$215: With all the 17%+ ROI winners, where are the losers coming from?

[AA suited]

ZJ, Curtains, Dali, Giga and probably a few others are getting 15%.

Since there are winners, there has to be losers since poker is a zero sum game.

How big is the pool of players at the $215's since these players are 8+ tabling?

[FatalError]

95% of online poker players lose in the long run, do the math

[skipperbob]

In the "long run" we're all dead /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[introv]

People play above their level all the time. Just look at the number of entrants in the final event of the WSOP. A lot of the top players profit doesn't come from the permanent pool of $200 players (although there will undoubtedly be some).

So the pool is very small with room for a few sharks and plenty of fishies.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
poker is a zero sum game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
95% of online poker players lose in the long run, do the math

[/ QUOTE ]

How about YOU do the math. I'd like to see what magical equation gets you this oft bandied stat.

[valenzuela]

Why do all 2+2ers go to vegas and play blackjack? that is clearly -ev.

[gildwulf]

The game of poker is zero-sum when played in its pure form (ie play a 10 dollar buy-in with a couple of buddies and someone wins and someone loses). However, when you play against a house it becomes non-zero sum: the more you bet the smaller amount of winnings exist to divide amongst players.

[lacky]

a few of us dont

[Moonsugar]

Over about 100 215s my ROI is -25% so I am donating to those guys.

I will be back to those games soon, so they have more profits to look for.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[kyro]

I'm about -35% after 60 at the $109s. I swear, it's variance! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[zambonidrivr]

wtf is moonsugar anyway? is that some drug i need to try and get my hands on?

[gildwulf]

You guys must have insane bankrolls to sustain these kind of runs. I get scared when my 1500 gets down to 1200 at the 20s:P

[Slim Pickens]

X: number of winning players in a tournament
Y: number of losing players in a tournament
a: average winning player $/tourn
b: average losing player $/tourn
R: rake $/tourn

Yb=Xa+R

Make up some (average) numbers for a and b and solve for Y/(X+Y).

Did I get this right? I did this on an envelope once and actually got about 90-95% losing for reasonable numbers for a and b. OK, so if I'm not retarded, using +20% ROI for the winning players, -20% for the losing players, and 2/22 for the rake, that gives me 2.5 winning players per tournament. I think -20% might be a little much for the losers, but I wouldn't know.

SlimP

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do all 2+2ers go to vegas and play blackjack? that is clearly -ev.

[/ QUOTE ]
some of us can count, which makes it +ev.

[RedManPlus]

Poker is zero sum game less the rake.

The rake or "seat charge" on Party Poker...
Is about 1.0 BB/hour.

Assuming "winning players" do about 2.0 BB/hour...
And if each table has approx 1.5 "winning players"...
And 8.5 "average players"...

From a 10 man table...
Party Poker takes 10.0 BB/hour...
And the 1.5 "winning players" siphon off 3.0 BB/hour.
And the 8.5 "average players" lose 13.0 BB/hour or 1.53 BB/hour each.

So Party nets 10/13 = 77% of the money = $350,000,000/year
Winning Players net 3/13 = 23% of the money = $105,000,000/year

Does this seem correct?
Any comments?

rm+

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

[kyro]

I jumped up to the $109s when my BR hit $3000. I dropped back to the $55s when it hit $1500. My management is shoddy, at best.

[Myst]

[ QUOTE ]
I jumped up to the $109s when my BR hit $3000. I dropped back to the $55s when it hit $1500. My management is shoddy, at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTH? I have 8.2k and I still havent moved up to the $109s!

[kyro]

That's a bit extreme. Are you really afraid of an 80 buy-in drop?

[Moonsugar]

My online BR is very large and I had some bad luck in the 215s but if I played the way I was playing forever, without improvement, then my BR would eventually become a problem cause I don't think I would beat the game.

I want to beat the game, I think I can beat the game once I finish these changes, thats why I went back down. If you never try though, you will never know if you can.

[Moonsugar]

yes

[Slim Pickens]

I think we're coming to the same conclusion. If you believe there are real 20% ROI winners out there at any level then you have to conclude that the majority of players are losing. [censored] rake.

SlimP

[BamaGambler]

My ROI in the 200s is -15%, but I've only played 68. I mostly play 100s.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do all 2+2ers go to vegas and play blackjack? that is clearly -ev.

[/ QUOTE ]

why do some people burn in hell? theres clearly a better way to go.. holla

[valenzuela]

I dont get ur post. Ive played blackjack in a casino as well...( I went all-in and got dealt AA , really. )

[Degen]

i don't like this at all

there are people who fall all along that spectrum, winners don't always win 20% and losers don't always lose 20%

[trdi]

I understand him. I'm not moving up without at least 100 buy-ins. Oh, ok, you can do that on lower buy-ins. I guess $500 is ok for 11s.

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand him. I'm not moving up without at least 100 buy-ins. Oh, ok, you can do that on lower buy-ins. I guess $500 is ok for 11s.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think i could 1 table the 11s on 99 bucks starting with less than a 20% ror. maybe even better than that. holla

[Slim Pickens]

You can integrate over all winners to find the average winning value and over all losers to find the average losing value. 20% and 20% probably isn't right but I'm just saying that when you pick numbers and do the math, more people are losing because of the rake than you might initially think.

SlimP

[drapes]

I lose money. For instance, I am currently down 8$. I was down 50$ until I plugged my leaks. And reloaded my bankroll.

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand him. I'm not moving up without at least 100 buy-ins. Oh, ok, you can do that on lower buy-ins. I guess $500 is ok for 11s.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just curious. Why are you waiting to move up? I'm not saying I think you're wrong, everyone has their preferences. But if you're a winning player, losing 50 buy-ins is about as improbable as they get (even for a marginal winning player I would assume). At least 50 I could understand, but with 100, if you're a winning player, it seems to me you're missing out on ALOT of value.

[Myst]

Well for one, I dont have a 100 buyin roll.

Second, though 50 buyin drops are improbable, they arent impossible, and if you are gonna live off your roll, you want to have a 0% ROR.

[chisness]

i can think of a couple reasons:

1) double the swings
2) tougher competition, possibly much tougher for a multitabler

i've got enough to do the 100s but don't think i'll ever go past the 50s (and i'm still at the 30s) because i don't like the idea of losing $1000 in a day and think i'd only make nominally more in the $100s than the $50s

[treeofwisdom7]

[ QUOTE ]
Well for one, I dont have a 100 buyin roll.

Second, though 50 buyin drops are improbable, they arent impossible, and if you are gonna live off your roll, you want to have a 0% ROR.

[/ QUOTE ]

curtains said to keep 80 buy ins. he also said to play 3games in the lowerbuy in and 1 game in the 109's. i dont know why he wants me to do this but curtains is a very smart poker player.

[Daliman]

Only 1 player you listed is getting 17%, and i know of a LEAST 2 that aren't at 15%. There are plenty of crappy players out there.

[ilya]

So, generously, that's a dozen 15% winners. There don't need to be very many -2%/profit-with-rakeback players to support such a tinormous* elite.

*extremely tiny

[vindikation]

[ QUOTE ]
tinormous*.

*extremely tiny

[/ QUOTE ]

nice