|
|
#61
11-29-2005, 11:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
[ QUOTE ]
No, the reason the number is so low, is because alot of people play MTTs, which only pay out to the top 10%, and therefore the number of long term winners at MTT's is substantially below 10%. [/ QUOTE ] This doesn't make any sense. By this logic you could say only one person can win a hand in a ring game, so only one person at a table can be a long-term winner in ring games. 
|
|
#62
11-30-2005, 01:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't make any sense. By this logic you could say only one person can win a hand in a ring game, so only one person at a table can be a long-term winner in ring games. [/ QUOTE ] Run the math under several different scenarios, and you'll see why this makes sense for MTTs. Ring games are structured differently!
|
|
#63
11-30-2005, 02:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
I'm a winner
|
|
#64
11-30-2005, 01:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
From a sample size of 3 in my office, 33% are profitable.
Beyond that? Who knows?
|
|
#65
11-30-2005, 08:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
A really old thread that contains some calculations on this topic that you might find useful.
|
|
#67
12-16-2005, 01:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What percent of onliner poker players are profitable?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you have 1-million players all playing -EV blackjack at a gigantic casino (about 1-2% disadvantage) then after 100 you will probably have 45% of your players showing a profit and 55% in the red. This does not mean that blackjack is beatable for 45% of players though. If you let them keep playing until they reach 1,000 hands then you will probably only have 40% or less showing a profit. after 10,000 hands then probably 10% will still be ahead. after 1,000,000 hands I would guess that less than 1% of your 1-million players will be break-even or higher. So - back to the original point. If you have 1-million players who all played 100 or 1000 hands each you still don't have a sufficient sample size to determine how many of those players are true winners. In this game, 0% win in the long-run because everybody is at a disadvantage. but to somebody who doesn't know how to interpret the data it will LOOK like 35-40% of players are actually winners (when it's obviously just a function of variance). [/ QUOTE ] According to my PT database, this isn't true. It is NOT a function of variance. I have 547,250 hands - many of them through datamining. If I use a date filter all the way back to when I first started, here's what I get : Hands % winners 8521 39.17 15,335 39.94 35,902 40.89 57,065 41.27 123,600 41.77 273,665 41.76 478,594 41.64 532,233 41.82 535,064 41.77 547,250 41.65 The % winners does NOT decrease as the total # hands goes up, as many posters have suggested.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
