Two Plus Two Older Archives Winning players becoming losers?
 FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 Thread Tools Display Modes
#1
12-28-2005, 01:53 PM
 Guest Posts: n/a
Winning players becoming losers?

Short question I have been wondering about:
What percentage of all online players do you think are long term winners before the rake but becomes losers because of the rake collected?
I personally have no idea. 25% perhaps?
#2
12-28-2005, 02:30 PM
 Guest Posts: n/a
Re: Winning players becoming losers?

Seems like it'd have to be 50%. It's a zero sum game. Winners/losers probably occupy a bell curve where a few lose really really badly, most either lose or win a little, and the good players win a bunch.

The rake effectively shifts that cutoff point a couple standard deviations, giving us the 10% winners we have now.
#3
12-28-2005, 03:04 PM
 Guest Posts: n/a
Re: Winning players becoming losers?

Ah, yes good reasoning. So I guess you mean that there is 40% winners that cannot beat the rake?
#4
12-28-2005, 03:34 PM
 Zetack Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 656
Re: Winning players becoming losers?

[ QUOTE ]
Seems like it'd have to be 50%. It's a zero sum game. Winners/losers probably occupy a bell curve where a few lose really really badly, most either lose or win a little, and the good players win a bunch.

The rake effectively shifts that cutoff point a couple standard deviations, giving us the 10% winners we have now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm very skeptical that this is true, that the number would be close to 50 percent because its a zero sum game without the rake. Its a zero sum game with respect to the money in play, but that says nothing about how that money gets distributed.

For example imagine a table with 10 players playing say 5/10 limit hold em. One player is better than the other players. Each player has a huge bankroll, say \$1,000,000 dollars but will never bring another dime to the table. They play every day. Because they have so much money relative to the blinds, they will play long enough to likely minimize or elimate the effect of luck. Eventually the worst players will bust out one by one until only the player who is clearly the best will remain and he will have all the money.

A zero sum game yes, a wide distribution of winners, no.

Now if you take that same game and all the players keep bringing more money, its possible that the second best player will win more from the worse players than he loses to the best player and so still be a winning player. heck, Theorectically one player could be so bad that all nine of the other players make more money from him they lose to the better players. You could have all kinds of distributions in a zero sum game.

How many players would be winners sans rake though, is hard to know, and certainly is not addressed by the zero sum concept. And the bell curve simply means there is likely to be a bunch of players bunched together in terms of skill or results, not necessarily that they are bunched around the break even point.

--Zetack
#5
12-29-2005, 03:10 AM
 pif Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: israel Posts: 47
good argument

!
#6
12-29-2005, 04:07 PM
 Guest Posts: n/a
Re: Winning players becoming losers?

[ QUOTE ]

Now if you take that same game and all the players keep bringing more money, its possible that the second best player will win more from the worse players than he loses to the best player and so still be a winning player.
--Zetack

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming you meant this literally, this is incorrect.

#7
12-29-2005, 04:14 PM
 Guest Posts: n/a
Re: Winning players becoming losers?

I would imagine that most long term players are winners or at least break even. We make money from the constant flow of people who start playing and then realize they can't beat the game so they quit. Meanwhile, their money is distributed amongst the winning players.
#8
12-30-2005, 02:32 PM
 Zetack Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 656
Re: Winning players becoming losers?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Now if you take that same game and all the players keep bringing more money, its possible that the second best player will win more from the worse players than he loses to the best player and so still be a winning player.
--Zetack

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming you meant this literally, this is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, you've stumped me. I don't see why meaning this literally makes it incorrect. Does it help if I say players who run through their million dollars will bring new money to the game forever instead of quitting? Or are you getting at something else?
#9
12-30-2005, 02:46 PM
 Guest Posts: n/a
Re: Winning players becoming losers?

Maybe I am wrong on this one but the fact that there is an ever revolving cast of players - many bad that will lose and never come back - I assume it is not a true bell. The number of good players online will always be less but the influx of new bad players will maintain their posistion as winning players...

maybe i'm way off base
#10
12-31-2005, 02:19 PM
 Harv72b Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 1,347
Re: Winning players becoming losers?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Now if you take that same game and all the players keep bringing more money, its possible that the second best player will win more from the worse players than he loses to the best player and so still be a winning player.
--Zetack

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming you meant this literally, this is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, you've stumped me. I don't see why meaning this literally makes it incorrect. Does it help if I say players who run through their million dollars will bring new money to the game forever instead of quitting? Or are you getting at something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's wrong. You're right.

It's also a case of degrees of play. If the best player is only slightly better than the second best player, but both players are head &amp; shoulders above the other 8, it is not only possibly but extremely likely that both players will leave the game with more money than they sat down with.

This is why it is often profitable to sit in a game with one or more other good players, perhaps better players than you, so long as there are other very bad players involved.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off Forum Rules
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Two Plus Two     Two Plus Two Internet Magazine     About the Forums     MOD DISCUSSION     ISOP General Poker Discussion     Texas Hold'em     Beginners Questions     Books and Publications     Televised Poker     News, Views, and Gossip     Brick and Mortar     Home Poker     Poker Beats, Brags, and Variance     Poker Theory Limit Texas Hold'em     Mid- and High-Stakes Hold'em     Medium Stakes Hold'em     Small Stakes Hold'em     Micro-Limits     Mid-High Stakes Shorthanded     Small Stakes Shorthanded PL/NL Texas Hold'em     Mid-, High-Stakes Pot- and No-Limit Hold'em     Medium-Stakes Pot-, No-Limit Hold'em     Small Stakes Pot-, No-Limit Hold'em Tournament Poker     Multi-table Tournaments     One-table Tournaments Other Poker     Omaha/8     Omaha High     Stud     Other Poker Games General Gambling     Probability     Psychology     Sports Betting     Other Gambling Games     Rake Back     Computer Technical Help Internet Gambling     Internet Gambling     Internet Bonuses     Software 2+2 Communities     Other Other Topics Other Topics     Sporting Events     Politics     Science, Math, and Philosophy     The Stock Market

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:27 PM.

 Contact Us - www.twoplustwo.com - Archive - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.