10% of poker players are winners??? - Page 3

Synergistic Explosions · #1 07-19-2005, 05:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Rosie I think you are forgetting the RAKE. You are paying at least 1 BB per 100 hands at the lower limits. You have to be a lot better then your compition to overcome this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, rake. As time moves forward and sites have scraped billions from the player base, how can you expect more than 10% to be winners?

But bonuses, free rolls and special site promotions can at least negate this problem if you go in that direction totally. Otherwise, unless you are the best of the best, it's going to be tough to overcome what you pay in rake each year.

I really respect these players who grind away at the higher limits and make profits. Even with rakeback it's still quite an accomplishment. Considering what they actually pay in rake. It's amazing to me.

Tilt · #2 07-19-2005, 05:03 PM

How about this quote from the article:

"I have a proposition bet for anyone interested: You pick who you believe are the 10 best players in the world, and I'll give you even money that none of them makes the final table of the main event by the time the 2012 London Olympics conclude."

Thats a tempting bet, don't you think?

stigmata · #3 07-20-2005, 05:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How about this quote from the article:

"I have a proposition bet for anyone interested: You pick who you believe are the 10 best players in the world, and I'll give you even money that none of them makes the final table of the main event by the time the 2012 London Olympics conclude."

Thats a tempting bet, don't you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds good on paper, but I think he is working on the principle that the WSOP ME is going to become an even bigger joke as we move towards the 2012 olympics.

MaxPower · #4 07-19-2005, 05:14 PM

He must have been told that by the management of Captain Cook's Poker.

timprov · #5 07-19-2005, 06:02 PM

It's pretty pointless on a player-by-player basis. The average winning player is going to take up a lot more volume than the average loser, in any relatively long term.

I'd like to see numbers on what percentage of player-hands are played by winning players.

4thstreetpete · #6 07-19-2005, 07:25 PM

Great article!

pzhon · #7 07-20-2005, 01:34 AM

I agree with timprov. The 8% figure is misleading. Many players deposit $100, play for a few hours, lose it all, and quit. Or deposit another $100 three months later and repeat the process. Meanwhile, a few winning players are playing 20k hands per month. The result may be that when you look around the table, 40-80% of your opponents are winning players, much more than the 8% might suggest.

HavanaBanana · #8 07-20-2005, 03:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
False. It's actually less than 10%, according to "Jackpot" Jay Lovinger

[ QUOTE ]
Since there are very few, if any, reliable studies available that demonstrate the percentage of winners -- and big winners -- from among the tens of millions who play the game, you are probably wondering how I "know" this. Well, as it turns out, there is one group that can -- and does -- track this kind of stat, though they are not about to publicize the results. That group consists of online poker site management, two members of which revealed to me at the WSOP that what intuition suggests must be true -- only 8 and 7 percent, respectively, of all players on their sites finish the year in the black. And I'm not talking about deep in the black, either. The vast majority of those winners are not about to give up their day jobs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think their sample size is quite sufficient too [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Imagine a site where the max you ever could deposit was $1 and the site actually gave it to you for free.

Imagine that the blinds were $1 000 000 - $2 000 000 and you could not cash out before you got $2 000 000.
Imagine that you could buy in to the game for $1.

Your all time winners on the site would be much less than 1%.

Now, Imagine that you are a average poker player in skill, now that means that you would break even except for the rake.

However if you did some game selection and only played players who were worse than yourself you would probably end up a winner putting you in the top 10% or so of players who actually win money playing.

ToT

scrapperdog · #9 07-20-2005, 04:57 AM

This 10% number is made up to make the people that loose feel better about themselves and to make the winners feel superior. It is more than 10%.

If you play at a table with 1 bad person the bad person takes care of the rake. That leaves the rest of the players to fight for the rest. And it is pretty rare to play at a table with only 1 bad person. Mt guess would be 75% lose and 25% win. It is my experience that there are not a lot of break even players. You either get it or you dont. I am not that great at poker and I find winning fairly easy... so stop with the 10%.

HesseJam · #10 07-20-2005, 07:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This 10% number is made up to make the people that loose feel better about themselves and to make the winners feel superior. It is more than 10%.

If you play at a table with 1 bad person the bad person takes care of the rake. That leaves the rest of the players to fight for the rest. And it is pretty rare to play at a table with only 1 bad person. Mt guess would be 75% lose and 25% win. It is my experience that there are not a lot of break even players. You either get it or you dont. I am not that great at poker and I find winning fairly easy... so stop with the 10%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party collects about 40$ rake at a .5/1 table. If you have 2 2BB/100 players and 2 break even players 6 players have to lose 44$ /100. that means you have 6 players who lose on average more than 7BB/100.