Gambling as a career.

[Alan Mendelson]

Has anyone -- any school, any author, any economist -- looked into the actual dollars and cents of being a professional gambler?

We've all heard the stories and the claims about "advantage players." Several of them have published books, articles, blogs about their annual wins. But has an economist actually put those claims into perspective by also measuring other factors that go into a career.

Let me just list a few of the obvious that would offset gross income:

Insurance
Housing and food
medial care
retirement savings
transportation
entry fees
gratuities

Let's not forget starting capital: did it come from savings, or a start up loan, or a credit card or marker?

Then, let's factor in side benefits, secondary income:

Comps
cashback
endorsements
books and software and movie rights

An economist would also measure "opportunity cost" which is to say that if the gambler spent the same time money and resources doing something else, what would their bottom line be then?

I personally have "financial knowledge" of four gamblers:

I attended a Bob Dancer seminar about ten years ago when he said his annual video poker income was $250,000 but half of that income was from comps and cashback. At the time he was also writing his columns, selling books and software, etc. so I had no idea what his total income was -- gross or net. Yes, book publishers can lose money on their publishing.

The second gambler is Rob Singer who has told us he won about $100,000 per year net over ten years. Rob says he had no or very little income from his two books and website. The website, I believe was free. I think Rob also had outside income which covered benefits such as insurance, retirement, etc.

The third gambler is Frank Kneeland who recently emailed me to say he hasn't wagered his own money in eight years, and the only gambling he's done is with money supplied by "investors" in a video poker team. Frank has also been paid, from what I understand, a fee to manage the team. I don't know if that's a job that pays $10 or $50 an hour and I don't know if there are benefits that come with this "management position."

The fourth gambler I have knowledge of is me. I never had an annual win gambling -- but then I'm a recreational player, and I do have a day job with benefits, insurance, retirement, and a level of security (whatever security is in this economy).

And then I know of hundreds -- really, hundreds -- of gamblers who can only be described as "professionals" because playing poker is all they do. They are at casinos like Commerce and the Bike. And for the most part, they are scratching out a hundred dollars or so a day playing cash games -- maybe a couple of hundred dollars a day if they have had some success and are bankrolled better. Some of these "pros" can talk about glory days when they made the final table at a WSOP event but now sleep in their car, eat comped meals at the casino, and wash in the restroom. If they have a good week, they might get a $35 hotel room for the night.

A census about gamblers in America might make for some interesting reading.

[Rob.Singer]

In my case, I saved my gambling bankroll of $171,600 from working BEFORE quitting to become a professional player. It had nothing to do with my 401k, from credit of any kind, or from any nebulous sources that others use smoke & mirrors as a cover-up.

What I did have was a good and thoroughly prepared plan. I had fully saved for retirement, my wife still had the health insurance, and my family was fully supportive of my traveling to Nevada for 1-3 days every week. Now, both of us being in actual retirement, we are reaping the benefits of everything we had done in preparation--including my having gone thru the incredible life of being a pro gambler.

My comments on the Bob Dancers/Anthony Curtises/ Stanford Wongs etc. of the gaming world are well known: none of them have ever won anything consistently, so they have no choice to get an income within the gaming business to cover up their inadequacies. As for Frank, it's very clear his path is troubling to him. Who else has to constantly blab about multiple "dates" with playmates, hookers, momma-sans, and gorgeous young woman while playing video poker with other people's money and at the same time havie the audacity to call themself a "pro"?

Is it any wonder that when I replaced Dancer as the vp columnist at Gaming Today, I instantly became their most popular columnist ever? BTW Alan, my books sold a combined 24000 copies. Money was made, but I gave it all to my web designer/maintainer who remains my friend to this day. He visited me here from Indiana yesterday.

[redietz]

People make money betting sports professionally -- my estimate is 50 to 100 individuals or teams of individuals in this country. Up to this point, you would not have gotten many of them to claim this or that amount, but with the changes in the gambling tax laws, there will be some transparency in the years ahead.

It is, obviously, extremely difficult.

[Vegas Vic]

And there you have it. Rob is the smartest guy in the room and the most successful person ever in the history of gaming. We are so blessed to have him among us.

There's no need to bump this particular thread at any time as Rob will remind the world in dozens of yet-to-be-written topics.

[Rob.Singer]

You know Vic, I generally AM the smartest guy in the room, and it has almost always been that way. I didn't create myself--it's just the way it has always been.

[redietz]

I just wanted to make some Dancer/Granoff comments here. I read his book very carefully. Sometimes what's not stated tells you more than what is.

His father was obviously quite wealthy. We read that his father, however, did not stake him IN VIDEO POKER. Granoff's previous life as a backgammon player, leading to what some have reported as bankruptcy, gets not much of a mention, and the obvious implication is that perhaps his father's money came into play in his prior-to-video-poker gambling. This would explain his father's distaste for the video poker. The book also doesn't explain where Dancer acquired the bankroll to make the stabs he did at higher limits, which resulted in his girlfriend (not him) nailing the big cash. There is a leap-of-bankroll, the origins of which are unstated.

Read his book carefully, and notice what isn't explained.

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't hold a bankruptcy against anyone. Nor do I hold past failures against anyone. 'A past failure only indicates that what was tried in the past did not work. What counts is current success. Tell me what's working now -- because that's what I care about.

I know of several multi millionaire businessmen who had other companies in the past that failed.

My classic story is about a guy who had a chair and table rental business for parties. He never could make a go of it -- never made much money. Then one day someone showed him something the size of a finger made with a few wires and he was told that he was holding the future in his hand.

That "thing" was a diode. And back in the early 1960s that businessman made millions and saw his publicly traded stock go from $2 a share to $250, split 5 for 1 and then go from 50 back to $250 several times in the next two years.

[Alan Mendelson]

For some reason (probably, for many reasons) Frank Kneeland is reading this discussion but does not want to post here. Instead, he is sending me emails. Since there was nothing in the email that said it must be kept private, I am going to copy what Frank wrote to me:

I really liked your post, "Gambling as a career".

You might like to know, most if not all of what you said is covered in
my book, especially opportunity cost, lack of benefits, etc...

Nothing would make me happier than to tell people that one can't make a
living playing VP anymore, because it would discourage problem gambling,
which as you know is my personal crusade these days.

The reason I can't say it's impossible is I know too many people doing
it and I work for some of them.

Keep stressing the points you made in that post. You're doing good work.

The message should be, "Yes--doable, but not worth it."

~FK

Of course, one has to wonder what Frank means by "doable, but not worth it"?? Remember, that Frank says he will not reveal any of the "secret hand shake" agreements of his partners or inner circle so we don't know what "doable" means. Does it mean an income of $30,000 a year or $3-million a year.

The "defenders of the faith" including "Bob Dancer" and the pseudo-pros on other discussion boards all have one thing in common: no hard figures on income. Oh, we hear about the cars that are won, and the royals that come, but we never see a ledger or monthly or annual statements, or anything that would pass the scrutiny of the SEC if these were investment plans instead of what they are -- gambling books.

Frank: if you really mean by what you say that being a video poker pro is "doable, but not worth it" then tell us all what "not worth it" means? All you are doing in the meantime, Frank, is sucking more video poker dreamers into casinos, seminars, and book buying schemes. You are as guilty being silent as a huckster openly selling a system for winning at video poker.

[redietz]

Regarding some earlier comments, I am reminded of the old Japanese saying,

"If you are the smartest guy in the room, you are in the wrong room."

[Vegas Vic]

How ironic that Rob finds fault with the diversified careers of "the Bob Dancers/Anthony Curtises/ Stanford Wongs etc" (and knows emphatically why they do this) yet he also did the very same thing: wrote a book and a column, and got paid for both.

So what if gamblers (like Dancer) earn money outside of the casino?

By Rob's way of thinking, Michael Jordan is just another basketball player. After all, he made more money off the court than on the court.

[redietz]

I think one of the reasons "Wong" and "Curtis" take some heat is that they sell systems purporting to beat the casinos, but then allegedly testified (along with "Snyder") for the casinos against people using their systems. That is "playing both sides" to a degree that would make an arms merchant proud.

Personally, I think "Dancer" deserves some heat because he has never made it clear that what he did 10-15 years ago really cannot be duplicated today, and that if 100 "Dancer" clones started playing vp today, 90-some of them would fail because it's his past volume and status that enable him to get the rebates and cashback he currently enjoys. "Dancer" also talks about topics (sports betting, for one) about which he knows next to nothing, but he writes as if he has absorbed great wisdom from hanging out with a handful of folks who know what they're doing. Some of his sports betting comments contain basic math errors.

[Rob.Singer]

Vic: While Dancer was paid for each article he wrote for Gaming Today (and I'm sure he only has written articles for which he has been paid throughout his career) I refused to be paid a penny by GT for the nearly 400 articles of mine that they published. And, as I said, the books netted me nothing other than the very thankful maintenance of my web site. As far as these phonies supposedly "supplementing their income" by being in and/or switching over to the gambling business: these are not the MJ's of the world, who are highly sought after for obvious reasons. These are gamblers who either didn't or cannot make it as they purport to publicly, and they've concocted reputation-saving stories so they can appear to have their house in order.

I agree with Alan on the bankruptcy point. I filed in 1996 myself. I really didn't have to since I could have used my 401k to get me out of the jam I was in. But the law said I didn't have to, so I used filing as a financial tool, and today thru the remainder of our lives we just look back and smile that we had the opportunity to file as we did.

redietz, that's why the Japanese never take their wives to work....

[Rob.Singer]

I think one of the reasons "Wong" and "Curtis" take some heat is that they sell systems purporting to beat the casinos, but then allegedly testified (along with "Snyder") for the casinos against people using their systems. That is "playing both sides" to a degree that would make an arms merchant proud.

Personally, I think "Dancer" deserves some heat because he has never made it clear that what he did 10-15 years ago really cannot be duplicated today, and that if 100 "Dancer" clones started playing vp today, 90-some of them would fail because it's his past volume and status that enable him to get the rebates and cashback he currently enjoys. "Dancer" also talks about topics (sports betting, for one) about which he knows next to nothing, but he writes as if he has absorbed great wisdom from hanging out with a handful of folks who know what they're doing. Some of his sports betting comments contain basic math errors.

Dancer is the master of manipulating all the "little people" in gaming, which is why he dislikes and has always refused to publicly debate me or interview me on that radio show when Frank was dying to. You can tell he's now in desperation mode with his "all over the map" blabbering on the radio with his no-one's-ever-heard-of co host and his supposed new-found expertise in sportsbetting.

[Alan Mendelson]

I have no criticism with anyone diversifying their career portfolios. So, if Mr. Dancer can also do programs on sportsbetting, well good for him. If I had a program on the radio I would try to diversify the subjects as well. It would get boring if the only subject were video poker.

I also have no criticism with an expert gambler having a side job -- author, speaker, publisher. It makes sense to do.

[redietz]

I have problems with plastic surgeons who diversify as brain surgeons. The problem with "Dancer" is that he should start each sports betting segment with a disclaimer, "I don't really know what the hell I'm talking about" and go from there. Don't get me wrong; it's actually, from a practical standpoint, useful to have high profile people babble publicly about things without really having any expertise. It's very helpful, in fact. But the pseudo-academic in me cringes when he mangles stuff.

I agree with Rob's "little people" comment. There is a reason "Dancer" has a trail for former partners. He seems to leech off the geeks, then dump them after their usefulness has expired.

And Rob, that was a damn clever and charming comeback to the Japanese saying. I gotta tell my girlfriend that -- she's Japanese.

[Rob.Singer]

I have no criticism with anyone diversifying their career portfolios. So, if Mr. Dancer can also do programs on sportsbetting, well good for him. If I had a program on the radio I would try to diversify the subjects as well. It would get boring if the only subject were video poker.

I also have no criticism with an expert gambler having a side job -- author, speaker, publisher. It makes sense to do.

You're looking at it from a big-picture standpoint, but within that scope are a whole slew of individuals from....well, we'll say the Michael Jordans to Bob Dancers. There's nothing inherently wrong with earning an income--ANY income--to make a living--ANY living, on. However, when you pretend to be doing something you're not really doing in the manner you're selling it, that's dead wrong.