Okay, so the title is a poke at the Know Your Meme thread title :P
Anyway, if you know me then you know that I like to plan ahead, especially for finances (which is what makes it so funny that I'm not already retired!). One thing that's always confused me is how to determine retirement income. Old Age Security pays some money every month, and Canada Pension Plan pays some money every month, but how much do they pay?
Well, now there's a nifty little wizard-style web app available: https://srv111.services.gc.ca/INT_01.aspx (https://srv111.services.gc.ca/INT_01.aspx). You need to know a few things, like your average income from age 18 to now, although you can also just guesstimate them. It takes a good fifteen minutes to go all the way through, because they ask a fair bit of questions. However, the summary gives a good overview of how much you can expect (assuming you entered real numbers).
In my mind, this is the kind of tool that people need to have access to in order to make educated decisions about their future...
edit: the calculator now lives here: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/publicpensions/cpp/retirement-income-calculator.html
With the CPP retirement payout date having been moved from your 65th year to your 67th year, I wonder if this calculator has held up. Most likely you just need to move the dates and all the other numbers stay the same.
Quote from: Thorin on September 18, 2009, 03:01:58 PM
Okay, so the title is a poke at the Know Your Meme thread title :P
Anyway, if you know me then you know that I like to plan ahead, especially for finances (which is what makes it so funny that I'm not already retired!). One thing that's always confused me is how to determine retirement income. Old Age Security pays some money every month, and Canada Pension Plan pays some money every month, but how much do they pay?
freaky timing bro! Last week I was verifying on the CRA website that I had just hit my maximum EI (and just about CPP) and then got curious, click click click and I eventually found the calculator which lets you know your OAS and CPP that you will get (annual) -- it's nicely designed, intuitive and clear and works along many pages, so if you decide to play "what if" you just hit the browser's Back button once or twice and try a different value (e.g. "what if I retire at 60? 70?" hint: 60 = getting paid 5 years earlier = 30% LESS, ouch, no thanks!)
the URL I used was also within https://srv111.services.gc.ca (obv) but I got linked there, not from a Google search or something, but via the GoC pages like http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/isp/cpp/cppinfo.shtml and http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/isp/cpp/soc/30-49/difference.shtml and http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/isp/pub/factsheets/cppretirement/when.shtml ... one thing I learned was you do NOT have to stop working to receive your retirement pension ... which means you can "retire" at 60 with the major reduction of 30% (-.5% per "early" month) but still build your nest egg ... not sure who would do that or why (other than to boost your "average income" thus increasing the amount you get paid ... but then imo just keep working and don't take any payment until the latest year possible, unless you're pretty sure your health ain't gonna co-operate).
Like you said in the OP, it takes maybe 15 minutes, and you gotta provide (or guess) a ton of numbers, but in the end it's ... eye-opening.
I think I came pretty close to the maximum, if I presume to be in the >60k annual income from now until 70 (or 65, not much of an increase if I wait that extra 5 years, but OUCH if I retire @ 60!)
OAS: $545 per month ($6,540 per year), expressed in today's dollars.
CPP: $987 per month ($11,844 per year), expressed in today's dollars.
so... [thumbs]this guy[/thumbs] is pretty glad to be paying into a GoA pension to add to that paltry sum.
RRSP contributions next on my list -- been so tight money-wise the last few
yearsdecades but I sure do regret putting it off year after year.
No RRSP and also no house building equity? That can be tough. Although you've got that offset with a pension. The real question is, would you have enough to cover your bills if you were 65 now and got $1,532 per month? Remember that you can be in a one-bedroom apartment since the kids are grown up, and you don't need to commute to work or even keep a work attire wardrobe. Might still be kinda tough. I think I worked out I'd want about $2,200 to $2,300 a month for my wife and myself. So I'd need to find some way of getting an extra $800 a month for however long I'm retired.
$1,532 per month is equal to $8.84 per hour if you worked full-time. So it's less than minimum wage (min wage is $9.40 an hour). You'll probably find if that's all you have, you need to find some kind of part-time income to keep afloat.
What scares me is how close pension age is getting to 70, I mean what's it going to be in another 30 years I wonder?
Oh, and you've hit your EI limit already? Then you make more than me. I'm due to hit on the next paycheque (mid-July). I hit the CPP limit on the paycheque after that.
If you're interested in RRSPs, I suggest getting an RRSP loan sometime in the summer or fall (not Jan/Feb) to put away a bunch. RRSP loans low interest (frequently prime or lower) and you can then claim a big deduction against your income to get a big tax refund. I suggest claiming the RRSPs you buy against your income until it drops your income to $42,707, then claim the rest the following year.
Easiest to give an example to explain why this is a good idea. Lets say you make $80k and have $100k in available RRSP room (you did say you haven't bought any RRSPs before). So lets say you go get a $50k RRSP loan from the bank (payments are about $500 a month and $50k turns into about $300k in 30 years at about 6%).
If you claim the full $50k in RRSP deductions this year, your taxable income will drop from $80k to $30k. You'll save 22% from $80 down to $42,707, then 15% from $42,707 to $30k. That's ( $37,293 x 22% ) + ( $12,707 x 15% ) = $8,204.46 + $1,906.05 = $10,110.51.
If you claim $37,293 this year to drop your income to $42,707 and claim the remaining $12,707 next year, it'll all fall in the 22% bracket. That's ( $37,293 x 22% ) + ( $12,707 x 22% ) = $8,204.46 + $2,795.54 = $11,000. That's $889.49 more just by waiting 12 months. The extra cash you get by offsetting some RRSP contributions to next year will be even more if you make less than $80k.
Oh, and the reason I say buy RRSPs now-ish instead of waiting for RRSP season is that the per-unit prices of mutual funds tend to rise due to artificial demand created by people buying them just before the deadline.
Quote from: Thorin on July 25, 2012, 09:00:05 PM
Oh, and you've hit your EI limit already? Then you make more than me. I'm due to hit on the next paycheque (mid-July). I hit the CPP limit on the paycheque after that.
Yeah, accidental "brag" I guess, sorry... but I've got such a sick amount of deductions per paycheque, especially the PENSION now, my take home is actually less than what I would take home 2 years ago (until 3 weeks from now, when CPP is also maxed out).
Sad thing is, the first couple of "bigger" paydays = some rebudgeting --> getting "caught up" on stuff that I would normally like to pay in advance, instead have been paying just around or after due date (minor stuff mostly like Epcor or Telus internet, but also happy that for a few months I'll be able to pay the rent on the 20th or so instead of the 2nd or 3rd of a month)
In theory, though, I should be budgeting the same amount, and banking/saving/RRSPing the "bonus cash". In theory.
Quote from: Thorin on July 25, 2012, 08:33:05 PM
would you have enough to cover your bills if you were 65 now and got $1,532 per month? Remember that you can be in a one-bedroom apartment since the kids are grown up, and you don't need to commute to work or even keep a work attire wardrobe. Might still be kinda tough. I think I worked out I'd want about $2,200 to $2,300 a month for my wife and myself. So I'd need to find some way of getting an extra $800 a month for however long I'm retired.
$1,532 per month is equal to $8.84 per hour if you worked full-time. So it's less than minimum wage (min wage is $9.40 an hour). You'll probably find if that's all you have, you need to find some kind of part-time income to keep afloat.
Well my bus pass is presently around a grand a year, but for seniors it's like $18 or something silly... and for "extra income" I could easily surpass $8ish per hour just sitting at the $3/6 limit holdem tables at Century and just folding everything but pairs and AK/AQ -- I know there's a dozen or two retired guys and gals who do pretty much exactly that (they rarely cash out huge, but usually cash out up 50 bucks or so after a handful of hours of socializing with other folks they've known for decades).
Plus my kids will take care of me if it comes to laying the guilt trip on 'em... ;)
TBH I should take some time to find out how much the GoA pension is gonna add to my monthly/annual income, considering my portion is somewhere around $500/month (and GoA matches mine iirc) I think I should be fine (i.e. would expect in excess of $1k/month from the pension).
Quote from: Thorin on July 25, 2012, 09:00:05 PM
If you're interested in RRSPs, I suggest getting an RRSP loan sometime in the summer or fall (not Jan/Feb) to put away a bunch. RRSP loans low interest (frequently prime or lower) and you can then claim a big deduction against your income to get a big tax refund. I suggest claiming the RRSPs you buy against your income until it drops your income to $42,707, then claim the rest the following year.
Nice math-based advice, back in my early 20s I did a loan for RRSP and did a small amount monthly, but within 10 months I "cashed it out" for some kind of "emergency" I don't even remember anymore, including some penalties, horrible self-restraint (I was in my early 20s, remember) ... but at my present level of maturity I think once I start the investing habit I would commit to it for life. Just gotta wait until I'm discharged from the "B" word in late 2013 then I'm sure I will go for the RRSP loan, my bank history and my job/income info would urely justify TD bank taking a "chance" on me.
I wouldn't count on gambling to supplant one's income - it could deplete one's income instead.
I'll bet your GoA pension will give you a fair bit of money if you stay with them for the full 25 or so years. I know my father in law (worked for the feds) retired and got $50k a year from a job he'd been making $75k at while working.
I had to think about the "B" word for a bit before realizing what you meant. Is it something you're comfortable talking about? Is it something you want to talk about? I know that I have a tendency to just keep asking questions until people tell me they don't want to tell me, but it's because I'm genuinely interested - both to know more about the subject and to understand what situation the other person might be in.
I know that anyone can ask me anything about my income or financial position and I'll answer most things openly because I think sharing that information can help others (comparing salaries, learning about tax credits, etc). Not everyone thinks that way, and most people would not want to tell others about negative financial things, so I'll understand if you say, "no way".
Quote from: Thorin on July 26, 2012, 12:41:37 AM
I wouldn't count on gambling to supplant one's income - it could deplete one's income instead.
I was about 60% serious... notice I said "pairs and AK/AQ" and "limit holdem", i.e. "fold 93% of hands, continue past the flop with Top Pair or better" -- I've seen a handful of old folks who play pretty much exactly this way, and somehow even though they rarely even see a Flop they STILL get called all the way to showdown. Taken to an extreme, I don't think most people would call it gambling if someone folded everything but AA (and knew they would still get called by unobservant/gamboling opponents) since it's pretty obvious that's a significantly better hand than the range of hands any opponent would be playing; my suggestion is playing just a few more hands (7% instead of just 0.5%) and still playing "honest" after the flop so only betting/raising when you know you are way ahead of virtually any other hand your opponent may hold.
This is not gambling, it's intelligent investing -- since most of the opponents at the live $3/6 limit holdem tables are playing anywhere from 30% to 80% of their hands, and calling (or betting/raising i.e. bluffing) with a LOT worse than Top Pair. Even though this (and even "only play AA") is not a "guarantee", it's a far cry from playing any "pit game" against the house where if you are lucky the house advantage is 2% or 3% over the human players.
/tangent. ;)
Quote from: Thorin on July 26, 2012, 12:41:37 AM
I had to think about the "B" word for a bit before realizing what you meant. Is it something you're comfortable talking about? Is it something you want to talk about? I know that I have a tendency to just keep asking questions until people tell me they don't want to tell me, but it's because I'm genuinely interested - both to know more about the subject and to understand what situation the other person might be in.
Nothing much to talk about, I made some poor (and overly optimistic/rosecoloredglasses -- dived deep into anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist philosophy and acted on my beliefs) decisions in the early 2000s when i was a contractor, and when the CRA envelopes began arriving in the mail I wised up / matured enough to "face the music", and the large # they provided along with the credit cards (EVIL! EVIL!) = I really had no other option (believe me, I tried crunching numbers and talking to counsellors to see if I could go any other route). But it's been quite confidence-building having to live on an Actual Budget for the last 20 months, for example there's great power in saying to the kids "can't afford it!" and knowing you really mean it, there's no extra "safety net" to fall back on. And now I actually pay attention to how much money I spend on FOOD, which for some reason was never much on my radar and thus became a great big "spend whatever is left over" wallet leak. Also it sure made me appreciate the public library and Value Village / Goodwill when it comes to places to get entertainment and clothing 8) .
Quote from: Darren Dirt on July 26, 2012, 04:12:46 PM
Quote from: Thorin on July 26, 2012, 12:41:37 AM
I wouldn't count on gambling to supplant one's income - it could deplete one's income instead.
I was about 60% serious... notice I said "pairs and AK/AQ" and "limit holdem", i.e. "fold 93% of hands, continue past the flop with Top Pair or better" -- I've seen a handful of old folks who play pretty much exactly this way, and somehow even though they rarely even see a Flop they STILL get called all the way to showdown. Taken to an extreme, I don't think most people would call it gambling if someone folded everything but AA (and knew they would still get called by unobservant/gamboling opponents) since it's pretty obvious that's a significantly better hand than the range of hands any opponent would be playing; my suggestion is playing just a few more hands (7% instead of just 0.5%) and still playing "honest" after the flop so only betting/raising when you know you are way ahead of virtually any other hand your opponent may hold.
This is not gambling, it's intelligent investing -- since most of the opponents at the live $3/6 limit holdem tables are playing anywhere from 30% to 80% of their hands, and calling (or betting/raising i.e. bluffing) with a LOT worse than Top Pair. Even though this (and even "only play AA") is not a "guarantee", it's a far cry from playing any "pit game" against the house where if you are lucky the house advantage is 2% or 3% over the human players.
/tangent. ;)
Oxymoron much? Investing by its nature is gambling :P
Quote from: Tom on July 26, 2012, 04:15:55 PM
Quote from: Darren Dirt on July 26, 2012, 04:12:46 PM
This is not gambling, it's intelligent investing -- since most of the opponents at the live $3/6 limit holdem tables are playing anywhere from 30% to 80% of their hands, and calling (or betting/raising i.e. bluffing) with a LOT worse than Top Pair. Even though this (and even "only play AA") is not a "guarantee", it's a far cry from playing any "pit game" against the house where if you are lucky the house advantage is 2% or 3% over the human players.
/tangent. ;)
Oxymoron much? Investing by its nature is gambling :P
While it is true that any "investment" is a gamble, some investments are mathematically more advantageous than others.
A typical stock/mutal fund "investment" expectation is based on management style and past performance ... and obviously can always go the completely opposite direction of what you expect.
But when you are investing in something based on the laws of probability and math, you can figure out long-term "return on investment" (ROI). It says what would happen to your bankroll, longterm, if you did the same thing hundreds or thousands of times in the same situation (i.e. over-rides the short-term "bad/good luck").
As an example, if you are being given 3:1 or 4:1 return on an investment, where the outcome is >33.3% or >25% likely to go in your favor, that is longterm profitable.
Consider this scenario: I have a completely fair 6-sided dice and I tell you "roll it and if you get a 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 then I give you $1, but if you roll a 5 or 6 then you give me $1". You can see that one of the two parties has a really good "return on investment". In a casino the "pit games" are essentially where the "house" has the "1 2 3 4" to win while the human players only have the "5 or 6". (in this case, the house would have a 4:2 advantage which means the human player would essentially be losing 20% of their bet every time they made it).
So while in a limit holdem poker game that I described above where I play that extremely "tight-aggressive/honest" against "loose-passive/neverfold" opponents, I am essentially "giving myself" the "1 2 3 4" side of the transaction.
Notice I said "limit holdem", which means the investment is in small chunks preflop and on the flop, and double-that-size chunks on the turn and river ... so no chance of gambling your entire stack any single hand, unlike No Limit holdem). I'm obviously exaggerating with the "4:2 advantage" since if the "house" had that much of an edge then nobody would play any pit game, but in holdem if I flop Top Pair and my single opponent has bottom pair (or even better for me, a pocket pair lower than my Top Pair) then I am a 75:25 favorite, literally every $3 bet that I make on the flop is returning me $1.50 in long-term profit, and on the turn if he didn't hit his 5 outs (~10% chance) then I'm now almost 90:10 favorite so I am profiting more than $4.50 out of every $6 bet there). It's the math of the situation.
Anyway, didn't mean to get into a "skill vs. luck" argument rant here, just pointing out that what a lot of "leisure players" partake in as relatively cheap entertainment (i.e. they don't care if they win or lose, they just throw back some alcohol and have fun for a few hours) creates a scenario where a patient and disciplined person who doesn't have a "day job" can actually expect long-term and pretty consistent wallet-boosting, essentially it's a "win win", my opponents have some laughs and the occasional adrenaline/endorphin rush, and I keep taking advantage of mathematical situations that long-term will pad my wallet.
The other thing about long term investing is that while short term goes up and down rather violently long term ROI is usually good (depending on the item).
For example, if you invest in a volatile commodity like oil where the price shifts daily, but goes up over the long term.
Yeah, it's a possibility that there is some cheaper-than-pumping-it-from-the-Earth way of getting oil but that's extremely unlikely, so it's still technically a gamble but hopefully something that world changing would be obvious.
And then the wankers crash the market again and all of your investments tank.
My mom lost over half of her RRSPs.
Okay, so you didn't pay your taxes, you racked up credit card debt, you declared bankruptcy, and you're aggressively defending the idea that going to a casino will help you pay bills because it's a "sound investment".
Not paying taxes - that kinda pisses me off, because now I have to pay more to cover your share of the burden. And yes, taxes are squandered, but they are also turned into items for the public good (roads, bridges, hospitals, emergency services, schools, etc).
Racking up credit card debt - I totally understand that, it's way too easy to do. Easy credit is what is driving many people into lifetimes of stress and anxiety. Of course credit can also be a good thing if it helps you advance your quality of life (for instance by buying a car so you can get to higher paying jobs).
Bankruptcy - It'll be discharged late next year? Will that have been the seven years that it's supposed to stay on your credit report? Yes, bankruptcies are supposed to stay on your credit report for seven years (instead of lifetime like it can be for any delinquent payments). During the period that you have the bankruptcy on your report but are no longer going through the bankruptcy process, you will probably find banks willing to lend you money if a) there's collateral or a co-signer and b) you can prove steady, stable income.
Gambling as expected income - your plan here is based on you trying to make a slow and steady profit while the other players are not. If everyone at your table adopts the same strategy as you, the math says you will leave the table poorer than when you sat down. Compared to a job that pays you a guaranteed wage, this is not a good idea. Really, honestly, truly, this is something you should stop considering as a viable source of income. Sure, over the long term you might come out ahead, but what if you just lost today's money due to a stroke of bad luck, and now you don't have any money to buy supper? Are you gonna go ask people for a couple dollars to buy a sandwich? Now as a viable source of entertainment, sure. You take your entertainment budget and you lose no more than that amount. If you play cautiously like you describe, you may very well come out ahead, and this newfound wealth can be potted away or spent immediately. But just like a good soldier knows he died the day he signed up, a good gambler knows that he lost all his money when he sat down at the table so only gambles what he can afford to lose.
I have not studied poker enough to know the percentage, but I have studied poker enough to know that it's not just the cards in your hands or the cards in the other players' hands, but it's also everyone's ability to read other players. If you have two aces and I have two deuces, great for you. Unless a third deuce comes up, now you're "excellent hand" turns into a loss. A couple of odds-beating bad strokes of luck and you're definitely not as rich as the math says you should have been. If that other player is really good at roping you in, you could find pretty quickly that even though the odds say you should have more than you sat down with, you don't.
I would prefer to gamble my money on an investment, where everyone else also wants the investment to do well because we'll all stand to profit, rather than on gambling, where there's only one winner in the equation.
Quote from: Tom on July 26, 2012, 07:16:29 PM
And then the wankers crash the market again and all of your investments tank.
My mom lost over half of her RRSPs.
That sucks. One of the early gems of investing I picked up was put a third of your money in low-risk low-return investments, a third in medium-risk medium-return, and a third in high-risk high-return. Re-balance every six months; if your high risk stuff is paying huge dividends right now, sell the extra high-risk investments and use all that money to buy the low- and medium-risk stuff
because the market will self-correct soon. If the high-risk stuff is tanking and your low-risk stuff is quickly becoming over half your portfolio, sell some of the low-risk to buy high-risk
because now you're buying low, selling high. Never try to ride it out, just keep adjusting every six months. Oh, and make sure your six month adjustments don't fall in January or February where the mutual funds are artificially inflated due to last-minute RRSP buyers.
It's a real simple rule; it will not give you the biggest possible return, but it _will_ give you a fairly stable return.
Oh and Darren, you really ought to figure out how much you get from the GoA pension - there may be no need at all to sock money into RRSPs if you're willing to work for GoA for another 20 or so years. Government pensions are, unsurprisingly, quite good!
Quote from: Thorin on July 26, 2012, 07:23:11 PM
Gambling as expected income - your plan here is based on you trying to make a slow and steady profit while the other players are not. If everyone at your table adopts the same strategy as you, the math says you will leave the table poorer than when you sat down. Compared to a job that pays you a guaranteed wage, this is not a good idea. Really, honestly, truly, this is something you should stop considering as a viable source of income. Sure, over the long term you might come out ahead, but what if you just lost today's money due to a stroke of bad luck, and now you don't have any money to buy supper? Are you gonna go ask people for a couple dollars to buy a sandwich? Now as a viable source of entertainment, sure.
Typical gambling is entering in an investment proposition that has the math stacked against you; a good poker player avoids the pit games which are exactly that -- gambling ... but he also tends to avoid situations which are too wild or out of his control as it essentially reduces to a kind of gambling (e.g. a 10-handed table where everybody raises/caps preflop and calls all the way to the river every single hand... sure long-term you will be very profitable vs. each of your opponents, but having to beat 9 players every hand makes the "long-term" extremely long.)
But ignoring that, one thing I've noticed is that even the players that I described as clearly playing for entertainment (i.e. never folding any pair, or betting/raise with nothing, etc.) are
usually playing with money that was not earmarked for food/rent/utilities ... and if they're not, sorry to say but it's a choice that they, as an adult, are entitled to make and nobody else is responsible for their bad risk-taking... As I said, those who sit down and do not know the math/probability are, longterm, going to be donating to those who DO know those numbers (and act in discipline in accordance with it). I am just saying that I have seen first-hand folks who are taking advantage of this repeatable scenario -- by playing LIMIT holdem (where the rare "2 outer on the river" still doesn't cost them their entire stack) and by playing extremely "tight" preflop and "aggressive/honest" post-flop.
"If everyone at your table adopts the same strategy as you, the math says you will leave the table poorer than when you sat down."
Agreed -- even if you do the above tight-aggressive plan, sitting at a table with 9 other just-as-knowledgeable players is a longterm losing proposition -- the folks who offer the game have to be paid to do so aka "rake". A good player risks only what he can afford to lose (short-term) and has multiple buyins to handle those downswings in order to "survive" until the long-term math comes to pass, but a good player also exercises good "game selection" which even includes moving into a better seat at the table (i.e. having the looser/wilder players on your right, having the strongest/trickiest/solidest opponents on the exact opposite side of the table). Based on considerations like that, if the table is clearly not profitable (or too high-risk, short-term) a good player sits out for the moment (or the day). It's not different than a MF/stock investor deciding to "sit out" from a wild day, waiting for those days where it's easier to see the odds are stacked in his/her favor.
Anyway, /hijack, have a good night/morning folks. Apologies to those to whom gambling/poker/greyareainbetween leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
Quoteand if they're not, sorry to say but it's a choice that they, as an adult, are entitled to make and nobody else is responsible for their bad risk-taking..
Then we should all stop funding the healthcare system, welfare, and the AADAC ASAP!
Okay, as to what Tom pointed out, if an adult is responsible for the outcome of what they choose to do and risk, why are they allowed to claim bankruptcy (thus cancelling debts) instead of being forced to work in a debtor's prison or sell body parts to pay the bills they racked up?
As for the whole gambling-as-income bit, I'm really not buying it. Here's the problem: if you count on it as a reliable source of income there will be times where you lost instead of won, and you won't have the money to pay the bill that's due tomorrow. If instead you consider it gambling-as-entertainment and assume that you'll lose the money, then you can budget for losing X amount per paycheque and any winnings are a windfall, extra income that can be used for whatever.
The other part I noticed is that you seem to imply that you're an above-average, or "good" poker player. I would suggest you take a long, hard look at this opinion, because underestimating your abilities is much less likely to land you in hot water than overestimating them.
I didn't quite catch the actual gambling part until this morning (sorry, life's been a bit topsy turvy lately), there's a major difference here between actually investing, while risky is ultimately designed to benefit both the investor and whatever they're investing in, casino gambling is a business where the average customer pays in more than they get out. Ultimately, gambling is a distraction.
Yes, there are professional gamblers but they have sponsorship deals/backers/booking agents/etc, they are hired to put on a show for their backers. It's not gambling as most of us would think about it and they get their income from playing the game not winning it.
Anyway, we play cards just for the fun of it right!
Speaking of which, anyone interested in getting a game going sometime soon? D&D is pretty much on hold for a while and I wouldn't mind doing another get together, maybe a friendly game of cards or some team Minecraft haha
I'm adding to this thread because it came to mind when I read this post: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/need-convince-wife-poker-not-really-gambling-please-help-me-1227871/index16.html#post34033395
Quote
There are at least three different debates going on ITT:
Is poker gambling?
Live cash poker, legally, certainly is, as no amount of skill can overcome chance every single hand, and since there is a prize/purse/pot paid out every single hand, poker is legally gambling.
Is a professional poker player gambling when he sits down at his desk (poker table)?
If all of the other players at the table are as skilled as he is, since after the rake he has a negative long term expectation, then yes he is gambling, but as long as he knows his limitations and picks his spots at the table (or leaves when there are none), then no.
Is a professional poker player who intentionally seeks out lesser skilled competition to avoid 'gambling' doing something immoral?
No more than Sheldon Addelson or any other casino owner (or the governments that license them or sell lottery tickets) is, as long as one doesn't seek out compulsive gamblers, I believe that a professional poker player is giving the recreational player the same entertainment value for his money that a casino does, a chance to beat the odds.
It kinda sums up what I was trying to say early in this thread.
But also want to respond to something:
Quote from: Mr. Analog on July 27, 2012, 07:32:18 AM
Yes, there are professional gamblers but they have sponsorship deals/backers/booking agents/etc, they are hired to put on a show for their backers. It's not gambling as most of us would think about it and they get their income from playing the game not winning it.
Actually there are plenty of poker players who are by definition "professionals" (i.e. fulltime income is entirely from playing the game consistently skillfully and emotionally in control, against worse opposition as much as possible). The vast majority of them are not well-known names/faces to Joe Public, so they have no sponsorship deals or backers/stakers. Unlike the Phil Iveys and Phil Hellmuths many of you would recognize, most of these pros are online cashgame "grinders" who aren't looking to ride the rollercoaster of high variance and potential fame/glory/ego that comes from playing the big-buyin multitable tournaments (which is where most of those "well-known" players get known from -- although most of THEM are indeed unable to sustain a bankroll without sponsorship/backers etc.)... Other poker pros put in huge volume usually at single-table "sit and go"s, 9-man or 6-man or even Headsup** -- and as a result many have graphs like this:
(http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/8513/tattadj2.jpg)
^ but even with those solid results the reality is there's obviously downswings (as you can see in the graph). But bankroll management and emotional control = the way to handle that reality.
There are also a few "known pros" who for decades have made a great living play live cashgames, these are smart, patient long-term-strategy-focused grinders who never play the "pit games" (i.e. house advantage) and in fact they choose to travel to the locations of the larger tournament circuits and sit down only (or mainly -- some of them have success in MTTs too) at the side cashgames that fill up with tournament bustouts who are too inexperienced/wild/aggressive/gamble-y to beat them at the cashgames.
I guess the whole direction of this RW thread comes from that word, "gambling".
As this other post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/need-convince-wife-poker-not-really-gambling-please-help-me-1227871/index16.html#post34030792) mentions, with even a little thought it's pretty clear that there are really a few distinct "sub-groups" within the group of "gambling" games.
Quote
The categories you break various games down into, which could maybe be called "dumb luck games," "market games," and "sequential action strategy games," or something along those lines make a lot of sense. A world in which people were more concerned with those categories than with "gambling" vs "not gambling" would be a smarter, more rational world.
However, that's not the world we live in and the solution is not to pretend that "gambling" is meant to be synonymous with "dumb luck game" when that's simply not the way the word is used. Arguments that poker isn't gambling will always ring false to people who understand the word in the traditional way.
In the long run, I think the pro-poker cause is better served by arguing that games and gambling should be viewed and legislated on differently than they currently are than by arguing that poker is simply miscategorized as a gambling game.
(not to mention much of life is a "gamble", i.e. outcome is not guaranteed, requiring a risk of something of value upon the results which are at least partly outside of your control ... but philosophical debates != what this RW thread should be about ;) )
Anyway, I honestly hope that some of these other "voices" help to clarify/illustrate/correct some of the things I was trying to say, for anyone who was interested in more than just a surface-level emotional-reaction type of exchange of ideas here.
And now, back to discussing retirement numbers... (might look into / talk to HR next week maybe)
** heck, even me personally, most of my time on Full Tilt Poker (before they got shut down) was playing Razz Headsup SnGs (small buyins of $5 or $10 a shot) and my graph (link if you care) (http://old.sharkscope.com/SharkScope/DisplayGraph?GraphType=UserHistory&u1=DforDissent&Network=fulltilt&Username=sswebsite&Password=&Currency=USD&TimeZone=1&ClientTimeZoneValue=MDT&searchTag=75.14749177917838&GraphWidth=540&GraphHeight=420&nocache=1343952746503&version=357&DecimalSeparator=.&Filter=%20SNG%20Only&GeneralSearchType=SNGO) was overall heading skywards (though early on pretty ugly; I was playing a lot of different types of games back then)
I've been sitting here trying to figure out exactly how to phase this, but I'm going to have to PM you about it first and I hope you're going to be honest with me.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on July 27, 2012, 07:32:18 AM
I didn't quite catch the actual gambling part until this morning (sorry, life's been a bit topsy turvy lately), there's a major difference here between actually investing, while risky is ultimately designed to benefit both the investor and whatever they're investing in, casino gambling is a business where the average customer pays in more than they get out. Ultimately, gambling is a distraction.
Yes, there are professional gamblers but they have sponsorship deals/backers/booking agents/etc, they are hired to put on a show for their backers. It's not gambling as most of us would think about it and they get their income from playing the game not winning it.
Anyway, we play cards just for the fun of it right!
Speaking of which, anyone interested in getting a game going sometime soon? D&D is pretty much on hold for a while and I wouldn't mind doing another get together, maybe a friendly game of cards or some team Minecraft haha
I wouldn't mind some poker or something. I'll probably be playing a lot of MC at fraga though ;D
Quote from: Tom on August 02, 2012, 06:40:17 PM
I wouldn't mind some poker or something. I'll probably be playing a lot of MC at fraga though ;D
Yep, unless the power goes down, but that hasn't happened in a long time.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on August 02, 2012, 06:28:14 PM
I've been sitting here trying to figure out exactly how to phase this, but I'm going to have to PM you about it first and I hope you're going to be honest with me.
Well-articulated my friend -- both ITT as well as in the IM. Answered (sorry for the verbosity ;) )
Quote from: Mr. Analog on August 02, 2012, 06:41:55 PM
Quote from: Tom on August 02, 2012, 06:40:17 PM
I wouldn't mind some poker or something. I'll probably be playing a lot of MC at fraga though ;D
Yep, unless the power goes down, but that hasn't happened in a long time.
I'm up for ... whatever!
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TJFW10yHKFs/0.jpg)
Haha :)
Well I'm glad it's all above board, I still don't know about goin' pro though, but if you got the chops something to look at I guess!
Quote from: Mr. Analog on August 02, 2012, 07:05:58 PM
Haha :)
Well I'm glad it's all above board, I still don't know about goin' pro though, but if you got the chops something to look at I guess!
Oh in case it wasn't clear, "pro" ain't "in the cards" for me ... I only brought up the possibility that when I'm "retired" it might be something I do as part of my recreational time -- with a reasonable expectation of small-ish profits to boot.
As I believe, and as many of the posters in the 2+2 thread above said, it's best to keep a "day job" and just play on the side for extra cash ... thus no pressure to have a consistent return on your investment (i.e. I never budget for an expectation of poker profits).
For now I'm happy just being happy when I play -- whether it's on a Friday/Saturday night at the local card room for a few hours against laughing and drinking folks of all ages and races, or on my phone with Play Chips while waiting for the train. No pressure either way (other than on myself, to keep it in balance ;) )
So speaking of playing for the happy of it, let's make specific plans in a new "Edmonton + Area" thread mkay? Not this weekend though (and when is Frag again?)
OH yeah, I'm outta the picture (http://youtu.be/b49EOmG6vCw) between Aug 4 thru 14th or so...
Quote from: Mr. Analog on August 02, 2012, 10:23:16 PM
OH yeah, I'm outta the picture (http://youtu.be/b49EOmG6vCw) between Aug 4 thru 14th or so...
weird "out there" reference buddy!
and it got me to this Michael Landon 1980 Kodak commercial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOVRIRN9NEQ
wow, 32 years ago, THAT was the "new" camera technology. I wonder if you compared that to what a 1948 "new" model was like... (but Mr. Landon's tie will NEVER be outdated!)
(and then one click away from Kodak = "Film vs. Digital" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBuSnc-kDGg) which is pretty timely considering Instagram has blown up so big, so fast!)
Heh, hard to believe Kodak is dead (I'm not dead yet) *looks at watch*
Okay, so... Maybe planning a poker game or whatever could go to its own thread?
Discussing whether poker-as-income is a good retirement strategy obviously fits here, but planning non-computer activities in case the power goes out at Fraga, I think that deserves its own thread :P
Quote from: Thorin on August 06, 2012, 04:09:06 PM
Okay, so... Maybe planning a poker game or whatever could go to its own thread?
Discussing whether poker-as-income is a good retirement strategy obviously fits here, but planning non-computer activities in case the power goes out at Fraga, I think that deserves its own thread :P
SEIG HAIL!
err uhh I mean, trying to lighten up the mood of the thread...