What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

Does anyone know if there exists any reputable statistics on what percent of online poker players are profitable? I guess it would have to be a specific statement such as ... What percent of people who deposit money into online poker (sum of all sites they may deposit into) return a profit within n number of months?
Any statistics related to this would be great.

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

I know this is a seriously faulty method, but my Poker Tracker database tells me that at the limits I play 57% of the players lose money and 43% have won.

Of course this is a small sample at one specific limit. I don't think it is possible to single out a specific player with a couple of thousand hands and identify them as a long term winner or loser, but it does give you an idea of the distribution.

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

An writer on ESPN.com wrote a few months back that two of the major pokersites track player profitability. Both sites report that approximately 7% of their players are profitable.

This number includes those that are profitable even by the slimmest of margins. The total number of players who are significantly profitable would even be less.

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

wdc, i appreciate the information... but i don't think that can be correct. the rake would make it so that less than 25% (and i'd say much less) are winners long-term. short-term it will be closer to 50/50.

and i realize you said it was the short-term.

that ESPN 7% sounds about right to me. i would have guessed between 4%-8%

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

Thank you very much. Any chance you have a link to the article?

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

There are a couple of things you must consider when looking at your cumulative PokerTracker statistics.

No matter how large your database becomes the 42-43% winner and 57-58% loser rate is just a reflection of the dynamics of a 1 table session. During any session, on average, a little less than half the players will have winning sessions while a little more than half the players will have losing sessions. The rake makes this inevitable regardless of skill levels of the players.

Now, look at the individual players in your PokerTracker database. You will see countless players who have been profitable during your sessions but can no way be profitable long term. The main reasons they can't win long term is that they play too many hands, they are too aggressive or too passive.

The players that you see that are profitable, but play too many hands will ultimately find themselves in situations where they are dominated and will not be able to get away from their hands. Luckily they will hit longshot draws enough to keep them from going broke too fast and in the games longer.

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know this is a seriously faulty method, but my Poker Tracker database tells me that at the limits I play 57% of the players lose money and 43% have won.

Of course this is a small sample at one specific limit. I don't think it is possible to single out a specific player with a couple of thousand hands and identify them as a long term winner or loser, but it does give you an idea of the distribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's roughly what my Poker Tracker database shows too, but like you said, that's a very flawed way to estimate the number of profitable players for a few reasons.

The vast majority of players in anyone's database probably have fewer than 500 hands recorded. With that kind of sample size, even the best players in the world could show up as losers and the worst players could show up as winners. What you'll see with sample sizes that small is basically a random distribution with approximately 50% winners and 50% losers (actually slightly more losers due to the rake). With such a small sample, the winners and losers are determined almost entirely by luck.

For those players that you do have a statistically significant sample for, you're going to see an inflated percentage of winners simply because the winning players are the ones that stick around long enough for you to accumulate that sample size. The losers generally either move down or bust out entirely before you can get a significant sample.

Overall, I don't see any reason to disagree with the 7-8% numbers that were reported by a couple of online sites.

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

I don't have a link to the article. I believe it was written by Jay Lovinger back in the summer. This topic wasn't the focus of the article it was just mentioned in a short passage.

He was writing about his WSOP experiences and came upon some representatives from poker sites that were exhibitors at the tournament. He did not disclose the sites but did say that they were two of the larger rooms.

The 7% figure is slightly higher than what Mason Malmuth has written previously as to the percentage of profitable players. I would assume that the lower rake and lack of tipping on line would make up some of this difference.

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

What would be interesting would be to know if this 7% includes or excludes income from bonuses/rakeback.

I wouldn't find it surprising for example if up to 14% of players were increasing their bankrolls by playing but of these only half were winners without the 'assistance' of bonuses/rb..

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

Link to last months discussion on this topic

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

How do you check this in PT? Thanks,

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
How do you check this in PT? Thanks,

[/ QUOTE ]

Summary Tab

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

People are looking at their pokertracker summaries and think that 40% of players are winners?

"LOL"

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

This discussion has come up a billion times here and I don't think we will ever know the true %, but 5-10 seems reasonable in the long run.

Now....would the average bb/100 winrate in PokerTracker be indicative of the avearge players winrate? In the summary tab I'm showing -2.59/100 as the average.

If we assume that 10% are winning players, I think we can safely say that at best 50% of 2+2ers are winners at their respective limits. How can we assume that a large % of this 10% resides at 2+2? I see 3 or 4 new "running bad" posts on this site and you have to wonder how much of that is simply bad play.

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Now....would the average bb/100 winrate in PokerTracker be indicative of the avearge players winrate? In the summary tab I'm showing -2.59/100 as the average.

[/ QUOTE ]

If average winrate is -2.9/100 it means that the average rake is 2.9 big bets per 100 hands. Winrate (excluding bonuses, rake, rake back and so on) is 0.0/100 on average.

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
People are looking at their pokertracker summaries and think that 40% of players are winners?

"LOL"

[/ QUOTE ]

You neglect to consider that some people who are datamining have stats on millions of hands per month [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

It is also interesting to point out that while Party Poker took in ~$400M in revanue (rake) last year, they report that they paid out a total sum of ~$38M to their winning players.

The fact is that if someone tells you they win at poker, they are probably wrong. I love it when I meet someone who's really excited about poker that plays 4 hours live every weekend, and he confidently tells me that he makes 1 BB / hour. Unless he's been playing every weekend for 30 years, there is no way he can have any idea what his hourly rate is.

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

a different but related query is 'how many folks sitting at my table are long-term winning players'at this skill level?

at $25NL presumably very few (as they would have moved up)
by the time they were long-term winners

but it's quite possible that someone just moving up to say $200 NL is a solid winning player at $100 but a loser at $200 - he may have earned $10,000's playing poker but still be a fish for the purposes of the table he's sat at..

also as the better players often play more tables and for longer you are more likely to come across them statistically than a loser

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

the problem with the 7% figure is that it probably takes into account people who deposit $50, lose it, then quit. of players who play frequently, a much higher percentage must be winners.

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
the problem with the 7% figure is that it probably takes into account people who deposit $50, lose it, then quit. of players who play frequently, a much higher percentage must be winners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. How do you define a "loser" at poker? What about the guys that win $2.50 in a 3,000 player freeroll, then bust out at the penny tables? Does that count as one "loser"? How about my buddy that has probably two dozen accounts at the various online sites, that he used to bonus whore - but since he only regularly plays on one or two accounts, does he then count as 2 "winners" and 22 "losers"?

What about the guy that gets $50 free, runs it up to $200, and then cashes out to never play again? Is he a "winner"?

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
the problem with the 7% figure is that it probably takes into account people who deposit $50, lose it, then quit. of players who play frequently, a much higher percentage must be winners.

[/ QUOTE ]

The primary reason why the poker room quoted numbers are so low, is because of MTT players, which account for a sizable chunk of the player population.

The percentage of ring game winners is higher, and I support the position of the dataminers that roughly 40% of ring game players are winners, though many only marginally.

In the grand scheme of things, not even 1% of the player population would be considered high volume, and most are here on these forums! (...and a very high percentage of long term active posters here are winners)

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

And all this begs the question of whoring. Since I got serious about poker (2+ years ago) I have played virtually no hands of poker that weren't being subsidized by bonus, prop payment, or rakeback (I have not kept great stats on this, but I estimate that about 50% of my profit is bonus cash). I'm sure many others are the same. Is a player who loses a bit at the tables and yet comes out ahead because of bonuses a winning or losing player?

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is a player who loses a bit at the tables and yet comes out ahead because of bonuses a winning or losing player?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since the poker sites are aware of bonuses, it is certainly factored into the 7-8%.

Keep in mind, that less than 4% (but growing) of players have rakeback.

Clearly bonuses and rakeback combined turn a few marginal losers, into marginal winers. But, in the grand scheme of things, these numbers are small.

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind, that less than 4% (but growing)

[/ QUOTE ]

where did you get this number

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
where did you get this number

[/ QUOTE ]

Its an estimate based on publically available information, statements from affiliates, and other data I've been able to collect!

It is likely a little high based on double counting of players with accounts at more than 1 rakeback affiliate.

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
People are looking at their pokertracker summaries and think that 40% of players are winners?

"LOL"

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder why I only have 36 percent winners in my PT? 36.18 to be exact.

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

Has anyone ever thought of maybe asking the poker sites directly?

I would hope a couple of the sites out there would be willing to answer it...PokerStars for example. Maybe saying you're from twoplustwo would help.

This way you can possibly at least get a breakdown of ring games, SNG's, tournaments, with bonuses, without bonuses, etc.

I don't know, just a thought.

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

[ QUOTE ]


I would hope a couple of the sites out there would be willing to answer it...PokerStars for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like some good publicity for a poker site: "Come play at our site. There is a 93% probability you will be a loser."

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would hope a couple of the sites out there would be willing to answer it

[/ QUOTE ]

The 7-8% figure came from 2 seperate poker sites and was originally quoted by Jackpot Jay in an ESPN article.

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

I'll explain the seemingly high number of winners in everyones PT database once again. (This should be in the FAQ on right about every forum!)

Let's say you have played 100000 hands and know you win 2BB/100 and have a standard deviation of 16BB/100.

In my database I have 250 hands on you. It's not even 60% certain that you show up as a winner in my database.

To get a 40/60 spread on winners/losers must require something like the average player to be atleast a 3BB/100 loser.


A small homework to grind this idea in. Draw a bell curve, cut it out in two copies. Make a coordinate system on a piece of paper. Place one bell curve so that it has it's base on the horizontal line, and it's peak just to the right of the vertical axis. This is how the distribution over 100 hands looks for a winning player. A ~40% chunk of the curve lies to the left of 0, in the negative.

Take the other curve and place on the same horizontal line, but with it's peak slightly to the left of the vertical axis. This is the distribution of a losing player. Some ~40% of all sets of 100 hands will look winning.

The 40/60 spread doesn't actually require a single honest to god winning player to exist for it to appear in our data.

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

Do we really have to talk about this every month? And why do people actually care?

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do we really have to talk about this every month? And why do people actually care?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you walk down the street and interrupt peoples conversations when you feel the conversation is worthless?

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do we really have to talk about this every month? And why do people actually care?

[/ QUOTE ]

Must you come piss on this thread every month? Why do you care?

Reading this I just realized people are citing Jackpot Jay as an authority on this topic based on what he said someone told him. I think we can disregard that piece of info as auhoritative.

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would hope a couple of the sites out there would be willing to answer it

[/ QUOTE ]

The 7-8% figure came from 2 seperate poker sites and was originally quoted by Jackpot Jay in an ESPN article.

[/ QUOTE ]


I know, but the problem seems to be that people are arguing about what this figure does and does not include. Although the chances are low that a poker room would answer, I figured why does someone not just ask?

And even if people found out they were 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 or 1 in 5 of being a winner, the cynic in me does not think it would matter...you have people that cold call preflop with J/3o because its their lucky hand or they saw that it could have made a full house a couple hands ago. It would probably make little difference to them if they found out statistically they are a loser since they just don't realize they are since every now and then they win with crap.

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

Rudbeack,

First, I posted a link to the one of the older threads, where this is extensively discussed.

Second, you have to give some weight to the data compiled by the massive dataminers!

[ QUOTE ]
To get a 40/60 spread on winners/losers must require something like the average player to be atleast a 3BB/100 loser.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally, given this statement by you, it should be fairly easy for you to understand why 40/60 is a close enough estimate of the true figure for it to be used.

3BB/100 is roughly equivalent to the rake (its actually slighly lower than this).

The average player has no advantage over anyone else, and thus their distribution is mainly determined by the roughly equivalent distribution of cards. Thus you might expect a normal distribution of variance around the rake.

A very small percentage of player have an advantage over their opponents, by better play! Which will slightly change the shape of the standard distribution.

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

what about the actual winning players that show up as losers in your small sample? or in other words, the opposite, competing fact that you didnt take into account?

If the number is as low as some say, the reason is because the winners win so much more than the loser's lose. and the rake of course.

the number i find astounding is that party made 400MM, and during the same period only paid out 38MM in withdrawals. is this true? I doubt very seriously they only paid out 38MM in withdrawals in a one year period...

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
what about the actual winning players that show up as losers in your small sample? or in other words, the opposite, competing fact that you didnt take into account?

If the number is as low as some say, the reason is because the winners win so much more than the loser's lose. and the rake of course.

the number i find astounding is that party made 400MM, and during the same period only paid out 38MM in withdrawals. is this true? I doubt very seriously they only paid out 38MM in withdrawals in a one year period...

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you find that amazing? Even the average "average" player probably only has a few hundred on their account to futz around with, how often do you think they withdraw? A lot of that discrepancy is probably all this float money.

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

while kinda interesting, this question is useless.

you should only care if 1 person is profitable. You.

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
what about the actual winning players that show up as losers in your small sample? or in other words, the opposite, competing fact that you didnt take into account?


[/ QUOTE ]

I did treat them in a very roundabout way, to state it more obviously, from a dataminded PT db at say 2/4 we can't even be sure there exists winning player. Their footprint in the sample is rather small. (Well, we can be damn sure there is one winning player, the site operator.)

Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
 

One thing to consider that I dont think has been discussed yet in this thread is taxes. I gather that many marginally winning recreational players (and I am one) may be winners on paper but actual losers once tax liabilities and other "full costing adjustments" (such as gas to and from the casino, etc.) are included. So while we may be able to beat the games we're playing for a decent amount, our actual end of the day winnings are often much less. Of course, the costs of playing online are much smaller than playing live, but they still exist and must be considered if you're going to look at how many players are truly winners.