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. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

---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 [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[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.

[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