PDA

View Full Version : What percentage of Party Players are long-term winners????

squiffy
10-20-2003, 03:32 PM
There is a thread on another forum where a question along these lines has come up. And I am not sure we have properly defined the parameters.

But some speculate that no more than 1-5% of the Party players are long-term winners, whatever that means. Perhaps we could define that as showing any profit over say 50,000 hands. I am not sure what the minimum number of hands would have to be to reliably show that the player is likely to be a long-term winner.

Others say they have poker tracker data over their own 25,000 hands showing that 40% of their opponents are winners. But I cannot believe that the identity and number of your opponents played is consistent long-term. So you are declaring some opponents winners who have only played 100, 200 or 1000 hands against you, which is like comparing apples and some other kind of non-apple fruit, let's say oranges, for the sake of argument.

Does anyone have a reliable guesstimate of the percentage of all party players or who may be profitable.

Initially I thought say 10% to 20% might be an accurate figure.

But then I thought, why wouldn't the graph of all poker players' performance be a normal bell curve, perhaps slightly skewed somehow, to reflect the negative effect of rake.

So perhaps players at the 50th percentile are break even and players above that are profitable.

I just have no idea how to begin calculating this and wonder if anyone has read any realiable approaches.

Bozeman
10-20-2003, 05:40 PM
First, this is an incompletely defined question. Are we counting players that will never play more than 1000 hands. At any time, there are probably 10-50% players of this type. In addition, if we count all players that have ever played, there will be many more losers. Let's suppose though that we took everyone playing Party right now and forced them to play (like they do now) forever.

Let's take \$2/4 as an example. Since most pots are around \$20 or more, the rake is taking ~\$6+/player/hour=1.5BB. Estimating the SD of the hypothesized normal distribution is tough (btw, the actual distrib. is almost certainly not normal), but let's say that 4 BB/hr is almost impossible, say 3 SD. So 3*SD=(4+1.5)BB, implies SD=1.83 BB. Thus, the players that are .818 SD or more above the mean are winners, namely the top 21%. If we say that +4BB is only 2SD's out, then 29% are winners.

But remember the caveats in this derivation,
Craig

shutupndeal
10-20-2003, 10:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
First, this is an incompletely defined question. Are we counting players that will never play more than 1000 hands.

[/ QUOTE ] At any time, there are probably 10-50% players of this type. In addition, if we count all players that have ever played, there will be many more losers. Let's suppose though that we took everyone playing Party right now and forced them to play (like they do now) forever.

Let's take \$2/4 as an example. Since most pots are around \$20 or more, the rake is taking ~\$6+/player/hour=1.5BB. Estimating the SD of the hypothesized normal distribution is tough (btw, the actual distrib. is almost certainly not normal), but let's say that 4 BB/hr is almost impossible, say 3 SD. So 3*SD=(4+1.5)BB, implies SD=1.83 BB. Thus, the players that are .818 SD or more above the mean are winners, namely the top 21%. If we say that +4BB is only 2SD's out, then 29% are winners.

But remember the caveats in this derivation,
Craig

Lets also define what percentage of winners that we are accepting as the normal # or % of winning players in a B+M casino also to also judge that ratio while we are at it, I wonder how the 2 stack up against ewach other, and I would think that figuring a winning player is a player who most likely is trying to earn a wage on the NET that he is indeed playing for a period of at least 8 hours a day which would come to about ......well to be nice and we will figure in a few breaks to eat or smoke or what have you 200 hands a day. At 5 days a week (conservative) thats 1000 hands a week. So I would think you would have to start with people playing an avg of close to 1000 hands a week! These figures should be real close to what a guy making money should be playing on the NET or B+M a week and so I think if we take it from there we can judge these supposed winners much more fairly and concretely, agreed?
Als, we should maybe draw a line as to the limits, you cant tell me a guy is playing and paying the rent on a 2-4 game, we should go from gmaes of at least 5-10, 6-12 if not higher but people do tend to play lower limits on the NET due to the increased hands per hour. /images/graemlins/confused.gif Now where the heck are we?