What percent of players actually win?

[bigSTAKES]

Hi everyone.
I am a college student and I'm currently having a debate with my parents about poker. I'm wondering what percentage of online players actually win money consistently (meaning over a large amount of time like a year or two they still come out on top). My parents think it is only a couple %... that the money all "flows" from the low limit fish, up to the low-middle normal players, up to the medium limit regulars, up to the high limit pros.

I think it would be closer to 30%

What does everyone else think?

[PotatoStew]

[ QUOTE ]
that the money all "flows" from the low limit fish, up to the low-middle normal players, up to the medium limit regulars, up to the high limit pros.

[/ QUOTE ]

Money would only flow up the limits if a player moves up in limits. If you are playing low limit poker and playing better than the fish, the money will flow from the fish to you. The money will certainly NOT flow from you up to the middle limit players, because you aren't playing middle limits -- you're playing low limits (for example).

You don't need to be the best poker player to make money, you only need to be better than most of the people (or sometimes even just a few of the people) at your table.

[Ace_Ren]

Another college student here that's relatively new to poker. Can't give you a percentage, but I can say that I'm up. If I wanted to, I could be up more than I am.

My play goes something like this:
Win money from the low limits/ small SNG
Lose money to small-medium SNG, and small tourneys (but not as much as I win)
Then go back to low limits/ small SNGs again, each rotation is a gain, but the gain is slow until I start to beat the medium SNG or small Tourneys or until I give-up and decide to stick with the low stuff.

So I'm still sending food up the chain (as your parents suggest), but I'm keeping some of it for myself.


added edit:
I should note that as an hourly rate... it sucks. If you're asking because you want to know if you can make a profit out of poker so that you don't need a real job, think again. I'd be better off flipping burgers for minimum wage than I have been doing playing poker. Even if I would just stick to the low limits, it'd surprise me if I could consistently be up $5 an hour despite occasional times where I might go up $40 or more in an hour. That's part of the reason why I lose money trying to go up the chain: so that eventually it may be profitable from a time spent perspective.

[STLantny]

2-5%ish of ALL player are winning player. On 2+2, Id say 40-70 win??

[Sincere]

If you mean what % actually win meaningful money, meaning over $20,000+ a year, Id say 10% max. Thats not fact however, just opinion. You're parents assumptions are probably closer than your 30% number. However, you need to be more specific because you just asked what % win money consistently. Does that mean you want to know what % win $1500 a year consistently, or $4000+ a year or how much are you refering to. I think anything less than $20,000 a year shouldnt qualify.

[Sincere]

[ QUOTE ]
If I wanted to, I could be up more than I am.


[/ QUOTE ]

I alway cringe when I hear this statement. This is a sure sign you are not being honest with yourself.

[Ace_Ren]

[ QUOTE ]
I alway cringe when I hear this statement. This is a sure sign you are not being honest with yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please re-read. I am stating that I could be up more than I am by only playing the low limits and just consistently beating what I can already beat.

The vast majority of my losses come at limits that I am not yet able to beat, but I spend the money at those limits so that I may one day do so. It's the cost of education, I'm willing to pay it.

[Sincere]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the cost of education, I'm willing to pay it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thats understandable. We all pay the cost of education. But wouldnt it be better to spend your money on books that you can study and learn how to beat the higher levels and just continue to beat the games you are already beating, then when you get a lot of studying in and feel more comfortable moving up you can do so with confidence? Just a thought.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
2-5%ish of ALL player are winning player. On 2+2, Id say 40-70 win??

[/ QUOTE ]

The figure I hear thrown around is 10%. But I ahve no idea how anyone would figure this out.

The only thing I can think of is if you took 10 players and had them play for 1,000,000 years with unlimited bankrolls. I guess you would probably expect to come back and find the best player up the most.

[addickt]

according to 7 million PT Hands....... I have about 27%winners with amount of hands played over 500. For all it is worth..

Im not that good and I have won WELL over 40k a year for last 7 years...

I think it is well higher than 5 or total players that win

[jtr]

7 million hands is an impressive database, but there are some arguments in this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=genpok&Number=1390393&Foru m=f1&Words=&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=1390393&Sea rch=true&where=bodysub&Name=996&daterange=1&newerv al=1&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Po st1390393) as to why the true proportion of winning players is unlikely to be 27%, even with your large sample size. (The key problem is the small sample size of hands per player -- for obvious reasons it's hard to get millions of hands on thousands of people.)

The original poster might find the thread illuminating also.

[PokerFink]

The general consensus for B&M play is that ~10% of the players are winners. Since online has a lower rake and no toking, I would expect this to increase to somewhere in the teens. Somewhere between 15-20% probably.

[meow_meow]

The number is certainly much lower than 30%.
IMO even 10% is too high.

The question is a bit vague though.

Do you mean: "what percentage of people who play any real money poker on the internet are net winners in a given year?"
I'm guessing that much more than half of the total people who play internet poker in a given year make one or two deposits, bust out, and quit.
Those that remain (30% at most), can be divided into roughly 3 categories: recreational money losers, addicts, and players who make money. The latter probably make up at most a quarter of that <30%, say 7.5% of total players.

[somapopper]

If you're playing online, you're going to see about 40% winners 60% losers. I don't think this part is really debatable. As n approaches infinity where n = the # of hands in your pokertracker database, the # of winning players will approach~ 40%.

My guess is that's because you aren't equally likely to run into a winning player as a losing player, no matter how many hands you play.

Winning players simply play more. Losing players will bust and give up the game, hence the need for the constant influx of new money.

For simplicty sake, let's say a winning player plays 1,000 hands over the course of his poker career (just making the math easy) but a losing player only plays 100 hands. You'll be ten times more likely to ever sit down with the winning player. (actually, I don't think ten times is right, but that's the principle at work)

If there's a pro at your limit you're bound to run into him at least once, you'll probably play with him often, but he fleeced five new 70% VPIP fish the other day who took such a merciless beating that they will never sit down again.

[ghettorat]

[ QUOTE ]
If you mean what % actually win meaningful money, meaning over $20,000+ a year, Id say 10% max. Thats not fact however, just opinion. You're parents assumptions are probably closer than your 30% number. However, you need to be more specific because you just asked what % win money consistently. Does that mean you want to know what % win $1500 a year consistently, or $4000+ a year or how much are you refering to. I think anything less than $20,000 a year shouldnt qualify.


[/ QUOTE ]
I would expect a stupid statement like this from a Cowboys fan. What makes $20,000 the magic number? If you are a consistent winner then $ amount doesn't matter, its your winrate that matters. Someone that plays $1000/$2000 limit daily and wins $40000 this year isn't a winner, they're a break even player with a big bankroll.

[donger]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're playing online, you're going to see about 40% winners 60% losers. I don't think this part is really debatable. As n approaches infinity where n = the # of hands in your pokertracker database, the # of winning players will approach~ 40%.

My guess is that's because you aren't equally likely to run into a winning player as a losing player, no matter how many hands you play.

Winning players simply play more. Losing players will bust and give up the game, hence the need for the constant influx of new money.

For simplicty sake, let's say a winning player plays 1,000 hands over the course of his poker career (just making the math easy) but a losing player only plays 100 hands. You'll be ten times more likely to ever sit down with the winning player. (actually, I don't think ten times is right, but that's the principle at work)

If there's a pro at your limit you're bound to run into him at least once, you'll probably play with him often, but he fleeced five new 70% VPIP fish the other day who took such a merciless beating that they will never sit down again.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument is only valid if your threshold for # of hands played is really high, or you're only counting active players. If the # of losers is growing faster than the number of winners (due to a high turnover among the losers) then won't they outnumber the winners?

[Reef]

do a search:

subject - "How many winners" (use quotes)
username - Reef
time - 1 year

[ACPlayer]

... waiting for a game at the Borgata I got in a conversation with a fellow who informed me that I should play online as EVERYONE is winning big online.

He meant it too!!!

[ACPlayer]

... from a money perspective it does not matter.

A guy who can build a career playing poker has the smarts to make more money working on say wall street trading derivatives then he will ever make playing cards -- short of hitting the tournament jackpot.

Better to play while working at a good job.

But then I am probably the age of your parents, so my opinion does not matter either. Enjoy!!

[Sincere]

How does being a Cowboys fan correlate anything with my statement.

The fact that you dislike the Cowboys does not prove my statement wrong.

It just seems like it is pointless to worry about how many players win a few dollars a year. If you arent winning serious money year in and year out you dont need to be considered part of the percentage of players who win consistently. And it just seems that the money starts to matter around 15,000-20,000 a year. You sure as hell cant make 7,000 a year and live on it. That is the reason why I asked the original poster how much money per year he was talking about. I gave him my opinion and my opinion is that if you arent winning a meaningful amount of money year in and year out then it shouldnt count in the percentage of winning players.

But I appreciate you trying to insult someones inteligence and basing your case on what football team they like.

[AndrewtheBold]

I think you are answering a different question. The question that you're answering is "If I sat down at an average table, how many winning players are there?" The question original question was "What percentage of people that attempt online poker end up winners in the long run?"

[XChamp]

You are right. You sound exactly like my father.

One thing you dont realize, however, is that I am not playing professionally solely for money; I am playing for freedom. I don't want to work 70+ hours a week on wall street. Instead, I prefer to work how much I want, whenever I want. Some weeks I put in 15 hours some weeks I put in 50.

[ThinkQuick]

I'm really interesed in this just because it seems like there are so many barriers to performing statistics calculations here.

I mean, if you can't use your current PT stats because there aren't enough hands/player, and you can't filter for those who've played many hands because those who play more often probably have a different distribution than the general population..... what can you do?

Is is possible to average the PT numbers from all 2+2 respondants? Of course accounting for the number of hands in each persons database.

[ACPlayer]

Freedom is good -- but if this is all you do in your life, then you are doing it for money.

YOu will be doing to pay the mortgage, car payments, college tuitions etc. When you have the responsibilities you will need to put in the hours.

I went to school, got a job, started a business (actually more than one), travelled the world and now play poker. All in all it has been a good well rounded life. I certainly am glat that I did not spend all my 20's and 30's and 40's in a card room or in front of a party poker screen.

But, these are individual choices. YOu can be very successful playing cards (as long as the games and pickings are easy). Just realize that there is a whole big world out there that is worth exploring.

[ianlippert]

I dont understand why ppl look down on poker as a way to make a living. Trying to make it as a professional poker player is exactly the same as trying to make it as a successful business owner. There is a certain amount of risk in ANY capital venture. I dont see how someone who took the risk of starting their own business can look down on players that are willing to take the risk to make the money.

whatever business venture you attempt you always consider the risk vs reward. You could go to school, spend 4 years getting a degree, only to find out that the needs of the economy have changed and your degree is useless. Right now poker is easier than it has ever been. Not to mention that if you are smart you shouldnt have to risk more than $50/month, I know ppl that spend more than that at the bar in a night.

[xxxxx]

[ QUOTE ]
Trying to make it as a professional poker player is exactly the same as trying to make it as a successful business owner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. A sucessful business owner improves the human condition. A sucessful poker player lives off other people's misfortune.

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
A sucessful business owner improves the human condition.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true part of the time. Frequently business owner are presented with situations where they can make more money at the cost of the public good.

[Nomad84]

I have an idea for how to get a better answer than what was done in the other thread (linked a few posts up). This still wouldn't be perfect, but it should be an improvement.

Basically, what I am suggesting is a way to determine the ratio of the number of people who we are X% sure are winning long term to the number of people who we are X% sure are losing long term. There was a thread once that told how to make a graph of your bankroll growth over time by querying your PT database with Access and copying the resulting data to Excel to graph it. I don't know enough about Access to create the appropriate query myself, but perhaps someone who does could try this, or at least write the query and post it here for others to try. What I suggest is to get the following data for each player:

Win rate/100
Total number of hands played

We will also need to know standard deviation/100, but this will probably have to be an assumption. Does PT store this in the database or is it calculated when you ask for it?

Find this info for each player with a minimum of 50 hands (for instance). Past it into Excel. Make a column for standard error of the mean [STDev/sqrt(n/100)]. Make 2 more columns. One will be Win rate - Z * Standard error. Count the number of positive results in this column (not sure how to do this with Excel). This is the number of long term winners in your database. The other column will be Win rate + Z * Standard error. Count the negatives here. These are the long term losers. Z is dependant on how sure you want to be that they are winning or losing long term. Of course, the higher you set Z, the fewer the number of players who fall into either catagory because they don't have enough hands to convince you that they are winners or losers.

This may or may not give a more accurate portrayal of the ratio of winner to losers. Actually, I think this would still be biased because you are mor likely to have enough hands on the winners. Many of the long term losers won't have enough hands to convince you that they are long term losers rather than just victims of bad luck. Hmmm.... I'm still going to post this and maybe someone can find a way to improve upon this idea. If nothing else, we could try it with small Z values. Essentially, just comparing based solely on win rate is using Z=0. Z=0.5 means you are about 70% sure that they are winners or losers, for example. Another possible flaw is that you may have an insufficient sample size (in number of hands) for each player if you make Z small. Perhaps a Students T distribution should be used instead of a normal distribution? This is just getting more complicated the more I think about it, so I'll just stop.

This is probably not going to be accurate for the reasons mentioned above, and probably many more. Maybe someone can get something out of it though. Sorry for the long (and probably pointless) post.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]


Not quite. A sucessful business owner improves the human condition. A sucessful poker player lives off other people's misfortune.

[/ QUOTE ]


Poker is an entertainment industry. An online professional basically owns his own casino, and pays a rake to the site as 'rent'. He is providing a service. The goal of any entertainment business is to capture as much of peoples disposable income as possible.

In many areas this is done by creating a desire for a product so that when the consumer aquires that product it fulfils the desire and makes them happy. When nike gets $100 for a pair of shoes they spent $1 making, they are making a profit by taking advantage of human psychology.

If poker is unethical I would argue the entire entertainment industry is. But this is off topic, so mabey we should make a new thread.

[meow_meow]

This won't work at all.

Trying to analyze the proportion of winning players using PT stats is not possible, except for players that you have a min 10k sample for.

The reason is this: when you sit for a session, 10 handed, and play around 100 hands over a couple of hours, on average, something like 3-5 of the players on your table will be winners over that period. So, for players that you only have 1 or 2 sessions worth of data on, in the aggregate you are looking at 30% winners at least, based solely on the fact that this proportion of players will be ahead on a single table over a short session (i.e. this has no bearing on the actual proportion of long term winners)

[Nomad84]

[ QUOTE ]
This won't work at all.

Trying to analyze the proportion of winning players using PT stats is not possible, except for players that you have a min 10k sample for.

The reason is this: when you sit for a session, 10 handed, and play around 100 hands over a couple of hours, on average, something like 3-5 of the players on your table will be winners over that period. So, for players that you only have 1 or 2 sessions worth of data on, in the aggregate you are looking at 30% winners at least, based solely on the fact that this proportion of players will be ahead on a single table over a short session (i.e. this has no bearing on the actual proportion of long term winners)

[/ QUOTE ]

That is why I had considered trying to determine whether their wins were due to skill or variance by using confidence intervals. Unfortunately, there are too many variables to take into account and the data will still be biased. It knew before I made my last post that it wouldn't be perfect, but I had thought that it might help improve current estimates since no one has really given any support for those estimates. I don't know that there is a good way to determine what the ratio really is besides guesstimation.

[motorholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
This won't work at all.

Trying to analyze the proportion of winning players using PT stats is not possible, except for players that you have a min 10k sample for.

[/ QUOTE ]

My apologies if others have mentioneed this sereval times. but.....Everyone seems to be in agreement that each player needs a significant volume of hands in order to determine whether he/she is a winner or loser. I forgot everything I ever knew about reliability and degree of confidence and that stuff, but let's say it is 15K hands per player.

The problem is we still won't get at the answer, becasue how many losing players can afford to stick around for 15K hands? That said, it's no wonder there seems a disproportionate # of winning players when hi volume is set as parameter.

[varoadstter]

Oh yes it is debatable - in fact I would say your number is WAY off. There, I just debated it.

[Nicmavsfan28]

ok, here is the deal. they are trying to tell you that you are setting yourself up for failure by attempting to play online rather than work in a job in which you have to answer to someone. You have to decide if you can make it and stick with your guns, but do NOT rely on online poker for winnings. It is a hand randomizer. Real casino's, hours of grueling experience, a great deal of reading windbags like Helmuth tell you how brilliant they are so you can find one nugget of useful info in a mountain of BS: These are examples of things you MUST do if you want to get your folks off your back. Nothing speaks like success, and determined action which is goal oriented. You have to learn more than the other 90% to be a consistent winner. The only thing that will seperate you from the school of fish going all in preflop with J-10 suited, cause Doyle said he liked it, is the amount of time you spend studying ALL facets of the game. And remember, there is ALWAYS a bigger fish, just make sure you stay off his menu(table). /images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Lawrence Ng]

When I first started poker, I remember reading a post Sklansky made on RGP stating that the percentage of winning players is roughly 10%.

Now this percentage also coinsides with other so called "money-make-money" professions such as day trading. Heck, Stats Canada (sorry I don't know about the US) reports that 1/10 businesses fail their first year, much less keep up profit margins enough to sustain operations.

Lawrence

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]

2-5%ish of ALL player are winning player

[/ QUOTE ]

That is way too low.

[ QUOTE ]
On 2+2, Id say 40-70 win??

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was 100% cuz it sure seems like no one ever loses who posts on 2+2.

[torx]

i heard, and i am pretty sure 10% of the poker players are long-term winners. at most.
(and with the play i see sometimes i doubt even that)
there are, however, just about 1% of professionals.
so while with a little (or a lot) of studying and practice you can take money off of 90% of the poker players, it is still very hard to professionally play poker.

and then i have to argue that with 15 hours doing ANYTHING you will not be able to make a living, not playing poker, not daytrading, not any normal job.
there is no freedom at all as professional poker player, you will have to play alot, and it may get boring. you can't really withdraw money from your bankroll, cuz you need bankroll to be able to play. you should put winnings into your bankroll to be able to move up in limits and eventually make more money. you will have to work nights, cuz it's hard to make money with poker during the day.
all in all, playing poker is not freedom.
poker is not an easy way to make money.

-torx

[BoxLiquid]

[ QUOTE ]

there is no freedom at all as professional poker player, you will have to play alot, and it may get boring. you can't really withdraw money from your bankroll, cuz you need bankroll to be able to play. you should put winnings into your bankroll to be able to move up in limits and eventually make more money. you will have to work nights, cuz it's hard to make money with poker during the day.
all in all, playing poker is not freedom.
poker is not an easy way to make money.

-torx

[/ QUOTE ]

So damn true.. Poker is so much harder than I thought. It is far from "easy" money.

[ianlippert]

About the whole making your living playing poker, I think it depends a lot on what the cost of living is where you live. I live in Waterloo, Canada and the cost of living is very low. I am currently making $10/hr CAD at my job. Two tabling 1/2 I can easily make $15-$20/hr CAD and not have to worry about the fish running out.

I havent quit my crappy job yet, because I wanna see how high I can go. I'd love to be able to play 5/10. But dont have to make it at 5/10 to be successful, I could easily support myself on 1/2 for now.

[Limpn2win]

I just wanted to thanks the poster for one of the best threads I’ve read. Very insightful, responses.

Also, it seems obvious to me PT cant be used to estimate the number of losing players as there simply wont be enough hands to accumulate on loosing players. Even loosing players can’t be so ignorant as to continue loosing on a large timeline.

Although it seems to me the REAL question isn’t how many winning players there are online; but if YOU can be one of them. Am I right?

[RedManPlus]

[ QUOTE ]

Poker is an entertainment industry. An online professional basically owns his own casino, and pays a rake to the site as 'rent'. He is providing a service. The goal of any entertainment business is to capture as much of peoples disposable income as possible.

In many areas this is done by creating a desire for a product so that when the consumer aquires that product it fulfils the desire and makes them happy. When nike gets $100 for a pair of shoes they spent $1 making, they are making a profit by taking advantage of human psychology.


[/ QUOTE ]

This one takes the Nobel Prize for Denial.

Poker pros EXPLOIT other people for a living...
Just as drug dealers and pimps exploit others.

To argue that Nike exploiting 3rd world workers...
Justifies all exploitation...
Is crazy.

There are 2 kind of people in this world:

(1) Those that make an honest dollar doing something productive...

and

(2) People that can think only in terms of exploiting those in group 1

By about age 30...
Most people make a permanent decision...
To be part of group 1 or group 2.

rm+

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
My parents think it is only a couple %... that the money all "flows" from the low limit fish, up to the low-middle normal players, up to the medium limit regulars, up to the high limit pros.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do your parents imagine that money from .5/1 games makes it into pockets of players in the 30/60 games?

[Sunshine]

Seems like I had read ~15% of all people who play are long-term winners, but I can't find the quote (flipped through a few books). Given the number of people logging on and 'trying it out' for a short period of time, that number has to be lower as I remember this from a book before the Internet rush...

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]

This one takes the Nobel Prize for Denial.

Poker pros EXPLOIT other people for a living...
Just as drug dealers and pimps exploit others.

To argue that Nike exploiting 3rd world workers...
Justifies all exploitation...
Is crazy.

There are 2 kind of people in this world:

(1) Those that make an honest dollar doing something productive...

and

(2) People that can think only in terms of exploiting those in group 1

By about age 30...
Most people make a permanent decision...
To be part of group 1 or group 2.

rm+

[/ QUOTE ]

I said nothing about nike exploiting their workers. The point I was trying to make was that any sort of profit that is made, is made through the 'exploitation' of the consumers desire for your product. Should businesses decide how much they need to survive and never charge more than that? The goal of a business is to make as much profit as possible.

People spend money that they cant afford to spend on lots of garbage. Poker is one of them. There is nothing wrong with responsible gambling, or making money from responsible gamblers in a fair competition. Are credit card companies 'exploiting' people who cannot handle their finances? Are liquer stores 'exploiting' Alcoholics? There are tons of businesses that 'exploit' the consumer. Why should a professional poker player feel like he is exploiting anyone.

Would this conversation be any different if we were talking about competitive chess? People like to compete, they like to compete for money, and the money brings the best competition.

[timmer]

Im thinking maybe %5 . I also think your parents have a pretty good bead on things

timmer

[ianlippert]

I think its a bit of a misnomer to put a true percentage on it. If you can find 9 other players who are worse than you, you will profit. Some ppl may easily be able to take down 2BB at 1/2, but be a losing player at 5/10. My guess would be that the most important skill at making it at poker, is table selection. Knowing when you are at a table that you cant beat, and being able to get up and leave.

My estimate would be 10-15% of players are long term winners. Some may make it online, and others may be able to make it in the really soft real life games.

[RedManPlus]

[ QUOTE ]
When I first started poker, I remember reading a post Sklansky made on RGP stating that the percentage of winning players is roughly 10%.

Now this percentage also coinsides with other so called "money-make-money" professions such as day trading. Heck, Stats Canada (sorry I don't know about the US) reports that 1/10 businesses fail their first year, much less keep up profit margins enough to sustain operations.

Lawrence

[/ QUOTE ]


This is a great answer.

All "zero sum game" and "risk arbitrage" type business opportunities...
Become progressively more efficient...
As talented people move in...
Resulting in an end stage...
Of 10% winners... and 90% losers.

Online poker may still be 15-20% winners...
But it will get tougher because...

(1) More talented players moving in every day.
(2) The poker sites will find a ways to keep more money.

Eventually...
A 10% winner 90% loser equilibrium.

Poker is no different than any other zero sum game.

rm+

/images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Recliner]

[ QUOTE ]

(2) The poker sites will find a ways to keep more money.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree there as the industry is getting more competitive every day because of the large margins it currently has. I think the margins are going to shrink in the future either through reduced rake or more bonuses and promotions.

[RedManPlus]

Very good point.

In the short term...
There is an ongoing battle for market share...
And excellent terms for good players.

But once a company like Party raises a billion via IPO...
They will methodically start buying out their competitors...
And you will see consolidation...
And an end to the gravy train.

A fascinating thing about 2+2 for me...
Is the TOTAL belief among players...
That the "good times" will never end.

THIS IS TYPICAL OF ALL MANIAS.

But it will all tighten up...
Like every other "arbitrage" opportunity.

Right now...
The winning players are in ** direct competition **...
With the poker sites for the fish money.

But the fish community will eventually realize that they can't win...
And consolidated poker sites will focus on bottom line.

It doesn't take much to erase a 1.0 BB/hour profit margin...
This is a tiny margin.

Bust usually follows boom...
But 90% of the people believe boom is forever.

The poker boom right now...
Is like tech stocks in the late 90s.

Fascinating...
But just another mania.

rm+

/images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Maulik]

[ QUOTE ]
Very good point.

In the short term...
There is an ongoing battle for market share...
And excellent terms for good players.

But once a company like Party raises a billion via IPO...
They will methodically start buying out their competitors...
And you will see consolidation...
And an end to the gravy train.

rm+

/images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

when they methodically purchse their compeition or just market to death the rest of america, are you assuming there aren't fish in the other ponds?

holla

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Poker is an entertainment industry. An online professional basically owns his own casino, and pays a rake to the site as 'rent'. He is providing a service. The goal of any entertainment business is to capture as much of peoples disposable income as possible.

In many areas this is done by creating a desire for a product so that when the consumer aquires that product it fulfils the desire and makes them happy. When nike gets $100 for a pair of shoes they spent $1 making, they are making a profit by taking advantage of human psychology.


[/ QUOTE ]

This one takes the Nobel Prize for Denial.

Poker pros EXPLOIT other people for a living...
Just as drug dealers and pimps exploit others.

To argue that Nike exploiting 3rd world workers...
Justifies all exploitation...
Is crazy.

There are 2 kind of people in this world:

(1) Those that make an honest dollar doing something productive...

and

(2) People that can think only in terms of exploiting those in group 1

By about age 30...
Most people make a permanent decision...
To be part of group 1 or group 2.

rm+

[/ QUOTE ]

Its sounds like you are equating a person who spent the time to become a profitable poker player to a criminal?

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]


But once a company like Party raises a billion via IPO...
They will methodically start buying out their competitors...
And you will see consolidation...
And an end to the gravy train.



[/ QUOTE ]

So when party owns everything and is charging a 25% rake, what stops someone from opening another site? If an increase in rake is going to kill 1BB/hr players, what exactly do you think it will do to the fish? Raising the rake is the stupidest thing they could do. The majority of players are losers, the house will eventually get their money. The longer the fish get to play the more likely they are to come back. The only way the good times will end is if all the fish leave. Taking a look at Internet gambling in general, I really doubt that will happen. People love to gamble, poker isnt going anywhere. This isnt denial its a fact.

[Wally Weeks]

[ QUOTE ]
This one takes the Nobel Prize for Denial.

Poker pros EXPLOIT other people for a living...
Just as drug dealers and pimps exploit others.

To argue that Nike exploiting 3rd world workers...
Justifies all exploitation...
Is crazy.

There are 2 kind of people in this world:

(1) Those that make an honest dollar doing something productive...

and

(2) People that can think only in terms of exploiting those in group 1

By about age 30...
Most people make a permanent decision...
To be part of group 1 or group 2.

rm+

[/ QUOTE ]

Its sounds like you are equating a person who spent the time to become a profitable poker player to a criminal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is a game and some people are good, others are not. You might as well tell professional chess players that make a living at as "taking advantage" of their opponents by profiting.

Also, people in sales would also be classified as a low life (often true if the person in question is a used car saleman! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif).

People play poker for numerous reasons. Oftentimes, people know that they are underdogs and just want to have a good time with some playful gambling. They know that they are playing against more skilled players. Of course, lots of people are not honest with themselves in their own amount of skill.

Wally

[Dan Mezick]

Hands and bankroll just are not the same measure.

You can win (finish in the money) 40% of the time and still lose playing SnG poker.

This is 'accomplished' by finishing 3rd every time you make the money.

Etc.

I believe 3 to 5 percent of all players online are long-term winners.

The difference is commitment and the associated discipline.

Very few players measure results carefully and keep good records to do so. I am not talking PT here. That takes very little effort.

Items that get measured carefully tend to improve.

There is no perception without attention.

Very few players (3% to 5%) attend to commitment, focus and discipline.

This guy (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2324120&page=1&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1) shows what I mean.

Few will actually commit. Thus few are long-term winners.