Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
The Hustler's MBA (tynan.com)
48 points by bennesvig 1903 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 71 comments



While correct (in a sense), this suffers from pretty much the same naïveté that a lot of similar essays contain.

Simply put, the chief benefit of formalised higher education is that it forces you to learn stuff you didn't even know you didn't know, deeper than you ever thought you had to.

It's many years since I left university (studying electronics and software), and I while I still work in tech (who doesn't around here?!), I only used a fraction of what I learned there once I got to the real world. That's the chief argument of essayists like this one, and it's one I agree with.

However, I have many times been in situations where I've had to solve a problem that I would not have had the mental tools for, were it not for a deep distant memory of some obscure piece of maths I did (painfully, perhaps even reluctantly) in second year, or some recollection of a weird hack with CPU registers I learned in third year. True, these moments in my career have been fleeting, but they helped me in a way that OP could not have been helped.

I've since worked a lot as a technical trainer. For me, the difference between technical training (or vocational, or OP's self-inflicted syllabus) and education (college, university) is that the former gives you a great hands-on real-world grasp of the available tools and techniques and how to use them to solve problems. The latter gets you further into the "why", and makes you better suited to making your own tools and techniques. Those of you who have written your own operating systems and compilers - would you ever have done that had you _not_ been in university? And how much did you learn from it?


He lost me at the part where the secret to life is becoming a professional poker player. Because in a highly competitive game of chance you're pretty much guaranteed to come out on top to the tune of $50-60 an hour...

Does this post strike anyone as completely f'ing delusional? Perhaps applicable to the author, one of the greatest card sharks alive today, but seems silly to the vast majority.


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.


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.


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.


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.


It's definitely an interesting concept, but does assume a certain 'buffer' level of class and income level to go down this road.

Having a home to be in while you 'get up to speed in poker', having parents that understand and provide some sort of boundaries at 18 years old, assuming poker winnings will be the base 'bank' for all other ventures, and assuming that the networks you make at school are not very important are big red flags for me.

For some, going to college, despite the hand-wringing, is also a way to break cycles of poverty within a lineage, a sense of family pride, and an escape from their home circumstance.

It's a little disconcerting that the author is a little lost in their own privilege and that his Hustler's MBA curriculum is probably a product of previous generations who went to college.

I think the better message is: Don't expect college, however many years you spend, to GIVE you everything or ANSWER everything. You still have to live life, take chances, and exist outside of your comfort zone. College is a concrete foundation to that mission.


He definitely forgot to check his privilege, big mistake...


The marginal utility of college is declining. Our near ancestors got a lot out of a college degree. The author is noticing that we won't get nearly as much.


College is proven way to improve productivity and lifetime earnings. And it's scaled fairly well. And unlike poker, it's not zero-sum.

"In fact, apart from very specific cases, I think that school is a bad thing, not worth doing even if it was free."

Very wrong. You're not going to become a doctor, lawyer, nurse, accountant, etc. by playing poker and traveling. You're not going to get recruited by an employer because you claim to have read a lot of books.

What the author is actually saying, but incorrectly applies to everyone (startup bubble thinking, maybe?), is that for would-be startup founders, college may be obsolete. This is in no way, shape, or form, indicative of the value college provides to the rest of the population.

People have lots of motivations and reasons for attending college and many of them are completely valid, logically and economically.


I believe he notes that if you are going to school to become a professional (i.e. doctor) then it doesn't necessarily apply.

To your point, you also aren't going to become a zookeeper or programmer by playing poker or travelling, but you also won't necessarily become one by going to college. You WILL become one if you make the effort to do so, it doesn't matter whether it's in college or elsewhere.


I really think that is the takeaway that I got from the post as well. You become what you put your effort into, no amount of schooling is useful without the desire and drive to really make someone successful. While many of us here don't agree with the exact path he lays out, the gist of the message is to only go to school if you have a really good reason for going and the drive to make it worthwhile. Hustle and drive are key factors to success in this world, anything you can do to improve those will definitely be more useful then a college degree. These skills/personality traits are also not taught/picked up very well from classroom studies. I have been in college two different times in my life, and the first time I had no business being there. I was driven and wanted something the second time. Definitely much more useful the second time around, even though it was expensive. If you don't have that purpose and drive, go figure yourself out first.


As someone whose done it, I can tell you that you shouldn't rely on making money over the long run at poker. There are a lot of reasons why you'll probably fail, no matter how smart and hard working you are, most of them emotional.

It is a great way to learn decision making with incomplete information though. There's sort of a class divide in the world between those who understand and apply the concept of expected value to every part of their life and those who don't.


This post would have held more sway for me if it had been touted as a preparation for school - not as a replacement.

I am of the opinion a number 18 year olds are very far from being emotionally mature and self possessed enough to get the most ouf of college. Such individuals would probably be well served by making a go at dealing with the world, which might well include some form of the OP's syllabus.

However, touting this as an alternative to higher education is IMO doling out plain bad advice. I'm not even going to touch the highly dubious claims made about poker as a source of reliable income (by an amateur with one year of experience).


I think this is pretty insightful, I was comparing my daughter (17) as she looks at colleges to some of the other potential freshman. It was clear that a noticable number of young people were going to be lost.

I'd guess that its the 'hovering parent' syndrome which trys so hard to keep their kids 'safe' and 'competitive' that they don't let their kids develop into adults, but I don't know. It is definitely a factor though.


How to be a great [developer|dad|founder|hustler|manatee trainer] in 11 easy steps

1-7. Do what I did.

8-10. Learn what I learned.

11. Listen to advice from random people on the Internet.


Disagree with articles that are so myopically focused on dropping out of college.

College is only overpriced if you make it overpriced (i.e. you major in underwater basket weaving).

My alma mater is one of the more expensive ones out there ... yet, between the connections I gained, classes I took, habits and ways of thinking it beat into me, and rep I acquired from the school ... it was worth every damn cent.


If one is disciplined enough to go for 4 years following a rigorous schedule, sure go for it. I doubt most people could follow this program for 4 years. It took me 8 years to get through college (those 9 am classes were too damn early...), and I had no idea what I was going to eventually do. Many people entering college are not highly motivated, and certainly not motivated with the iron will required to play winning poker.

The states letting state universities set the price of tuition up to ludicrous level seems to be the main issue with debt. At a reasonable state college, a 4 year degree 20 years ago for tuition would have cost less than 2k/year (I think I have some receipts for $800-900 from 92 or 93 for a full semester, 13-18 credit hours at the time).

It is now about 2700/semester or 3x the price 20 years ago. Actually I guess 2700/semester is still not too bad, at full price for 4 years, that's a little over 20k.

While going to Stanford or somewhere and getting a CS degree might pay off, you don't actually have to go to freaking ivy league schools if you don't have the money or want the debt. If you are in the humanities or something where your future is probably a lower paying job, then a state school is probably the way to go. 20-30k in debt is still a bit painful, but that's a 4 year degree for the prices of a semester at some colleges.

Poker, btw, is a game of statistics, not chance. Since you can change your bet when the odds change, ie: betting more when the odds favor a bet, or folding when they do not. Craps, Roulette, and most other casino games are all games of chance, where the odds are not in your favor at any time. Craps can give you the best odds of a normal casino game, but every dollar you bet at craps is returning at best ~$.99 over the long run. I used to play craps until I read all the odds and now all I can see is the negative numbers everytime the dice rolls. Poker is pretty much the only casino game I enjoy playing, because skill can effect your outcome. However, I don't have the years or bankroll to be a professional at it, and haven't played in a few years now.


"While going to Stanford or somewhere and getting a CS degree might pay off, you don't actually have to go to freaking ivy league schools if you don't have the money or want the debt."

The idea that one has to go into debt to go to a top-level school is an outdated one. Every fancy school I got into was cheaper than the University of Texas after financial aid.


You didn't get the same financial aid at UT?

My impression is that if your family makes too much (ie: 80k or 100k/yr), you aren't getting anything but student loans.

A friend of mine went back to NYU a couple years ago to finish his degree while he was working, I think he still racked 50 or 100k in loans.

Obviously if you can go to a school with a lot of scholarships or grants, debt isn't an issue.


Sometimes a person needs to go to college in order to understand why it might not be relevant for them. By simply touting that college is useless as a fact seems too far-fetched for me. No one is born with an ability to assess going to college as it is today. It's all social conditioning. To that end, college is useful. If it can teach you something about yourself then the 2 or 3 semesters were not wasted time or money.


He also lost me at poker. A lot of us entrepreneur types love poker because we just love risk, IMO. To say that you can comfortable make 85k a year playing poker is the most outlandish statement I've ever heard.

I also hate how people try and tell me poker is a skill. Yes to a degree it is, but it's more luck than anything once you understand the game, let's be real.

Seemed like a good blog post until he became delusional about poker.


If its about luck, than why do we see the same familiar faces deep into WSOP finals?

Luck is only relevant if you're playing for the short run. Professionals generally make decisions that favor them in the long run against natural statistical deviations. That's why playing against a beginner is incredibly hard; they make poor choices that don't necessarily result in poor results. But put compare the results of that beginner vs a pro after 1000+ hands, and you'll see how much luck vs skill matters.


But how much money does a poker player burn through before he/she is "good enough" to play in big tournaments and win decent money? A couple hundred thousand? A couple million?

It's like when someone wants to trade stocks/derivatives. They may lose massive amounts of money before getting their sea-legs and that is a price that is far too high for most people (and their families) to endure without gaining anything tangible.

And I wouldn't think that "Professional Poker Player" is a title that would land a high paying job like a university degree might. If someone is spending all their time learning to be a pro poker player, it might back them into a corner where now that's all they're are capable of doing for the rest of their life whether they win or not.

Variable reward systems, like gambling, are damn hard addictions to break once conditioning has set in.


Pursuing poker as a career is usually a poor decision for a variety of reasons, but the cost of learning is not one of them.

The overwhelming majority of poker hands are now played online, and the limits go as low as $0.01/$0.02 -- in today's poker landscape, the winning players tend to be those who initially invest a small amount of money and gradually climb the ladder with careful bankroll management.

The opportunity cost, on the other hand, can be very high. Many people waste a lot of time trying to become good at the game without experiencing any meaningful degree of success.


Playing poker, like Texas Hold-Em is definitely a game of skill and not luck. It is absolutely possible to still make big bucks on it if you are skilled enough.

My brother used to live a fairly decadent life thanks to his poker winnings from a few years ago. However, that was at the peak of the world wide poker craze where everyone thought they could be millionares by playing Paradise Poker a few hours per day. But the times have changed in online poker and there aren't enough whales around that the poker sharks can exploit for profit anymore.

The only way to consistently make money playing poker is if the skill differential between you and your opponents is high enough and in your favor. The lower the difference, the more time it takes to make a profit, the lower your hourly wage gets.

On top of that, you can suffer fluctuations or "bad beats" as they call it. One week you may win 100k only to lose it the next week. It is a very stressful situation if poker is your work and you need to win. There is a definite risk of burning out.

85k isn't a lot when it takes 8-10h per day of really boring online poker playing.


I absolutely disagree. Poker is not a game about taking risk, it's a game about managing risk. This is an incredible important distinction that separates winning players from losing players.

Looking at another industry, take the extremely 'risky' business of a VC partner; if you look at one investment of his, you might say the odds dictate that his investment is more luck than anything, because he is investing $10,000 and has done so in a way which gives him a 10% chance to make $1 million. However, if you look at his track record of the 250 investments that he has put $10,000 into, you would see that for the $2.5 million he has invested, it has made him $25 million in return.

Is playing poker and investing in VC risky? Absolutely. Does it involve more luck than skill? In one iteration of the game, yes, but in 150 or 250 iterations? Not likely.


Poker is unquestionably a game of skill.

You need be able to separate the orthogonal components of EV and variance.

Over a large sample of hands, a professional poker player will wipe the floor with you.

There is a great deal of variance in poker, but that doesn't mean that one person can't be significantly better than another in the long run.


It depends. Depending on the field of study, university may be a pass time or where you cut yourself out for greater challenges. If you are into a deeply technical subject, college is pretty much the only option. If you want to get by studying humanities and few easy courses, you can as well help yourself without spending all that money for college.


In 2006, you actually could fairly easily make $85K in a year playing poker.

Not anymore, though, and not for the past few years.


what happened after 2006 that caused the dropoff in payout?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Internet_Gambling_Enfo...

That scared off a lot of the fish, plus, in mid-2007 (I think?) the biggest payment processor, Neteller, got busted by the US Attorney's Office (I hope I'm remembering all this correctly), which made it so that even the fish that were left around couldn't keep re-filling their accounts.

Also, there was a wealth of information about how to play by 2006-2007 and there were a lot more absolute numbers of good players which, with the decreasing supply of fish led to a much higher concentration of good players.

From early 2006 to early 2008, the game had changed so dramatically that it was guys who used to crush NL400 ($2/4 NLHE) couldn't beat NL100 (50c/$1 NLHE)


He's not talking about playing poker online.


UIGEA [1]. It basically killed the entire U.S. online poker market. And what little that remained was destroyed by Black Friday [2].

It certainly was possible (with a little bit of study) to make $85k/year playing online poker back then, but those days are long gone.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Internet_Gambling_Enfo...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Scheinberg


I found it odd that there is no direction here. What are you working towards?

Also Tynan seems to be making the mistake of giving advice on how to be Tynan. This isn't really anything to do with "hustling" or an MBA (Is Tyan running a sucessful business? It appears not).


Meanwhile back on earth...


He "left with zero additional skills after three semesters" in college, and is now advising people to make money playing poker? I'm having a hard time taking this seriously.


Articles like these (although it has some good points in it) give the word 'hustler' a bad reputation in this world.


I lost focus after he talked about how easy poker was to make $85k a year.


And here I thought the answer to life was 42, not Poker.


I encourage EVERYONE to follow this phenomenal advice!!!

... and when the next tech bubble bursts, I look forward to picking up good CHEAP programmers without college degrees.

MWAH HA HA!




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: