Only 2% of Pro's make money?

[wontons]

One of my friends that has been in the poker scene for a long time says that only 2% of the regular players actually turn a profit at the end of the year. Referring to players in 2-5nl , 5-10nl. Does anyone agree with this statement?

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

There's a BIG difference between "regular player" and "pro". Which is it?

[wontons]

I believe he was referring to those who "try" to earn a living through playing poker. Not the regulars who just have alot of time on there hands and enjoy the poker scene.

[TStoneMBD]

your friend must have just created a number out of thin air, and its a number that is absurdly inaccurate.

the consensus is that about 10% of poker players are winning players with the current rake setup. if there wasnt a rake then about 30% of players would be winning.

therefore, people who attempt to go pro should excede the 10% bar.

[FatalError]

~5% of people that have ever played poker are long term winners

100% of pros are winners... if you lose you're not a pro, at least as far as the IRS is concerned

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
if there wasnt a rake then about 30% of players would be winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm having trouble with this.

[mmmmmbrother]

if all games were heads up then if you were better than 50% of all players you would be a winning player. with 10 people in a game, i think the co would be around 30%

[betgo]

I would guess that over 90% of pros make a profit on the year. If you are not making money, you are by definition not a pro.

[lapoker17]

The qualifier of 2-5 NL and 5-10 NL probably skews this a lot - I don't know any pros who regularly play in games that small.

[meow_meow]

[ QUOTE ]
if all games were heads up then if you were better than 50% of all players you would be a winning player. with 10 people in a game, i think the co would be around 30%

[/ QUOTE ]

this is sooooo wrong in soooo many ways.
In fact, this would only be true if two conditions were met: 1. no rake. 2. everyone always played the same opponent.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
The qualifier of 2-5 NL and 5-10 NL probably skews this a lot - I don't know any pros who regularly play in games that small.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on your definition of pro. I believe their are a fairly high percentage of pros in 5/10 NL if you mean someone who makes his living playing poker, as opposed to pros you see on TV.

I was at Turning Stone and this kid said he was a pro. I asked him what he played, as on weekdays the biggest games were one table of 10/20 or 20/40 LMHE plus lots of 1/2 NL. He said he played 1/2 NL and a lot of the twice daily tournaments and made about $1000/week. You might see some young kids, retirees, and people who are trying to make a go at it as pros, or pros who are not making it at higher limits/blinds playing in relatively small games.

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
The qualifier of 2-5 NL and 5-10 NL probably skews this a lot - I don't know any pros who regularly play in games that small.

[/ QUOTE ]

I met a guy who plays the 1/2 NL 300 max at the Borgata five days a week and claimed to be pulling $1,500 per week for the first three months.

[Bremen]

[ QUOTE ]
100% of pros are winners... if you lose you're not a pro, at least as far as the IRS is concerned


[/ QUOTE ]
You can most definitly file as a pro even if you've lost money. They are definitly more likely to allow it if you've had prior profitable years obviously...

[johnc]

Curious to know if anyone has any #s on the percentage of pros make incomes above the poverty line. Maybe in the $40-50Ks/yr range solely from poker? I personally don't consider someone who's recieving a retirement or government assistance or disability check a "pro" just because they can show a marginal win record.

[capone0]

Thing about 50-60k as a pro it is much worse than making 50-60k in the corporate world. A lot of a paycheck goes towards benefits which you never see. So ....the average pro has to make more than the average corporate slave.

If your pro, you have to be making money. Otherwise you aren't pro. He probally means 2% of the players at the game are beating the rake, which seems kinda small. I guess the Casinos really are killing us....

[lapoker17]

My primary point was that if someone is crushing those games, he will likely feel the need to move up at some point -I have a number of friends who started as 3/5 NL "Pros", but after beating the game for a while(and building their BRs) realized they needed to move up - Smaller games, from my experience are more transitional for those looking to make a living playing poker. I just don't see many "lifers" playing those stakes.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

One of my friends that has been in the poker scene for a long time says that only 2% of the regular players actually turn a profit at the end of the year.

[/ QUOTE ]



Well...if he's been in the poker scene for a 'long time' then I certainly trust his ability to just look around the room and come to some conclusion about how many players are profitable.


Seriously...there are LOTS of players who have 'been around the game' for 20-30 years or so who will tell you not to raise with AA pre-flop for such-and-such reason.

Same goes for blackjack dealers.
There are some BJ dealers (or players) who have done nothing but look at the stupid game for 20-30 years who will tell you "I don't care what 'the book' says. Anyone who splits 8's against a 10....or doesn't take even-money on their BJ when I have an ace up....or hits their 15 against a 10....is just plain wrong."

They will then point to their up-card of 6 and say "see....this is supposed to bust 70% of the time" (or some other random number they just pulled out of thin-air....FWIW, an up-card of 6 will result in a dealer bust about 41% of the time).


Just because someone says it is true doesn't mean it is.
Lots of people just make stuff up. Why they do this I'm not exactly sure.

[Percula]

I talked to a couple that play almost everyday at my local B&M. They are making a living and are profitable (at least this year). He tells me that they net about $2500 a week after paying buy-ins, losses, meals, savings, and insurances. I tend to think he is being honest, as I am often in the area when he and his girl cash out and know that most weeks they are cashing out ~$4500-$5000.

[johnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because someone says it is true doesn't mean it is.
Lots of people just make stuff up. Why they do this I'm not exactly sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can't wow 'em with wisdom, baffle 'em with bullsh*t. Some people can't get enough of themselves even when they have no clue whatsoever.

[kagame]

are they also becoming speed freaks together?

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
He tells me that they net about $2500 a week after paying buy-ins, losses, meals, savings, and insurances.

[/ QUOTE ]

so they make $2500 plus savings? why isn't the money they put into savings included in the profit?

[Percula]

[ QUOTE ]
so they make $2500 plus savings? why isn't the money they put into savings included in the profit?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not want to did too deeply into with them, strange couple if you know what I mean.

Anyway I assume that she (the less ballsie of the two) does not trust poker as an income source and considers that "savings" money as their safety net if things go south on them.

[TM1212]

[ QUOTE ]
One of my friends that has been in the poker scene for a long time says that only 2% of the regular players actually turn a profit at the end of the year. Referring to players in 2-5nl , 5-10nl. Does anyone agree with this statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

No

[MicroBob]

my favorites are the ones who will say something like, "I 'usually' make $2500 per week" or "I usually win about 2BB/100" or "I usually have a VP of around 20"


Where does this 'usually' crap come from.

If 4 weeks out of 5 you are making $2500/wk but there is one week where you lose $3k then you are NOT earning $2500/wk.
Incredibly, most people conveniently forget this little aspect about averages just to make themselves feel better about how much they 'always' (not 'usually') win.

I've seen this 'usually' bit over and over again.


To blackjack again - "you see....when the dealer has a 6 he will 'usually' bust-out 70% of the time with it. But 'sometimes' he will only bust-out about 50% of the time if it's a 'hot shoe' for the dealer."
Somehow I guess the chances of the 6 busting-out magically changes when the shoe is hot so the numbers that people make up are somewhat adjustable.

"15 years ago a dealer's 6 would bust-out about 70% of the time. But since they had put in the auto-shuffler machines I'd say that's down to about 60% now."


These are the types of quotes that people who have been 'around the game' for decades will spew at you.
Length of time within the game has very little to do with quality expertise.

[lighterjobs]

[ QUOTE ]
your friend must have just created a number out of thin air, and its a number that is absurdly inaccurate.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
One of my friends that has been in the poker scene for a long time says that only 2% of the regular players actually turn a profit at the end of the year. Referring to players in 2-5nl , 5-10nl. Does anyone agree with this statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

How could this possibly be true?

[steamboatin]

[ QUOTE ]
Lots of people just make stuff up. Why they do this I'm not exactly sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

they might be a NIT.

[RydenStoompala]

81% of people who quote pseudo scientific-sounding percentages are fabricating them. The other 19% are intoxicated.

74% of the time, I cannot remember the stats I heard.

50% of all pros should be doing something else for a living, unless you ask the other 50% who say the number is really 80%.

[wontons]

To further complicate this...I believe my friend was taking into account the fact that many professional poker players have vices. Losing hundreds or thousands at blackjack, craps, whatever there vice is. I know the number 2% is EXTREMELY low but look at the amount of players that are regularly running there stacks up day in and day out versus total amount of players trying to accomplish the same exact feat. I do not have the answer but to the person who said the bar is set at 10% to be a winning long term player I could see that possibly being correct.

[Al P]

LOL look at that pronunciation key (Fish NL).


pro·fes·sion·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-fsh-nl)
adj.

Of, relating to, engaged in, or suitable for a profession: lawyers, doctors, and other professional people.
Conforming to the standards of a profession: professional behavior.
Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career: a professional writer.
Performed by persons receiving pay: professional football.
Having or showing great skill; expert: a professional repair job.

n.
A person following a profession, especially a learned profession.
One who earns a living in a given or implied occupation: hired a professional to decorate the house.
A skilled practitioner; an expert.

[TM1212]

[ QUOTE ]
To further complicate this...I believe my friend was taking into account the fact that many professional poker players have vices. Losing hundreds or thousands at blackjack, craps, whatever there vice is. I know the number 2% is EXTREMELY low but look at the amount of players that are regularly running there stacks up day in and day out versus total amount of players trying to accomplish the same exact feat. I do not have the answer but to the person who said the bar is set at 10% to be a winning long term player I could see that possibly being correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

its simple mathematics, the top 10% in nl are the ones who usually profit over the long term, but this can be a little higher.

2% ur friends talking out of his ass, ask him how he determined this absolute number, when he answers he made it up with out analyzing any data bitch slap him for wasting your time and ours.

[Trainwreck]

It can't... 2% of players in the game would probably be off too, but closer to the truth.

How one would even get data for this is my first question. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

- = non-pro IMHO since pro implies PAID, LOL!

Another silly speculation thread...

>TW<