Winners vs nonwinners ?

Of the total population of poker players, what % of them are winners ? Also

would that % be scale invariant? That is to say would any given group of

players (of sufficient size) yeild a similar ratio?

In my experience I would guesstimate that 20% were "break-even" or

better.Perhaps 10% were consistent winners.The rake definitly skews this

ratio to one side.Of course these figures are intuitive based on my 26 years

& 30k hours of playing time.

Also, would the ratio be different for live poker vs online poker?

What would anyone else's thoughts be?

be it golf, fishing, whatever---recreation costs money---poker is no exception


given that the vast majority of players are recreational players, my guess is that 20% would be the upper area


there have been published reports concerning one activity which involves both pros and non-pros,,reports presumably based upon factual data,,80% of commodity traders lose money.

My guess is 2% winners. Broken down, it's .5% winners at $3-6 and smaller, 2% at 6-12 and 9-18, and 5% winners at mid limit.


Tommy

Based on my experience and not math, and would

guess 4-5% are overall winners:


2% 3-6 limits

4% 6-12

5% 9-18

8% 15-30/20-40


I think the # of winners in the 3-6 limit is

underestimated by many (Although they may only win under $3000 for the year).

Since the only winner I care about would be me, in my vast experience 100% of the above group are losers! :-)

If the limit was a penny and the rake was a quarter, no one would win. If reversed, nearly half would win. Someone in there is where we are, and right near there is the ratio of rake to limit at $3-6 being so close that the percentage of winners vs losers hinges largely on local custom. My extra-low estimates reflects CA high costs.


Tommy

It's actually a difficult question because such a large potion of the casino poker playing population plays infrequently, maybe a couple of times a month or less. Virtually all of them lose over time, but a big chunk of them are hovering around break even in any given year.


Of the weekly regulars I would say at least 20% and maybe as much as a third win something, depending on the limits and the rake. In a 90,000 hand data base of PP hand histories, 45% of all players are ahead in full table play, just under 40% for 5-handed games. Interestingly, the percentage of winners actually goes up as I adjust for the number of hands seen per player.


If you're referring to a big bet per hour or more, however, I'm sure it's less than 2% of the entire population.

I would be extremely interested in the results extracted from someone's 90k hand sample.

Things like how the results vary by limit,amount of hands played,how full the game is etc....

Perhaps someone has done this and would post a graph or two ??

>>Someone in there is where we are, and right >>near there is the ratio of rake to limit at $3->>6 being so close that the percentage of winners >>vs losers hinges largely on local custom. My >>extra-low estimates reflects CA high costs.


Local custom. I like the sound of that.

My high estimates for 3-6 (2%) are also

based on CA games. I was basing my estimate

on the # of players I felt who actually win in

the game. When I actually think about it,

2% may be low. (I myself prop it, and have

beaten it along with many of my prop buddies)


Perhaps its due to the extrememly bad pay-offs,

dead-draws, etc..

Let me get back to you when it's a million or so hands.

<BLOCKQUOTE>If reversed, nearly half would win.</BLOCKQUOTE>

That's an interesting statement. I would expect that in such a game (very low rake), a small percentage of players would still be winners, and a much lager percentage would be losers. The lowered rake would be enough to turn some current losers into winners, but in general it would just mean that the winners would win a little more and the losers would lose a little less. Apparently, you disagree. Can you give us an intuition for why you think this wouldn't be the case?


Obviously, with no rake it would become a zero-sum game, but that still doesn't tell us anything about how many people are winning and how many are losing, just that the sum of the losses of the losers will equal the sum of the wins of the winners. I still think there'd be more losers than winners.

<BLOCKQUOTE>Interestingly, the percentage of winners actually goes up as I adjust for the number of hands seen per player.</BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you make this adjustment? I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to.

How do you make this adjustment? I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to.


If it's Pokerstat or something similar, you can filter the win/loss data based on number of hands seen. My database is only a little over 6000 hands currently, but I've seen the same thing, ie, ~40% winners total, and the percentage increases, when the minimum number of hands increases (not surprising, really, when the min is 6000, 100% of those players are winning /images/smile.gif )