[scrapperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread has become comical. Why is it so hard to believe that its only roughly 10% that win? When:

* We know that the average win rate is minus 5% at best (due to the rake)
* We know that there are some big winners (some of us on here are in that group)
* There can't be many big losers cause big losers have to quit

Think of what the distribution of players yearly win rates over a year must look like. The bubble has to peak at -5% of the average stakes * frequency of play. It must have a rapidly declining slop into negative territory with a quick intersection (cause very few big losers can sustain losing). And it must have a long but very narrow tail in winning territory. The 10% figure isn't just intuitive; something close to it is necessary based on what we know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep it has become comical all right. More math quotes and less common sense please. There are bad players all over the place in case you have not noticed. Yes the rake is 5% but the bad players more than make up for it with a tiny bit of table selection.

I have been playing less than a year, have huge holes in my game, dont have the proper stablility when it comes to emotion, play when I am bored and tired. And yet I still manage to win money when the numbers are added up at the end of the month. If I can do it I am sure 1 other person at the table can do it as well, that is why I say 20% are winners and 80% dont win. Now go back and read your double super secret report and talk about bell curves, standard deviations and convince yourself you are right.