Online Poker : 75% of loosers

I read on a financial review that 75% of all online poker players were loosing money over time. Any comments ?

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
I read on a financial review that 75% of all online poker players were loosing money over time. Any comments ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think that the correct number is more like 95%.

[Leavenfish]

Comment: I am finding it nice knowing that I am, well...not normal. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

---Leavenfish

[Neil Stevens]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I read on a financial review that 75% of all online poker players were loosing money over time. Any comments ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think that the correct number is more like 95%.

[/ QUOTE ]
If a losing player is better than most losing players, and he mostly plays with other losing players, his mistakes should offset by other players' worse mistakes, so that he doesn't lose money in the long run.

So I wonder if 95% is too high. 95% of players might play -EV strategies, so that they'd lose money to winning players, but they can't ALL lose money when they play against each other unless they're of equal skill and the rake is what kills them.

I read a report from an analyst from Goldman Sachs who is in contact with the management of Paradise Poker (owned by UK company called Sportingbet).... Sportingbet/Paradise management told the analyst that only 8% of their accounts have won money.

Another stat: Party Poker said the top 10% of their customers give them 70% of their rake...

[Pyromaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
Another stat: Party Poker said the top 10% of their customers give them 70% of their rake...

[/ QUOTE ]

So...how much of that 10% is from big losers (or loosers, if you prefer), and how much is from multitabling winners, I wonder?

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
So...how much of that 10% is from big losers (or loosers, if you prefer), and how much is from multitabling winners, I wonder?

[/ QUOTE ]

The RAKE doesn't care if you are a winner or a loser, just that you play /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Dany:

I've heard this type of stuff for years and years, and I don't believe it.

First of all, exactly what is a poker player? Is it someone who plays once a year, or is it someone who plays most every day?

Second, and more important, I'm often in games where there are only one or two bad players. That is the other six or seven play well. What happens is that the bad players lose enough to pay the rake plus make everyone else a winner (in the long run).

Also, for what it's worth, my guess is that the 75 percent number is approximately right but for a different statistic. I believe that approximately 75 percent of all regular players are winners.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Sniper]

Hi Mason... You said...

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that approximately 75 percent of all regular players are winners.

[/ QUOTE ]

75%+ of players who read your books and understand them may be winners.

75%+ of the knowledgable active 2+2 forum posters may be winners.

But, can you please explain how you define "regular players", so that this 75% can be rationalized with the available statistical data on all online poker players.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Sniper:

It's based on my personal observation over many years, and I don't ask if they have read our books (though I suspect that most have).

Best wishes,
Mason

[ipp147]

[ QUOTE ]
I read a report from an analyst from Goldman Sachs who is in contact with the management of Paradise Poker (owned by UK company called Sportingbet).... Sportingbet/Paradise management told the analyst that only 8% of their accounts have won money.


[/ QUOTE ]

This will include accounts that are solely used for sportsbetting.

According to my PT database-which has over 5000 players in it-45% of players who have played more than 100 hands are winners. How this figure would change if everyone had played 10000 hands is anyones guess.

[Transference]

[ QUOTE ]
How this figure would change if everyone had played 10000 hands is anyones guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly, the number will steadily go down, the trend has been well documented by people with much larger databases than yours. It's just that the sample size required to know how far it will go down is astronomical.

[primetime32]

[ QUOTE ]
I read on a financial review that 75% of all online poker players were loosing money over time. Any comments ?

[/ QUOTE ]

the other 25 percent are bots! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

In a chat on ESPN.com, Phil Gordon said that he had talked to administartors at two of the top online poker sites and they told him that only 7% and 8% of their players finished the year on the positive side.

[Synergistic Explosions]

[ QUOTE ]
In a chat on ESPN.com, Phil Gordon said that he had talked to administartors at two of the top online poker sites and they told him that only 7% and 8% of their players finished the year on the positive side.

[/ QUOTE ]

A horse could finish with a net profit each year in online poker. I mean that literally, as long as the horse had ID and a Neteller account.

So if what you quoted is true, then that proves horses are smarter than 93% of people.

[rusellmj]

I'd be interested in what limit the majority of losers are playing.

[pokerplayer28]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How this figure would change if everyone had played 10000 hands is anyones guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly, the number will steadily go down, the trend has been well documented by people with much larger databases than yours. It's just that the sample size required to know how far it will go down is astronomical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont agree with this, if you take a random poker player who has 100,000+ hands are you going to say it is very unlikely theyre up?

I agree that 10% are winners
so many players come in lose then leave or continue to play a minimal amount
and i agree that 75% of regulars(16+hrs/week) are winners

[HesseJam]

There is a big difference between counting by heads/players and counting by hands played by winning or loosing players. You'll need the latter to evaluate the current quality of the game and you'll need the former to evaluate what fish supply is needed to keep the quality constant.

[TomBrooks]

Just off the top of my head, it seems like usually about 60% to 2/3 of the players at the average table I'm at are down and about 1/3 are up.

[MicroBob]

this doesn't matter...nor does the stat in poker-tracker that 40-45% of the players in your database with 100+ hands are winners (as the other poster mentioned).

You are going to get this 40% number in a -EV game if you keep it at 100 hands.
And obviously many players who are in the 100k+ hand range are sticking around because they are winners (and the losers had dropped out before then).


To prove the idea that the game can be -EV for EVERYONE yet show that 40% are winners after 100 hands I used blackjack as an example.

Imagine 1-million players in a gigantic casino all playing basic-strategy (not varying their bet...and not counting-cards or anything else).
They are all at approximately -1% EV.

After the first 10 hands: About 1/3 are up a little bit, about 1/3 are down a little bit, and about 1/3 are even-ish.

After 50 hands: 48% are up (including 5% who are way up) and 52% are down (including 5% who are way down)

After 150 hands: 44% are up and 56% are down.

After 500 hands: 35% are up and 65% are down.

After 2,000 hands: 20% are up and 80% are down.

After 10,000 hands: 10% are up and 90% are down.

etc etc....until you get to 1,000,000 hands are there's maybe 1 guy out of 1-million who is still a winner while EVERYBODY else is mostly WAY down.


If you were a casino-owner and looked at the example after only 10 hands you would say "geez....this game isn't going to make us very much money. We've dealt 10 hands to 1,000,000 million people and it's about 50/50."


For some reason that I can't fully articulte...1-million consecutive hands to 1 person is MUCH different than 1 hand each to 1-million people.
In the former, the 1 person will be broke 99.99% of the time after the 1-million hands (assuming still that it's a -EV game with a 1% disadvantage).
In the latter, the money will be much close to even after dealing 1 hand to 1-million people.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that approximately 75 percent of all regular players are winners.

[/ QUOTE ]


I find this to be a fascinating opinion that certainly goes against the grain of conventional thinking.

Obviously it's difficult to be a 'regular' player without being a long-term winner because otherwise one would go broke eventually and I assume this plays into Mason's logic here.

However, there are MANY craps and slots players who are fairly 'regular' who most certainly are not likely to be long-term winners (but, then again, many of the regular -EV casino-game players ARE going broke and have to stop going the casino at some point I guess).


The idea of 2 or 3 bad players helping to keep the 6 or 7 decent to good players in business is quite interesting.


I'm not sure whether it's correct or not.
but it's hard to imagine that your typical weak-tight, mostly ABC-type player could be losing THAT much at most of the small and medium limit games.
And it's easy to see that just waiting it out and playing in a mostly straight-forward style will yield a small-ish profit once the LAG's come along to try to give all their money away.



Also - I think we have to assume that almost all non-'regular' type players are losers in poker.

To be a non-regular player and actually be a winner you have to have played very briefly and walked away on the positive side of variance (and most people don't just walk-away for good after they've been a short-term winner...they convince themselves that they did it via their incredible, natural skill for the game of course).

Or....it needs to be someone who has read up on the game and knows their stuff...but just doesn't have the inclination to play very much. And there wouldn't be too many individuals like this either.


Other than these exceptions I think we can safely say that almost all non-regular players (which would include many newbie's) are losers as we would expect.

So perhaps there is room for there to be as many winners amongst the regular players as Mason suggests.



Also: I am not a big fan of breaking it down into 'winners' and 'losers'.
There are probably MANY players in there who are barely up or down in their careers so that it is fairly negligible.
I would think that after rake and tips there are MANY semi-competent players who are just break-even.

The barely break-even players shouldn't count in the 'winners' category imo.

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Dany:

I've heard this type of stuff for years and years, and I don't believe it.

First of all, exactly what is a poker player? Is it someone who plays once a year, or is it someone who plays most every day?

Second, and more important, I'm often in games where there are only one or two bad players. That is the other six or seven play well. What happens is that the bad players lose enough to pay the rake plus make everyone else a winner (in the long run).

Also, for what it's worth, my guess is that the 75 percent number is approximately right but for a different statistic. I believe that approximately 75 percent of all regular players are winners.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

If you define poker player as someone who plays large numbers of hands at mid to high stakes, then probably you are correct. If you include all the online players, most of whom are probably playing at or below the $2/$4 level, and many who play for a couple hours and never come back, then most players are probably losers.

If you look at your PT database and the winners and losers tab it is missing two very very important factors to online poker....

1 - Bonuses

2 - Rakeback

I know that these become less important as you go higher, but at the low limits (under 2/4) it is very important.

Personnaly, (and I have done extensive calculations on this number so I know that it is accurate +/- 0.3bb/100 hands) my rakeback and bonuses account for 5.7bb/100 hands - this is over my last 10,000 hands. Do you know how bad I would have to be to lose 5.7 bb/100 hands over 10,000 hands. I am presonnaly winning at about 3.1 bb/100 hands over the past 10,000, this is a total win rate of 8.8 bb/100 hands.

If a losing play is getting the same rakeback and bonuses that I am getting (and I am not using special deals or anything, just taking advantage of 'standard' offers), it is likely that many many more than those listed in my PT database are 'up' even though they may not be 'winning' players.

Margon

[HesseJam]

This is correct. I am an amateur player, 30h/ month, can beat the 1/2 for 3+ BB/100 (thank you David and Mason!) and income from bonuses + chump-change-rb is higher than from game play (I have as much fun in whoring them out effectively as in winning).

However, as rare as a significantly winning player is... : The efficient whore may be even rarer.

Also, it took me 9 months of playing 30h/ month plus several readings of the 4 2+2 books to get there. I think I am fairly (but not overly) intelligent and ambitious, so for many it may not be so easy to get there. The best effect of reading some of the 2+2 material and this site is that you do not stay a -10 bb/100 player for a long time and instead become a -2bb/100 after a couple of days (with bonuses you are already in the black) and can become a break even player in 2-3 weeks.

[solucky]

Hi all

I think you can forget Pokertracker for "how many peoples are winner", many change there screennames regular. I know friends that are 10 times in my " winning player list ".
I think you should look how many $ they lose. Party make 300 millions and i think all winning players make 500 million so you need players that can afford to loose 800 million. Let us say a " average loser" spend 4K / year that would be 200 000 losers. I have my doubts that more than 250 000 play regular on Party. So i think 80% losers 200 000 and 50 000 break even / winning players with an average win from 10K/ year.

regards Wolfgang

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
In a chat on ESPN.com, Phil Gordon said that he had talked to administartors at two of the top online poker sites and they told him that only 7% and 8% of their players finished the year on the positive side.

[/ QUOTE ]
This fails - as Mason pointed out earlier - to define: "player".

The stat we really need to know is out of the 92-93% that are losers - how many of them deposited $50, lost it in an hour, and never came back to play again.

[FlFishOn]

loser. And Dany should have two Ns!

[FlFishOn]

"Another stat: Party Poker said the top 10% of their customers give them 70% of their rake... "

I'd bet that this 10% is not making net deposits and IMHO is not 'paying' any rake.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
I read a report from an analyst from Goldman Sachs who is in contact with the management of Paradise Poker (owned by UK company called Sportingbet).... Sportingbet/Paradise management told the analyst that only 8% of their accounts have won money.

Another stat: Party Poker said the top 10% of their customers give them 70% of their rake...

[/ QUOTE ]

I worked this out for single-table tournaments a while ago and decided that any number in the 80-95% range is plausible for the percentage of losing players. It depends on exactly how much the average winner wins (the average "winner's" ROI) and the exact rake paid (I used 10%). It seems as though most long-term STT players stick with a level that gives them a 10-20% ROI, which makes the 8% long-term winners number seem even better.

I have a problem with the way the second statement is being interpreted. Any group that is paying 70% of the rake is necessary playing in 70% of the tournaments. So that implies that the top 10% of the players, in terms of rake generated, are playing 70% of the games. People have been implying this top 10% of rake-generators is the winning 10%, or at least close to it. There's no way this could be true. Either the 70%-of-rake-by-10% number is wrong or, if it is correct, those top 10% of rake-generators are split in terms of winners and losers. If 3/5 of the top 10% of rake generators were winning players, that leaves 42% of the games being played by winners. Therefore 58% are played by losers, adding up to 8% for the house. This also says that 4% of the players are high-volume losers.

Using these numbers (this is nowhere close to a fully-defined system) gives:
6% are high-volume winners
4% are high-volume losers
2% are winners who only play occasionally
88% are losers who only play occasionally

Anyone like this way of looking at it? Does this make any sense?

SlimP

[HavanaBanana]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, for what it's worth, my guess is that the 75 percent number is approximately right but for a different statistic. I believe that approximately 75 percent of all regular players are winners.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please define regular player, I think you are way of base in most definitions /images/graemlins/smile.gif(of course it is possible if you define regular in the right way)

ToT

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]

If a losing player is better than most losing players, and he mostly plays with other losing players, his mistakes should offset by other players' worse mistakes, so that he doesn't lose money in the long run.

So I wonder if 95% is too high. 95% of players might play -EV strategies, so that they'd lose money to winning players, but they can't ALL lose money when they play against each other unless they're of equal skill and the rake is what kills them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to pretend I understood one word you said, but the rake is indeed what kills everybody.

If you have a hypothetical 10-20 game where four "regular" players are making $20 an hour, or $3200 per month each, then the other six players must lose approximately $4800 a month apiece. How long can this go on?

Just for fun let's say that all 10 players are winning players. Now what happens. The same ~$16,000 gets raked off the table over the course of the month, and since all of the players are of equal skill they will have each lost $1600 apiece. Oh sure in a given month one or two guys might win big, but the next month it's somebody elses turn, etc., etc., and on and on.

I agree with the 95% numbers. The math shows it can't be much better than that.

[ghostface]

[ QUOTE ]
the rake is what kills them

[/ QUOTE ]

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
If you have a hypothetical 10-20 game where four "regular" players are making $20 an hour, or $3200 per month each, then the other six players must lose approximately $4800 a month apiece.

[/ QUOTE ]

The other six seats have to lose $4800 per month. Any number of players can rotate through them.

[kapw7]

[ QUOTE ]
I read on a financial review that 75% of all online poker players were loosing money over time. Any comments ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad news for the majority of 2p2 posters. You won't make any money from poker. Time to get a real job.

[sations]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I read on a financial review that 75% of all online poker players were loosing money over time. Any comments ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad news for the majority of 2p2 posters. You won't make any money from poker. Time to get a real job.

[/ QUOTE ]

if there weren't this many loosers online I would definately be flipping burgers still

[edfurlong]

I refuse to read this thread.

I do crack a smile every time it gets bumped though.

[lefty rosen]

What about the lunkheads who can beat say .5/1 but don't have the discipline to stay there and try and beat games over their skill level and tap their rolls repeatedly because of it. There must be tons of losing players that are this type of loser....... /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you should look how many $ they lose. Party make 300 millions and i think all winning players make 500 million so you need players that can afford to loose 800 million. Let us say a " average loser" spend 4K / year that would be 200 000 losers. I have my doubts that more than 250 000 play regular on Party. So i think 80% losers 200 000 and 50 000 break even / winning players with an average win from 10K/ year.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the first 6 months of 2005, Party had $437 Million in Poker Revenue (not counting skins).

842,000+ unique players, with a daily average of 123,000+ players.