There's pretty much only one definition: their primary source of income is poker.
There's pretty much only one definition: their primary source of income is poker.
true, but someone like Guy Laliberte does not get all of his income from poker, but he would still be considered a pro right? does ability or skill have anything to do with it?
true, but someone like Guy Laliberte does not get all of his income from poker, but he would still be considered a pro right? does ability or skill have anything to do with it?
There's pretty much only one definition: their primary source of income is poker.
hey, I'm a pro!
Also, once a pro, always a pro?
1. Consistantly Winning
2. Consistantly able to raise the stakes at which you win at
I'm curious as to what you guys think makes a poker player a pro? I thought about it and came up with no determinative answer. I'm sure theres alot of different criteria but I'm not sure
By this definition though, the likes of Doyle Brunson and Barry Greenstein aren't pros: they already play in the big game, so they've hit a ceiling and aren't consistently raising the stakes at which they win.
I think it's like a few other people have said: a professional is someone who makes their living playing poker. Note that this is different to someone who plays poker every day but has to regularly borrow money from others to pay their rent.
it does not matter if ur a winning or losing player
if u play poker to make some sort of money u ARE A PRO
if u have a job and that is ur primary source of income then U ARE NOT A PRO
If you've hit that ceiling and are consistantly losing... you may not... or no longer be... a "pro".
This guy sucks IMO. He gets lucky and plays way too much.
Plus, hes a billionaire
and doesnt get nearly as much money from poker as he does his company.
By that definition then, I'm a semi-professional poker dealer
cashes in about 75% of the tournies they enter.