I still find it hard to believe...

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

That there is so much money to be had. At least the posters at 2+2 all profess to be winners. I just can't imagine hundreds of people paying poker websites and dropping money in casinos day after day. I mean, I buy-in for a measly $50 and it's all uphill from there, and I'm not that good. Doesn't it all end at some point? Don't the fish swim away, or are they all replaced by new and tastier fish? Is the sky falling or is it propped up by an endless supply of bad players and their money. I still find it hard to believe that anyone could read a few books and be good enough to make decent money playing poker. Can someone help me with this conundrum?

[Hallett]

You are absolutely right. This is like a money tree. There must be a ton of people out their having their cars reposesed, and getting divorced. As a frame of reference,after purchasing Ed's book, I put $75 on Party. I now have $734. This is in two weeks, playing .50 - 1.00. I was a winning player before, so I am not certain how much credit should go to Ed, but regardless, it is amazing. I am certain that I ow Ed a beer or several if I ever go to Vegas.

As hard to believe as it is, there are enough fish for all of us 2+2'ers.

[zuluking]

[ QUOTE ]
As a frame of reference,after purchasing Ed's book, I put $75 on Party. I now have $734. This is in two weeks, playing .50 - 1.00.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the last month, playing .50/$1, I am down $300. Had it not been for Ed's advice, I'd probably be down $500-$600. Be thankful for the streak you are on, and get ready for the dark side. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
There must be a ton of people out their having their cars reposesed, and getting divorced.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah and there are also plenty casual players that want to try thier hand at the game that is so cool that they see on TV, and are willing (and able) to blow a couple of hundred of their paycheck for entertainment. A lot of these guys will bust out quickly, but we have all seen fish that run lucky hand after hand, and take down pot after pot. Eventually sharks will take these guys down, but that thrill of winning will bring those guys back.

I'm not sure that poorer players are going anywhere. There is another thread about this on this forum with anecdotes about kids playing Hold em for fun, but are not reading books and informing themselves about the game. Is this a new generation of fish? Maybe. I hope so.

[Rudbaeck]

There is a sucker born every minute.

[TimM]

If B+M pros could do it for so long, why not online, which is a much larger ocean.

[Hallett]

[ QUOTE ]
Be thankful for the streak you are on, and get ready for the dark side.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are absolutely right, the run I am on is unsustainable, and I am certain that I will drift down to a more reasonable rate. I just hope I don't CRASH to a reasonable rate, which is what happened when I decided to try 3-6 a few months back. Made a killing in the first two weeks, then got my goodies handed to me. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[Wahoo91]

I put $75 on Party. I now have $734. This is in two weeks, playing .50 - 1.00.

How many hours is this over?

[Hallett]

86.52.

Unsustainable

Edit:
It is actually 17 days, not two weeks.

[Webster]

Hey - put in the hours and you well do well.

You are probebely better then you think compared to 95% of the fish. Remember - 95% of poker players are long term losers.

Remember - it's how you handle THE STREAK when it comes that will tell you how good you are. The 2 week stretch where you can not BUY a hand.

If you come out of that alive you have a chance.

[adamstewart]

It's funny you wrote this post. I've been thinking about writing the exaxt same thing over the last few days. I was finding hard to figure out where all the money comes from ...

I too owe Ed (and 2+2'ers) several beers /images/graemlins/smile.gif I recently purchased PokerTracker and finished reading SSH. In the two weeks since, I've been crushing $1/$2 and have since moved up to $2/$4, which I'm crushing even more! /images/graemlins/smile.gif (Yes, I'm on kind of a rush and loving it ... 6661 hands at 4.51 BB/100) /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Thanks for the recent advice to move up to $2/$4 you guys! It's my new favourite fishing hole.

Later,
Adam

[Sundevils21]

[ QUOTE ]
95% of poker players are long term losers.


[/ QUOTE ]

is that true? I'm definatly a long term winner at the level I've been playing, but I don't know if I would consider myself in the top 5% of all poker players.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
95% of poker players are long term losers.


[/ QUOTE ]

is that true? I'm definatly a long term winner at the level I've been playing, but I don't know if I would consider myself in the top 5% of all poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]


You hear all sorts of stats, but generally they come in around only 5-10% of players being long term winners.

Amazingly enough, those 5-10% of players STILL have a lot of bad players.

But the "average" player is a losing player, it's just the nature of the beast.

(Also, to the original poster who talked about all of the people on 2+2 being winners at poker -- I highly doubt it. While I will say that the advice generated in the 2+2 series of books is top-notch, I do not believe that all of the people that come here are winning poker players. Even some that claim to be invariably are not.)

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[sfer]

Believe it BBS, you actually play pretty good.

[Nottom]

Vegas wasn't built on winners.

Most people just like to gamboool! and poker makes the money last longer than BlackJack or the slots.

[SuitedSixes]

[ QUOTE ]
Vegas wasn't built on winners.

Most people just like to gamboool! and poker makes the money last longer than BlackJack or the slots.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's the big difference. In general, 2+2ers are concerned with making money and +EV decisions. Many other gamblers just like to play for fun and maybe profit. There are those that like to take 72o and try to win with it. There are also those that double down on 12. Everybody's playing the same game, just not for the same reasons.

[davidross]

I drive my daughter to work on Saturday and SUnday mornings, and we pass a local race track that offers 24 hour slot machines. Every weekend at 7:00 AM there is a line of cars going to the track to play slots. I pass the local casino and the lot is crowded on weekday mornings.

THere is a never ending supply of people who want to gamble with their money, and they don't seem to care that they will lose it all in the end. SOme of these people play poker.

[Drscheist]

I can identify with your sentiments. Sweet winning streaks which come as a result of solid play > giddiness, disbelief, confidence, swagger. "Just applied some concepts I learned in a book I paid twenty bucks for and...800 bucks later...wheee!" What's missing is the inevitable, "F---! Can this game even be beat?!" > disappointment, dejection, frustration, insecurity. "Wish I'd cashed out yesterday..." Money's out there for sure, but it's maybe a more modest sum than some of our winning sessions lead us to believe.
That always gets me--getting back to the game after an extended winning streak with all the confidence in the world--'ts when I'm most susceptible to tilt, that's for sure. Not meant as a buzzkill or cynical post, just that there are so many days that we do lots of things right and bad things just keep happening.
What I find hardest to believe are the amount of people who play full-time; who deal with the swings with equanimity; who are able to prioritize process and sound play over short-term results; and who are unperturbed by the maddening and the wildly improbable.

[Michael Davis]

Yes, it is a larger ocean, but the games are WAY easier live. Online may become an incredibly difficult shark tank because of the rapid pace and multitabling, but B&M games will always be juicy.

-Michael

[lacky]

Here's another way to think about it. My father and I play golf about 10 times a year. We enjoy it but I SUCK! I can't believe we play something that expensive that we are so bad at. No, the $500 or so that it costs a year doesn't break me (I make it back in poker from the golfers /images/graemlins/cool.gif )but it's fon so we do it. A casual poker player is much the same.

Steve

[Atropos]

"In the last month, playing .50/$1, I am down $300. Had it not been for Ed's advice, I'd probably be down $500-$600. Be thankful for the streak you are on, and get ready for the dark side."

I dont think that this can be a streak. Its impossible to lose 300$ at party 0.50/1 with good game selection and semi-ok poker skills. I play 4 tables all the time, and I have never lost more than 90BB, but seen more bad beats than ever in my poker career.
I think it's rather ideas like always capping JJ preflop in multiway pots, than an ominous "bad streak" that makes you lose...

[sprmario]

There were 55,000 people on party last night... there are millions and millions and millions of adults who like to gamble. I see no reason to believe that we won't see 100k or 200k people online in the near future just on Party.

I just started playing in May. I deposited $80, no bonus. I played for 2 months and cashed out about $750. I left about $110 and I'm up to $900 again. I'm shocked at the stupidity of many players.

I wanted to add... that in your original post you mention that you aren't that good. I'm not that good either. The main reason a lot of low limit 2+2ers win is that they realize that they aren't that good but they do know enough to play a reasonable game. Fortunately (for us) a reasonable low limit game can be very profitable.

[CostaRicaBill]

I really can't believe it either. I'm by no means the best but and have run up $200 into $4500 in the past 4 months. Party Poker is like a chip spewing bonanza with people cold calling 2 or 3 bets on the turn with middle pairs and the like. It all seems too good to be true.

[theghost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
95% of poker players are long term losers.


[/ QUOTE ]

is that true? I'm definatly a long term winner at the level I've been playing, but I don't know if I would consider myself in the top 5% of all poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

My PT database has a 40/60 split of winners/losers, FWIW.

[chio]

exactly

casinos have been around for forever, and they have always had business

some of their customers are degenerates that lose everything, but many are just recreational players who lose a small part of their paycheck each week/month/year and don't really mind, much like the poker fish of today

there's will ALWAYS be money out there, always

[chio]

"Money's out there for sure, but it's maybe a more modest sum than some of our winning sessions lead us to believe. "

i think this is an important point too, there will always be money out there for anyone with decent poker knowledge to take, but i'm talking about the 2BB/hr kind at 5/10, not the "omg i just made 100 BB in 2 hours at 15/30" types of ridiculous streaks that are selectivly remembered

[sthief09]

yeah, you're absolutely right. just because we make the effort to get better doesn't mean everyone does. plenty of people will sit down at 5/10 just because it's a good way to gamble. they like poker, and as you say, the money stays around longer.

[zuluking]

[ QUOTE ]
Its impossible to lose 300$ at party 0.50/1 with good game selection and semi-ok poker skills. I play 4 tables all the time, and I have never lost more than 90BB, but seen more bad beats than ever in my poker career.
I think it's rather ideas like always capping JJ preflop in multiway pots, than an ominous "bad streak" that makes you lose...

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I've stopped capping with JJ preflop/multiway. Now I just re-raise with 5 2 offsuit! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[JAque]

20 to 30 mil people visit Las Vegas every year dropping their share. It does not seem to slow down.
People lose some money then a few months later, they come back. Plus a lot of people consider gambling as entertaiment and therefore it is a cost they are willing to pay.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
My PT database has a 40/60 split of winners/losers, FWIW.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's about what everyone reports here, but unless you've been playing with the same players for a lot of the time, these only represent short term numbers.

[dogmeat]

There is an ebb and flow to gambling, and this of course includes poker. Look at Lav Vegas as an example. In the 1920's it was a dusty, tiny, train stop. When Boulder dam was built, the town grew in size during the 1930's. In the mid 1940's, when so many young men were coming back from WWII there was a large increase in visitors. In the 1950's there were several new casinos built. 1960's there was a downturn, but poker was getting more popular. The WSOP started in the early 1970's and although Vegas was still hurting, poker got more popular. In the 1980's Vegas did some building, and poker became more popular as more and more "young players" got into the game. Entries to the WSOP increased every year. In the 1990's Vegas had a terrific boom, and poker (especially in California, which leaglized more than just "race-horse draw" in the mid 1980's) was really popular.

Now it is the new century. Vegas, AC, MS, etc. have grown, the internet has spread the availability of poker all over the world, California is getting full-scale "Indian" casinos and poker is more popular than ever. Wow, was this long winded. Sorry. Point is, there is never enough gambling for this great country of ours. Check out the lotteries, bingo, poker etc. it will never end.

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[jtr]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think that this can be a streak. Its impossible to lose 300$ at party 0.50/1 with good game selection and semi-ok poker skills. I play 4 tables all the time, and I have never lost more than 90BB, but seen more bad beats than ever in my poker career.
I think it's rather ideas like always capping JJ preflop in multiway pots, than an ominous "bad streak" that makes you lose...

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi, Atropos.

I'm new here, so I may be pointing you to something you've seen already. But there's an excellent post by Clarkmeister that critiques the sort of thinking you're employing here. Not looking for an argument, as I agree that anyone who lost 300BB at Party 0.5/1 certainly should take a careful look at their game, just in case. But I think Clarkmeister makes some excellent points about how this sort of thing really can happen to good players (FWIW my own worst streak so far was -180BB at Party 3/6; I've only played about 55000 hands over the last 6 months).

Here's the post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=psych&Number=204604&fp art=1&PHPSESSID=) I'm talking about.

[Pokergod]

Here's my 2 cents worth....

I believe that poker is still becoming more popular, and people just absolutely love to gamble. The younger generation is no different, and poker is now acceptable. There will be no shortage of new players entering the game unless something unforseen takes place.

Now some of those players who now lose regularly, and some of the new players will learn to play better and will become winners, and that will be about 5-10% of them. Some will drop out after getting crushed. Most of them will lose some and win some, always losing a bit more than winning, over their entire poker playing life.

It's amazing how many otherwise intelligent people think they already know all there is to know about the game, and they will never improve, unless it's by accident. I was at a live game recently and I mentioned I had read a book about Omaha hi-lo, because I thought my game was a bit weaker than it needed to be. Well, the person I was talking to actually laughed a bit, and a couple of other more seasoned players started making fun of me. The rest of the night, whenever I lost a hand, somebody was sure to ask me if I learned that play in the book I had read.

They do not want to improve, they are content to lose forever, without really knowing it. It's F'ing beautiful.

-PG

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

The Moose I play with believe I am a fool for having read all that Ska-lansky stuff and all them other books. They have been around the block and know how to play from years of experience. What they seem baffled by is how I get so "lucky" and win as often as I do. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Rudbaeck]

Yes, but short-term numbers for tens of thousands of randomly selected players are invariably going to converge on the true ratio. Everyone can't be on a winning streak every time we observe them.

We can make predictions about the entire population from watching a big enough sample.

Off course 95% of all players who sit down at a table with Brunson, Baldwin and Lederer are going to lose money. That doesn't make 95% of all poker players losers.

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]
...short-term numbers for tens of thousands of randomly selected players are invariably going to converge on the true ratio.

[/ QUOTE ]

I asked a similar question (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=probability&Number=858812& Forum=,,,,,All_Forums,,,,,&Words=&Searchpage=4&Lim it=25&Main=858812&Search=true&where=&Name=5137&dat erange=&newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=& bodyprev=#Post858812) once in the probability forum.

/mc

[Boopotts]

I actually wonder about that. I've never done a study on it, but I 'think' I make around 3-5 cents for every dollar I put in a pot. If this is right, or even close, then you'd think the average losing player would be much, much better off banging the pass line at the local dice pit (once you figure in the rake).

But I have to agree that people just love to gamble. At our local casino, the drop in the 3-6 game is 5 at 50; and there's a bad beat toke on top or that, and an (optional) dealer tip to boot. This means is costs around 7 bucks to drag a decent sized pot. I don't know whether a game like that is beatable, but I doubt I could beat it for more than a couple bucks an hour-- which means the average player has just got to be losing his ass in this game. Yet, the lists always seem to be full.

[juanez]

I find it hard to believe that people can sit there and play slots for hours on end. If there are people that are that foolish with their money, there will always be fish playing poker as well.

[gamboolman]

People like to gamble. Always have, and always will. With the internet and poker booming, its a big ocean full of all kinds of fish.

..............My problem is that I play in the freshwater rivers that are full of Piranhas. They are mighty good "Fish" to catch and eat, but when I fall out of the pirogue into a school of hungry Piranhas, well that there is no fold'em hold'em.

[LondonBroil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My PT database has a 40/60 split of winners/losers, FWIW.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's about what everyone reports here, but unless you've been playing with the same players for a lot of the time, these only represent short term numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't everyone reporting the same thing make it a large sample?

[LinusKS]

The actual win rate of 2+2 players is likely to be much worse than you might think.

First of all, there's a lot of people coming through here. The ones who have had good results, however, are the ones who're most likely to stop and post about them. Plus, the better the results, the more likely they are to post.

Second, some people are going to have a series of games where they're up, and then also a series where they're down.

If they're up $1000 at Party Poker, but down $750 at Absolute, they'll post about PP, but not AP. If they're down overall on sng's, but pick up a 40% ROI on a 100-game challenge, they'll post the 100-game challenge.

Third, there's bound to be a certain amount of hinkiness in the data. There's a tendency to want to turn off your computer and leave the house after a bad session - after a good session, you want to plug all your new numbers into your spreadsheets, to see how much you've improved.

Finally, some people have a tendency to lie. While I'm sure 2+2ers are at least as honest as the general public, that's actually not saying all that much. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Cashcow]

I agree, I would have to say a very large percentage (maybe 95%+) never read a book, chat about poker or have any desire to get any better. For the 5% or so that do try to learn more, and don't believe that "any hand can win" there will never be a shortage of cash to take from the fish.

[ctv1116]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My PT database has a 40/60 split of winners/losers, FWIW.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's about what everyone reports here, but unless you've been playing with the same players for a lot of the time, these only represent short term numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't everyone reporting the same thing make it a large sample?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because everyone has small samples on the other players. In my database, I probably have 20-200 hands on about 95% of the players. Let's just say for the sake of argument that all 95% of the players are -1BB/100 losers with SD of 15BB/100 hands. So if each player plays 100 hands, what % of them will be up, and what % will be down, given the distribution. I'd say its 45/55 winners to losers, even though in reality ALL of the players are long-term losers, by definition.

[Ian J]

[ QUOTE ]
The actual win rate of 2+2 players is likely to be much worse than you might think.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree here wholeheartedly. Playing the 10/20 game at Party last week, a person sat down who I know to be a 2+2er and open limped in MP w/ J8s, then bet and called a raise in a 3 way pot on a K Q 9 rainbow flop. There is absolutely no way that this can be good poker. Just because someone is posting here does not mean that they are a winning player. They may win for a bit, but they may not be winners in the long run.