If you're talking casual play, off and on for a year, then yes it's highly unlikely. If you're taking about spending a good part of a year, reading some of the best books out there (I recommend Harrington on Cash Games Vol. I and II) and then methodically applying the techniques in those books to your play, it's doable. Or at least, when I took some time off between startups, I was able to average being a reasonably profitable poker player at cash games in casinos.

However, I came to the conclusion that it was a good learning experience and that $80k a year was not worth having to sit in a room with a bunch of guys, hunched over a table, breathing in their germs, and listening to their half drunk rants. Great lessons to be learned from poker though, but you must be dedicated to average being profitable. If I go back and try now, I'm probably going to lose more often than not.

Completely agree. Number ONE is learn to play poker? Seriously? With all of the things that you could learn that could make you money, the first one is not poker. Not even close.

I love poker. I'm fairly good at it. I've even had a couple of nice 5-figure tourney payouts. But bank on my poker abilities to provide for me? For my family? Lunacy.

So play poker for two years and then (#9) start a business? No. Start a business TODAY.

Learn how to create a product/service that creates recurring monthly income. Doesn't matter if that income is $100/month or $10K/month — just that it is recurring, month after month. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Once you know how to create something that makes recurring income you will on a path to big growth. Maintain the products/services that are making the recurring revenue and start working on others.

I think there are great things you can learn from playing poker — the game is challenging, it helps you get to understand other people, tests your fortitude, and can be rewarding ... but it's not step #1 in a lifeplan.

You make the point that playing poker is a crazy idea to rely upon and then go and say all you need to do is "create a product/service that creates recurring monthly income"

How is that any easier or reliable?

If you commit yourself to playing poker 40+ hours a week, to improve your skills, get to a point where you are making $40-60 an hour, and do that as a full time job for a few years you can make money. What happens on a downswing? If you run into a string of bad luck and bad beats? You can be a great player and go for months without making money.

Worse, let's say that you do this for two years. At the end of that two years what skills have you acquired? The ability to play poker. Basically that's it. There might be some tangential skills like reading people, staying calm under pressure, etc. — but, basically you have learned to play cards well.

If you spend that two years starting a business, trying out new product/service ideas, testing the markets, programming a website/service/app you are learning skills along the way that can help you down the road. Even if you completely fall on your face and every idea you have is a bust, you have some skills that will help you with your next business venture or (god forbid) getting a job. If you play poker for two years you have none of that.

I both play poker and have had several business failures so I know what you're talking about. It's my personal opinion that both options are very difficult to rely upon for creating a decent, livable regular income. I'd also say both paths give you plenty of skills you can use in other fields.

If I had to choose between the two I'd pick the business route for the reasons you've listed. But relying on one or the other to work out and pay your bills is "crazy"

Good point ... most poker players and entrepreneurs all have a little 'crazy' in them I think :)

> "There might be some tangential skills like reading people, staying calm under pressure, etc."

His poker argument actually started there, and I think this was the more important point. It's stuff like reading people, staying calm under pressure, evaluating probabilities, recognizing the important factors out of hundreds, and making good decisions that make poker valuable even if you don't make it into a career.

The point about making it into a career was, IMO, a distraction from the more important point about the life skills acquired from learning the game.

For what it's worth, that's what this site is, well, used to be about. I can't answer to "easier" but if you stick with it, it's a pretty reliable outcome.

13rules' comment got me rather nostalgic about the kind of content and comments we used to see around here. And before anyone nitpicks, this account is only ~3 years old, but I had another for two years prior.

Anyway, I welcome comments like 13rules'.

Oh me too, but I wouldn't want people to think just creating a business that gives you a recurring income is a simple thing to do. Neither is playing poker for a regular income.

Thanks. Much appreciated!

You're dead-on in terms of the value of recurring monthly income, hopefully -passive- monthly income!

In today's zero-interest-rate environment it is very difficult to generate risk-free income from capital alone.

Instinctively it would seem that "a million dollars" is cooler than "$10K/mo with little or no effort/time commitment" but if it lasts, long-term the latter is actually more valuable.

Let's break it down:

1. The author proposes to replace college by "a modern curriculum that, on average, will produce people better prepared for real life than college".

2. This curriculum "can be funded initially with $5000 for poker".

3. This is because after the first dedicated year of learning poker, "you'll be able to make between $45-60 per hour for the rest of your life".

4. If you follow this plan, your "chance of being self-sufficient and prepared for 'real life' is about 90%".

Let's boil this down even further: the author posits approximately 90% success rate -- for everyone -- for a scheme funded by generating an income of $45-60 per hour from a zero-sum game.

"Completely f'ing delusional" seems accurate to me.

Here's the full context of the 90% statement:

"There's no guarantee, but I see people work pretty hard at school, and if that same effort were put towards the Hustler's MBA, I thnk the chance of being self-sufficient and prepared for "real life" is about 90%. I'd estimate that non-laywer/doctor college is somewhere around 50-70%. So, like anything, this plan is not totally foolproof, but I think it's a lot better and cheaper than the alternative."

I don't know what kind of experiences you've had with random college graduates and their level of preparation for real life, but I think he's being generous at 50-70%.

I'd certainly be more interested in talking to someone who had the initiative to follow his plan (poker, reading, starting a business, good health, etc.) for 4 years, versus someone who just graduated with a bachelor's in a randomly selected discipline and had no real life experience.

Also, I don't know if you've ever actually played poker seriously for a long period of time, but the reality is that if you're relatively intelligent, have self control, and are disciplined enough to constantly learn new things, you are truly a shark swimming with goldfish. The average person at a poker table in most casinos has no idea what they're doing. There is a reason that professional poker players exist. It is not purely a game of chance, although there is chance involved. Kind of like startups :)

Hey, thanks. I'm the author of the linked post and this is spot on. I haven't replied to the other criticisms here because I've learned that when a person with experience argues with a person with a preconceived notion not backed up by experience, there's essentially no chance of convincing them.

Of course it's spot on. It also doesn't address what I criticized at all.

As @nlavezzo pointed out, the reason why professional poker players can make their living off poker is because the average person has no idea how to play poker well, whereas the professional poker player excels at it.

The problem with your advice is that the more people follow it, the less money they can make from poker, because poker is a zero-sum game at best.

Now, I don't play poker at all, so maybe I'm wrong about poker and there's some way everyone can come ahead of the game. Or maybe I misread your post and you're not really recommending this curriculum as a replacement for college. But if I'm wrong, I'd rather you told me why ;)

It's actually worse than zero-sum for the players, because the house takes a cut. Usually the house takes about $200 off the table every hour (plus tips to the dealer), so the rake matters less for higher stakes games.

However, it's not necessarily true that half of all current players are losing. Because bad players will quit, it is possible that a majority of current players are taking money from a rotating minority group of losing players. I don't think that's true, but it's possible.

Mathematically, you're correct that it isn't necessarily true that half of all current players are losing. It isn't even necessarily true if the pool of players is fixed, since the game being zero-sum doesn't constrain the possible distributions of winners and losers very much. The reality, though, is that the vast majority of players are losing.

As a "retired" professional poker player, I can say with certainty that this is possible, but the range is more like $20-40/hour. During that first year, the person must commit themselves to rigorous training and get themselves in a mindset of continual learning.

I've taught more than 20 people how to play Poker and you can usually tell within a couple days what their biggest weaknesses are going to be. Within two weeks, you can tell if they have the willpower to correct them. Most people do not; gambling can be pervasive in the mind.

I also had a period where I played "professionally" part-time. In the current environment, I'd say this is the correct earn rate for your average dedicated player.

However, most people will never become dedicated -- poker is an amazing lesson in cognitive biases. There are quite a few counter intuitive lessons of the game, that if left unaddressed, will severely hamper your winrate. I've also noticed a lot of people who develop incorrect 'pet theories' about the game that they refuse to either let go of or take any effort to empirically prove/disprove. The list goes on and on, but learning poker will do wonders for developing vital cognitive skills like outcome independence, patience and character judgement.

It's actually not terribly hard to get good enough to make money playing poker, but sustaining $60/hr for 8 hours a day takes an enormous amount of dedication and concentration, plus it takes time to get to that level. You're far better off learning to program.

I thought the poker thing was strange ... but he didn't fully lose me until the SECOND time he suggested becoming a pickup artist. Ugh.

Between my 2nd and 3rd years at Uni, a friend an I got into pickup. We watched videos, read books then went out in the evenings to practice. Pickings were slim since Bath becomes a ghost town during Summer, but we persevered.

I was pretty good with women beforehand, and certainly got better afterwards, but at a certain point during our training, my focus shifted from pickup to something more akin to 'reading, understanding and influencing people better'.

I think that's what pickup is really about: improving how you interact with people in general.

So yeah, some people will hate it for a number of reasons and that's ok. There are other ways to work on people skills. But pickup has a little additional incentive for you to work harder..

I thought he was talking about some kind of street basketball underground I wasn't familiar with, just skimmed past that.

Can you elaborate more about why do you think becoming a pickup artist is a bad thing?

The author is essentially saying that learning to manipulate women teaches you to think strategically. He wouldn't say it like that ... but that's very close to what he's saying. He's NOT saying that it helps you learn social skills (which IS valuable and IS NOT really the point of what pickup is trying to teach you, let's be honest).

I could go on and on about this. But this Quora answer knocks it out of the park so I don't have to. Her analysis is spot on:

http://qr.ae/8VDLj

A single hand of poker is a game of chance. But nobody just plays a single hand. A series of poker hands is a game of basic statistics and psychology.

If the article had suggested roulette or even blackjack, _that_ would be delusional. The house always wins.

Poker, however, is not especially delusional. It is unlike other casino games in that you're not playing against the house, so the odds are not stacked against you. Obviously there is luck involved but if you play with discipline over a long enough period of time you can beat the fluctuations. Really, all you have to do is learn how the game works and play against people who don't understand it as well as you do. It also helps if they are drunk, tired and on vacation. It's not a rewarding job, but it's actually pretty doable.

Actually perfect play blackjack is something like 50.1% in favour of the player. If you play long enough and perfectly enough you'll come out on top.

I think it's closer to 49.5% in favor of the player, but counting cards is an attainable skill and will push your edge a bit above zero.

I was counting card counting as part of "perfect play"

I don't understand why the author seemingly understands and uses opportunity costs in his argument against college, but ignores them when advocating that people learn poker.

Poker is a means to earn some money. Along the way, you pick up some analytical skills. If you're really good, you reach a point where you can inductively and deductively make decisions. Poker is also risky. It's also an emotional roller coaster. It's certainly not for everyone. The inductive skills you learn in poker will not necessarily translate to other walks of life and there are certainly better ways to beef up your reasoning skills than sitting at a poker table.

Author here...

I suggest poker because it's something I have a fair bit of experience with and I'd repeat the entire process even if I was strictly break-even (I am profitable inline with my estimations in the post). In my experience, the lessons do translate to real life, and making money is nice, too.

One particularly relevant advantage of playing poker is that the money keeps it honest-- over the long term, you know exactly how well you've learned the logical skills. Business is like this, too, but not many other things are.

It's not for everyone, but neither are many classes required in school. Biology wasn't "for me", but I did it. The point of my proposed curriculum is to illustrate an alternative to school that someone could use as a base, not an absolute "you must do this" mandate.

Yes it does. Perhaps college would have helped him with his delusion.

Yeah it's off putting that poker was #1 on the list. His remaining suggestions were actually things that seemed sensible, like reading, writing, programming, and starting a business, but the poker stuff was so distracting it was hard to continue.