Had to leave chess for poker...

It's just logistics and finances. I can't justify 16 hours straight over the board when there isn't actually any chance of me earning a living behind it and I'm a person who needs money. I could start dedicated all my time into chess but I'm 32 and playing for only one year on and off. I'm never going to be able to make money from chess. With poker I can earn a living, teach others, play thousands upon thousands of hands a week without worrying about fatigue so much, etc. 

Anyone else really like chess but leave the game for poker so that you could earn a living from the game? 

I'm winning at low stakes but not at the level where it could be my sole income.

Fair enough decision. Poker is a great game.

I really miss chess at times but want to dedicate myself to one or the other. 

Both really complicated games but I honestly think poker might be a little bit more complex. Look at all of the different variations with stakes, table size, having to compile reads on players, etc. Chess is crazy but it's not like poker. Imagine if every move of the chess pieces cost you or won you $$? 

Why not? It's exhilerating. 

How many hours of playing poker is needed for a beginner to become an advanced poker player (beginner<intermediate<advanced) Just my curiosity.

Well that's the other thing: The sky is the limit as far as poker progress goes. There's no distinct disadvantage to learning to play @ 32, you know? 

Hard to say. But in chess a good move is a good move.

In poker the same move may be terrible in one position or against one person, great another time. Highly situational.

That's what makes it so complex. Even @ 2nl the variance is wild. 

And chess isn't an addiction? The difference is that you're never going to be able to support yourself with it no matter how good you get. If you're going to be addicted to something, why not making something that can pay the bills? 

lol 

I think poker is more interesting than chess from a game theory perspective.

But once I realized that in poker, I was being incentivized to find bad players (oftentimes gambling addicts) and exploit them,  and that playing against strong players was specifically undesirable ... whereas in chess, I just want to play better and better people, it was kind of over for me.  Bum hunting is not my idea of fun.

Of course if I cared about making money there is that aspect.  But, it's a lot harder than you think it is once all your living expenses are coming out of your bankroll.  Your ROI and # of hands played has to be a whole lot higher than it does when you're playing with a bankroll that you never withdraw from.

Also, the future of online poker is pretty dire from a professional standpoint, the casual guys that these guys feed off of are dropping out left and right because the online game is not very friendly to casuals at all (some level of study, and a HUD are basically required to even have a chance at most online tables (even low stakes), which the average casual gambler is not going to want to invest in).

I like multi-table tournaments, and even 9-man SNGs sometimes.  But cash games are done for me. 

I certainly don't think it's worth it from a straight up professional standpoint.  If you have the aptitude to learn enough to grind a $25/hr rate from $5/$10 NL, you have the aptitude to learn something like IT where you could easily be making twice that much with benefits and more of a future.

Tigerprowl,

        I liked the pharmacist quip - it made me chuckle. As for any form of gambling, poker or other betting (eg horses or dogs), there is a perfectly reasonable argument which says that risking resources, which you already have, through earnings or anything else, is unnecessary and irrational.

I'm with RG1951. I never play games with money riding on them.

It depends what money you're risking. You shouldn't risk the money that you can't afford to lose, but risking additional money with +EV is perfectly rational.

You definitely can't play scared of losing your money, you have to separate the money that is capital to be used from the rest which you live on.

Why not? 

        I still think it's reasonable to say that risking money already in your rightful possession on what might boil down to the turn of a card (and often does) is not sensible. I don't see that affordability comes into it. BTW, what is +EV? My education is clearly sadly lacking. 

There are proven lines and approaches to different hands from different positions that will, mathematically over time, = profit for you. 

Positive expected value i.e. if you repeat the scenario infinite times you will be a winner overall. A factor of the probability/returns.

You could say the same to anyone starting a business about risking money in your possession. Any business is influenced by unpredictable circumstances. Clearly you're risk adverse, which is fine too.

Poker winning is about long term results. Thus it doesn't come down to cards except in the short run.

reasomable

Great post. It really is a deep thinking game.