Pro win rate vs. Other Pro...

[Megenoita]

If 2+2ers played against other 2+2ers all the time, what do you suppose the average win rate would be for the winning players? Take any 2+2er with a 2 BB/100 win rate for 3/6 or better, and have them all play against each other for a year. What do you suppose win rates would look like? Is this a ridiculous question? Has it merit? I desire to speculate because I wonder how the truly great players in cash games make a living where there are so many other sharks...it would be depressing if the truth is that they only win off the wealthy fish. All comments appreciated.

M

[Michael Davis]

"it would be depressing if the truth is that they only win off the wealthy fish."

Look into Zoloft, then.

A game such as you described would involve a lot of adjustments. Perhaps the very best, maybe one player, would be able to grind out a meager profit and everyone else would get crushed.

Wait and see what happens on Party Poker in another year.

-Michael

[Onaflag]

I'm not sure this can be answered. I think it is incorrectly assumed that each of the hypothetical 2+2ers have precisely equal skill sets which would not be the case. Assuming variations in skill, someone in the group would have to be the best and someone the worst. Win rates would range from profitable to unprofitable.

Onaflag.........

[Megenoita]

I don't assume they have equal set skills...only that they are winning players against the party poker field.

My question is rooted in thinking about the cash games that are played at the, say, 100/200 level. Phil Ivey said that he would play that game to learn...in that field, it is assuredly almost all great players, no? If Phil was going there for an education, most of it should have been (of course this was NL and I'm talking about LHE, but I think the principle applies).

Also, although Party will get increasingly better and better, it seems that even in 10 years it would be exceedingly profitable at all levels for a good player simply because not everyone can be great at poker...like anything else, most people will always suck.

Maybe it's just that most 2+2ers really aren't that much ahead of anyone that plays TAG???

What do you guys think?

M

[k_squared]

I think right now you do not have to be a highly skilled player to make money. I doesn't hurt you to be able to make some good reads and to have a sense of table textures, and pot-odds... but all those attributes are not needed to be a winner. In fact, some players might even make a larger profit at a table where people have some sense of what is going on because that will fit their game better. Right now, because many of the fish out there are soo bad, and there are so many the low limit game is highly specialized to factor that in. When the game changes, the level of play increases then so will the strategies a successful player needs to employ. From the set of winning players, if and when all the fish are removed we will find those players who make the appropriate adjustment making money and some formerly winning players losing... If all the weak little fish get eaten by the middle and large sized fish, then the large fish will start eating the middle sized fish!!! We just better hope we become large fish before that happens or that the pond always has little fish in it.

-K_squared

[JinX11]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, although Party will get increasingly better and better, it seems that even in 10 years it would be exceedingly profitable at all levels for a good player simply because not everyone can be great at poker...like anything else, most people will always suck.
...
What do you guys think?



[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you're right and that Michael Davis is not. I think he is closer to the eventual truth, though. Those that have played a while are already seeing the signs.

[PokerSlut]

Not to get too far off-topic, but Phil Ivey plays in games much larger than 100/200.



If everyone is of equal or near-equal skill level, then the only one making money is the casino. However, all a game really needs is one or two soft spots to be profitable in the long run (assuming stakes are high enough in relation to the rake/time charge).

[SlowStroke]

I've been playing for more than 20 years, and I think that poker gets easier to beat every year.

[k_squared]

But can that trend continue indefinately? The one downside about online poker is that it allows bad players to get fleeced (or skewered) so quickly that they might realize how bad they are. Playing a few hours a day and rarely winning you might figure out... hey I suck at this... why am I bothering... but in real life you go once a week (maybe once a month) to the casino, have a good time lose a little money, but have a good time... you went out got some drinks met some people... online you are just losing money, there is little ancillary benefit because no drinks, no laughs, no bright lights, just losing!

Also, with more skilled players multitabling we end up playing in an artificially higher percentage of the seats compared to the bad players, and as such we deplete their bank rolls even faster. It is an interesting question, and the advent of online poker is a signifigant change to the dynamic of the game.

-K_squared

[Onaflag]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, with more skilled players multitabling we end up playing in an artificially higher percentage of the seats compared to the bad players

[/ QUOTE ]

This phenomenon is certainly noticeable when there are popular bonuses to clear like the Empire one right now, but I disagree that the losing player loses his/her money by playing a few hours a day rather than once a month in a casino.

I think the casual player is just that: casual. I see in my database that there are a lot of players who play once a week or twice a month and don't get milked so bad that they'd stop coming so quickly. Sure, they'll eventually have to send more money to Neteller, but over the course of how long? I think there are too many casual players for the pasture to dry up anytime soon.

We should probably worry more about how the government can effectively shut it down before worrying when the nice donators will stop donating. They'll always be there because of the popularity of poker on TV.

Finding a table without 5 2+2ers on it, now that's a different story. Not that you can't do it on Party (I find juicy tables everyday) but I could agree that that could become more difficult over time because of PokerTracker. Once software for professionals is usable across all sites as effetively as it is on Party/skins, they'll start to migrate elsewhere once again evening out the field.

Onaflag..........

[Megenoita]

When I was talking about Phil Ivey, I was talking about when he was a 30/60 player and seeking to improve.

I think that perhaps many of us view profitability as how many horrible players are involved--LP-P and LA-A types. Maybe in the future one can't crush 3/6 for a living, but I still think that poker overall will be very profitable for the rest of our lives.

If there are many million people playing poker, the top 5% will always do very, very well. It's true in any industry. So the question then becomes, do you think that many millions are NOT going to be playing poker in 30 years? I think that is highly unlikely! Therefore, it seems that poker will always be very, very profitable.

M

[mcozzy1]

[ QUOTE ]
But can that trend continue indefinately? The one downside about online poker is that it allows bad players to get fleeced (or skewered) so quickly that they might realize how bad they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd think so, but I'm not sure it works that way. First of all, most poor players see themselves as unlucky, not bad at poker. Second, it can take these guys quite some time to lose their money.

I was just looking over pokertracker data and noticed that one of my nicest fish is actually a winner. This is a guy who plays just about any two cards and has no idea where the fold button is. I've played more than 20 sessions with him and he's made a nice profit even though he sucks. When he finally does lose all his money, I'm sure he will chalk it up to bad luck (after all, when he was getting good cards, he was winning).

[Bluffoon]

Didn't PT Barnum say this like 75 or a hundred years ago?

It was true then, it's true now, and it is going to be true
100 years from now.

They may not be playing poker but they will be somewhere spending money on something and our job is to find them...

[schroedy]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait and see what happens on Party Poker in another year.

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a lot of people are mistakenly assuming that one of the main reasons that most poker players play is to make money. Plenty of players spend over $100/week playing golf, and many more than that spend some amount of money on cable TV, a tennis club, movies, vacations or the like. I used to know people that regularly spent over $1000/month on bridge (this may be the best analogy to poker).

Gambling where the player has by far the worst of it is alive and well in the US. These statistics are quite dated but the industry has grown since 99.

"Consumers spent $58.4 billion on legal gambling in 1999. That is more than they spent on movie tickets, recorded music, theme parks, spectator sports and video games combined. U.S. Gambling, Inc. (USGI), our fictional holding company for the nation's lotteries, casinos and other gambling businesses, ranked 10th in the 1999 Forbes Sales 500, ahead of Boeing ($57.9 billion) and below Philip Morris ($61.75 billion)."

The key to maintaining poker profitability is continuing to move players out of slow grind, "decisions matter" games like blackjack and craps and into poker. We will probably never capture the lottery and slot machine, "one big lucky score" crowd, although the badbeat jackpots may help there.

Anyway there is plenty of room for growth in poker. And plenty of bad players who will continue to pay to play.

[invast]

You also have the remember that as the years pass, new people are being introduced to the game and therefor fish shall continue to flow through the river! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[mosquito]

IMHO, from observation, the live players who drop
$100-$200 at at B&M don't even miss it. The only
ones that will drop out are those who develop an
addicition to where they just play too often, and
thus burn through the money.

That happens in all facets of gambling.

Also, I am fairly aware of how the game changed over
the course of about 10 years in Tucson cardrooms from
the initial legalization to 'now'. The fact is, that
before the net and TV brought out more suckers, the
game did get tougher. But not unprofitable.

I see this as a worst case for the net, and it will
take a number of years IMO.

[BaronVonCP]

there will always be an influx of new players

[BaronVonCP]

don't forget the people that play for the first time, there will always be an influx of new players.. even if it isn't as large as it has been

[Pepsquad]

Think of it as the life cycle of a fish (no pun intended). 30,000 little largemouth bass fry hatch in the nest. When they are born, 75% will just wander out into open water and get pummeled by the first thing they cross paths with. 25% that do manage to live, will learn to hide deep within the vegetation and feed on little insects, etc (this is where I am right now in the micro-limits. I know just enought to survive and where I CANNOT go if I want to survive) until they grow bigger. A few get picked off here and there, until eventually they grow big enough to go hunting. They school up and will even "hunt" together, trapping small schools of shad in little inlets and feasting. Once in awhile, they still come across a big ass Northern Pike that will chase them nip at them. They realize that sometimes they are stalking the prey and sometimes they're BEING stalked as prey. If a bass learns where to find food and stay out of harms way, eventually he'll grow into a true lunker. No more hanging out in schools for this guy. He just finds a big 'ol log to hunker down in. He no longer chases his prey. He just sits all-day, motionless, waiting for that one BIG meal to come along and BAM! Game over. Then one day, he's sitting in his log and this little bastard shad has the audacity to get to close and WHAM! But wait a second, this little shad is dragging him all over the place. What the hell is going on!? All of a sudden he's being lifted up out of the water by some other-world being with the letters I-V-E-Y stiched onto some bizarre body armor type of thing. This is our life span. We all start as little bass fry and one day hope to achieve status as the bass fisherman. But baby fry will NEVER stop hatching, it's just the natural cycle of things. Sorry for the lame long-winded analogy.

Pep.

[mcozzy1]

I just had a nice conversion with a fish at a B&M game. He says he usually plays 5/10 on party. It's always nice to see their mentality. He's been playing for years. He truly believes that EVERYONE loses. So, a lot of them do play solely for the entertainment aspect.

It was also nice that he showed me his cards every hand (and showed everyone his cards whenever he got a chance). Very enlightening to be inside the mind of a fish. Too bad I ran into Quad 9s and couldn't win a big pocket pair. I did learn a lot though.

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, from observation, the live players who drop
$100-$200 at at B&M don't even miss it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say they don't "miss" it. My game of choice (and I do well) is $1/2 NL. It's a great game to fleece the fish. The buy-in is usually $200 (varies slightly by each card room). When they burn that up, they'll shoot their hand up with two benjies for the floor to come and get in exchange for a new full rack.

It is so beautiful to see those full yellow racks coming over to a fish on tilt! Tilt is so prevalent at the NL tables because on bad play can wreck their rack. And then they want revenge...

Fish making bad plays with money to burn (but still "miss" because they do want to win) wanting and revenge are factors that make NL games so lucrative.

[K C]

First, keep in mind that there's still going to be a distribution of skill among the better players that hang out here. It's not really that different than moving up to higher levels, where the players are better, but there still are stronger and weaker players. It's only when the players are evenly matched that only the house wins. Suffice to say though that under this scenario it would be a lot tougher for most, because most are bound to lose, as is always the case.

I wouldn't worry about our game becoming less populated with fish. Sure, a particular site may go that way, to a degree, but overall we are attracting a lot of new players, and in particular, a lot whose main attraction is entertainment, not profit.

You don't have to look any further than the casino games to appreciate this. Everyone there is a big fish. Yet the fish just keep coming back for more. The reason is, although they are losing money consistently, they are being entertained.

Let's entertain them some more /images/graemlins/smile.gif

KC
http://kingcobrapoker.com

[Megenoita]

Bringing this back a little to the original question of this thread, I think of Ted Forrest who is known to play in "probably the toughest stud game in the world". Now, the money he makes in those top, top cash games--that money is mostly coming from other top players, no? And people like him and Lederer can make a living off cash games at the very high stakes, not because of wealthy fish, but because of succeeding in competition against anyone...right?

Maybe, though, the "win rate" for a Ted Forrest against other top pros at 1,000/2,000 isn't near what an online pro makes at 3/6 or 5/10, but it's gotta be something good...

M

[tek]

Poker has been played in this country for at least 200 years. And books to help people improve have been written for at least 100 years. I doubt the fish population will die or get better.

People love to gamble, but don't love to work on improvement. Even if fish read books, they still need ability, emotional control (lack this and forget it...) and the desire to continually work on their game. Same thing in bowling or golf.

The problem is there are only 168 hours in each week. There are priorities in our lives. For our discussion, if your priority isn't poker, then your progress will be limited.

Another consideration is even if more people work on their games and have emotional control and have a proper bankroll, etc the people above them will maintain their dominance if they continue to work on their game. In other words the gap between good players and fish will remain.

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
Bringing this back a little to the original question of this thread, I think of Ted Forrest who is known to play in "probably the toughest stud game in the world". Now, the money he makes in those top, top cash games--that money is mostly coming from other top players, no? And people like him and Lederer can make a living off cash games at the very high stakes, not because of wealthy fish, but because of succeeding in competition against anyone...right?

Maybe, though, the "win rate" for a Ted Forrest against other top pros at 1,000/2,000 isn't near what an online pro makes at 3/6 or 5/10, but it's gotta be something good...)

[/ QUOTE ]

Most good players don't want to butt heads. They will play to break even with each other until new fish arrive. Then they take turns chipping away at them. That's the way it is with me and other good NL cash players whenever I play.

[bandfan]

i liked the bass analogy

[Michael Davis]

I think your comments apply to live play more than the internet. The games have gotten much worse in quick time online.

-Michael

[ACW]

Online poker will move out of its growth phase an reach a dynamic equilibrium, where the number of sharks matches the influx of new players. If there are too many sharks, and they can't win fast enough to make playing worthwhile, some of them will leave making it more priftable for those that stay.

A similar micro-dynamic equilibrium will apply to the flow of players between sites.

Interesting questions would be

1) How long before growth stops and equilibrium sets in (are we already there?)

2) When equilibrium is established, how much money will be flowing out of the fish, how much taken by the sites, how much is won by the sharks?

3) In equilibrium, what percentage of fish graduate to sharks?

[Arm187r]

[ QUOTE ]
i liked the bass analogy

[/ QUOTE ]
me 2