Winners and Losers?

[tiger1]

1) Population: All people who play limit poker over the course of their lifetime
Hypotheses: 90% of people who play poker lose, 10% win?
What is the correct percentage?
2) Population: All people who played poker last Saturday.
Hypotheses: 90% of people who play poker lose, 10% win?
What is the average percentage of winners vs. losers on any given night (this number could fluctuate a bit I just opinions)?

[Daliman]

1. Probably closer to 95% of all people who play poker lose. Big fish theory applies.

2. On any given night, at a regular casino, I'd say probably about 25% of the people win, given that the rake takes an average of about 5-7% of ALL winnings, through rake and tips.

[Bozeman]

First, let me say that all these estimates are provisional and depend on what fraction of the players play each limit.

One could reasonably estimate that the house (plus tips) makes about 0.5-1 BB/hr. on each player. Let's use .5 for this calculation. Considering that 1BB/hr is a good rate to make, we can estimate that the SD of the EV distribution at this time is 1 BB/hr. (about 7% of player will make 1 BB/hr or better). The mean is -0.5.

If all these people play an infinite amount of time, 30.85% will be ahead. However, in a real situation, most of the losers will leave, and many of the winners will move to limits where they can't win or will go broke from fluctuations. Thus the actual percentage of lifetime winners will be much lower (probably about 5%).

If we suppose that we keep the same players (reasonably valid for a one hour time period, loses accuracy as people leave because of bankroll considerations):

On a given night (let's say a 4 hour session) with luck SD of 20 BB in 4 hours, ~46% of players will be winners.

After 100 hours ~35% of players will be up and as time passes we closely approach the 30.85% that would be expected winners in the normal distribution with mean -.5, SD 1.

Regardless, the lifetime percentage of winners must be smaller than the nightly percentage of winners due to fluctuation affects, unless something bizarre occurs, like more winners quitting poker forever than losers.

Craig

[tiger1]

It would have to follow there are more winners during a ramdom night than lifetime winners. You could win small amounts of $ over multiple sessions, but lose a large amount one night. Then you could theoretically be called a winner 4 out of 5 nights but be a lifetime loser for your 5 sessions.

You think only 5% of poker players are winners over their lifetime?? Yet, the 95% keep coming back every weekend to donate to the blessed 5%. It's amazing that anyone still likes this game besides the 5% and it's a special accomplishment when you do become part of the 5%. It must be the 30% chance of winning on any given night that brings most back to the felt if they believe that poker is a game of luck. If people actually knew that only 5% of the population win at poker, do you think they would still play?

Can we safely say: Over time, skill is the ultimate factor in poker, and eventually all the money goes to 5% of the people who win.

"I had no idea poker was so difficult."

[AmericanAirlines]

I suspect it's the hope of joining the 5% that keeps people coming back. Same as going to college, getting job etc.

After all the much talked about Upper 5% (or upper 1% often) means that most of us will be stuck in the servant classes all our life.

Surprises me that more folks aren't fed up with that too.

But then maybe that's why folks keep trying at poker... hoping to earn a living without the rat race.

I've often suspected a similar phenomenon drives the golf industry... "Geez, if I could just hit par I could go on tour..."

Sincerely,
AA

[J.R.]

I suspect it's the hope of joining the 5% that keeps people coming back. Same as going to college, getting job etc. After all the much talked about Upper 5% (or upper 1% often) means that most of us will be stuck in the servant classes all our life.

This is one of the poorest analogies I have ever seen. The implication that going to college and getting a job is for suckers with pipe-dreams is rubbish.

[chaos]

If people actually knew that only 5% of the population win at poker, do you think they would still play?

Hey they play slots, craps, roulette, bacarrat, etc. where virtually no one is a long term winner. They come to gamble.

[tiger1]

The truth is that most people are average. They are of average intelligence, average physical ability, just average. There's no doubt that being in the top 1-5% at anything is an accomplishment whether is be the SAT's to get into college, poker, or a sport etc. It also could mean what college you go to whether it be MIT or a community college. Only the top 1% of their class are accepted to MIT. It doesn't mean you are less of a person if you don't go there, it just means you may not be in the top 1%. But, you could be a great baseball player and be in the top 1% of baseball players. You can either study hard or play harder to get in the 1%. Not everyone can be a great poker player, it is a gift just like being a genius or pro athlete. You must practice, train, study, and you must have a gift to be at the top in the poker world.

Most people choose to be average at most things, but most have their own interest or certain area of expertise.

I hope most people play poker to have fun and gamble. Not to make money...that means more profit for the poker professionals.

[AmericanAirlines]

You're missing the anology.

Most folks go to college expecting to be "big time" successes. (Unfortunately we are young and dumb when we go.)

Unfortunately most end up worker bees.

That's just a fact.

In the end the Ivy League schools (all 8 or so of them) are
still the insider's club. And that's still a small percentage.

It's the idea that a degree insures massive success that is BS. And the colleges don't do anything to dispell that myth.

I wrote Harvard business school and asked, "With all the scholars you have there, have you solved the biggest question of all? How can a working stiff get into the upper classes quickly? If not, then what exactly are you folks working on?"

They declined to answer.

Some lesser schools admitted I posed an valid question, but also could not give an answer.

Poor analogy or not, it's still true. Just look down any major metropolitan interstate at rush hour any day... are all those folks going to the sky scrapers really "kicking ass". I think not.

If you work for someone else, you are a servant wouldn't you say?

:-)

Granted, there are some mighty well paid servants in the upper ranks of Corp. USA (the biggest employer right?) but again that's a mighty small sliver... again supporting the analogy.

In any event, I have a degree, also went to Law School but dropped out, and have about 8-10 Fort. 500's on my resume, so I think I speak from a lifetime of experience with the world of "jobs".

As I see it, if a jog doesn't get me to wealth and autonomy, it isn't doing its "jog" for me... and well fact is, few working folks retire securely... so how are we not suckers to the hierarchy with the rich at the top?

Sincerely,
AA

[tiger1]

Most people are in the herd. Moo moo. Most people do the "rat race". Everyone wants to be their own boss. Corporate America is taking over. It is true that many are not "living their dream" of getting rich or successful.
Some people punch the timeclock their whole life just to pay the mortgage.
Most of us are suckers to the rich at the top if you're talking about monetary success. Most people find meaning and joy in life in other ways...