Where does all this money come from?

[(my name it is) Sam Hall]

Since everyone here seems to have a +ROI playing SNG's, and the sites obviously must make money to stay in business, I was wondering about the source of these monies? I for one know I can't afford to lose money playing poker, so who does? SNG's are fun, but in my narrow vision I can't imagine losing all the time would be fun. It also seems like the answer would be different depending on the game type, and I'd most like to know about SNG's more than ring games or anything else.

Who is putting out the money?
a) compulsive gamblers
b) college students with parents' cash
c) rich people having fun
d) a large number of normal people who try it, lose a small amount, and give up
e) the sites, akin to the internet boom of the late 90's, paying bonuses out of future earnings

Sam

[lacky]

how do las vegas, golf coarses, bowling alleys stay in business. Disposible income. If I play 3 $22 sng's and I'm a -%10 ROI player, thats about $6.60. Cant go golfing on that, cant even go to the movies.

Steve

[DougL]

I'll give it a shot, Sam. I'm probably somewhere between a break-even player and a -5% ROI player on STTs. I play mostly 11s and 22s on Paradise, and I have nowhere near a statistically significant sample. I think that there are a number of reasons that people like them and play them, winning or not.

1) Most people don't keep detailed records.
2) It always seems like your bust-out hand is a bad beat. The real reason you lost may be that you failed to properly double up 20 hands ago, or you may have failed to steal 3 pots that would have prevented your all in. However, 66 losing to AJo seems like you outplayed that big stack. He should have folded, so you took a bad beat. This logic works from both sides.
3) Short runs of 1st and 2nd place finishes can convince anyone that he is a winning player and that previous losses were an aberration.
4) The STTs are good limited risk gambling opportunities. If you lose, you're down a small amount. If you win, you get a nice little payoff. If it had lights and music, it might be as good as slot machines.

I am a limit ring-game player who is trying to learn how to play no-limit and tournament poker for a small investment. The low buy-in STT seem like a good place to do this. The tuition learning the ropes in tournaments looks to be a lot cheaper than the move from 4-8 to 10-20 live games.

Most people are willing to lose a small amount for a while before they try something else. How many people do you know who have lost a couple of $100 buy-ins before quitting online poker forever, or at least a couple of months?

I'm learning a lot reading this forum, and I at least have a better understanding of what I'm doing as I play. I will happily sign up for being a non-positive ROI player, if that will balance out the STT posters. As for affording to lose money playing poker... my experience is that if 60-90% of the people weren't able to afford losing, there would be no games.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

Who is putting out the money?
a) compulsive gamblers
b) college students with parents' cash
c) rich people having fun
d) a large number of normal people who try it, lose a small amount, and give up
e) the sites, akin to the internet boom of the late 90's, paying bonuses out of future earnings

Sam

[/ QUOTE ]

I think all of those are credible except e). That's just laughable.

I think it is mostly "regular folks" who try, lose a little, give up, then a few weeks later decide to try again, since "they aren't gambling more than they're willing to lose."

Sometimes this process gets out of control and someone becomes a compulsive gambler and loses a lot of money. But I think most of the time people play 'til it hurts a little, then lay off for awhile, then try again later, and view the whole thing as an entertainment expense.

eastbay

[lorinda]

21621 Registered User(s).

Now I'll admit that most people seem to have got through more than one nickname, and that others have signed up merely to spam but let's call that number 10000.

I think even the SS guys occasionally play a SNG to mix it up, so let's say that 2500 people here have played over 10 SNGs.

These are better players on the internet, and how many people here do you read their posts and think they are winning.
By that, I mean taking the figures they give, mix it in with what you read, and you get a picture of who you think are winners and losers.

I'd be surprised if you could get anywhere near 2500 regular winning 2+2 SNGers.
Many just lurk and learn (Which is absolutely fine, although talking and learning is more fun)

I also think it's safe to say that anyone who has found this site is more likely to become a winning player than someone who hasn't.
Not just because the information here is good, but because just to bother coming here there has to be a willingness to learn, and I'm pretty sure that over 50% of people who read this forum more than once a week are still losing.

Imagine how the less willing to learn people are getting on.

Lori

[FishBurger]

I know one guy that is a semi-regular donator. He's a 27-years-old single patent attorney making around 200K per year. He plays mainly for recreation and loves to talk about the hands where he pumps the pot on a draw and ends up winning.

There are a lot of people in this country with mucho disposable income who love to gamble. I'm sure when Doyle Brunson was travellinhg across Texas in the 50s making tons of money gambling that he too was wondering when the fountain of money was going to dry up.

[mosch]

The losing players aren't playing lots of these a day. Pretty much everyone, not just rich people, can afford to badly play one or two SNGs a day.

When I first played SNGs I was a loser. I was winning in ring games, and then I'd sometimes go lose some in the SNGs, because they were fun and different, and sometimes I didn't lose.

[SlowStroke]

For many people poker is fun, it is a game.

Where does all the money come from to support all those expensive golf courses? Golf is a game, it is fun. People spend time and money enjoying golf.

So why is it that when someone spends time and money enjoying poker we call them losers or compulsive gamblers or idiots?

Just enjoy the game and have fun. If you can also win money at it, great, that’s fun too.

Here is a thought about high limit poker: If you loved golf, and had the money, wouldn't it be more fun to play against Tiger Woods, even though it would be more expensive? I think so. That is why there are amateurs playing in even the highest limit poker games.

[skipperbob]

Very insightful post Doug; I'll add my $.02 by seconding your statement about "most people not keeping records". It seems that a lot of Two+Two'ers talk about positive R.O.I.s; all of which may be true (I doubt it, bye-the-way). No matter, you can't bet it all that losing players don't keep records.....Also, I tend to think that Two+Two'ers are the most serious students of the game and possibly a very high percentage of this population are indeed winners.....Finally, I am as convinced as I can be that the newly-expanding population of poker players will mimic the "old guys", like me, = 5% big-winners/5% modest winners/80% modest losers(the rake)/5% worse than modest losers/5% big losers(compulsive gamblers)...FWIW

[Cry Me A River]

My girlfriend is a professional artist, many "starving artists" suffer from what we call "poverty thinking". As in, "I can't price this painting at $1000, nobody has that kind of money" when what they're really thinking is "I don't have that kind of money".

Many posters amazed at the bad players who, to our minds are just "throwing money away".

Well, if you're not a football fan, a couple grand for Superbowl tickets is throwing away money bigtime. And yet, the stadium always seems to be full...

Really, think about it, an evening of low buy-in SNGs is going to cost you, at most maybe $50? Compare that to a trip to the ballpark, or even the movies. Go out to a bar and you can drink $50 in no time at all...

So maybe someone plays a couple nights a week and maybe even wins every once in a while. If they're making a middle class income or better, the money involved is trivial.

There are all kinds of people who participate in all manner or recreational sports, badly, or who buy all kinds of overpriced "collectables" they certainly don't need. I'll bet baseball card message boards also get all kinds of posts wondering where all the people come from to pay money for little rectangular pieces of cardboard...

Go figure...