprice and aversion (or tolerance..) to risk is extremely strong.<p>Majority of the "long"term winners, had remarkably pain-free beginnings, when their emotional and psychological poker fortress got created. Still, many dropped out of school after losing/borrowings appreciable sums, to persevere.<p>Pointedly, of the latter...most were in financial umbrella's of school and family, and insulated from the psycholigical tumult n emotional traumas that define any poker career.<p>This got too long n fumbling, but personal experience/a vacuum of time on the treadmill/and a general interest necessitated.