$$$ Per Hour Poll Results—Analysis

[Timer]

As of this writing my recent informal, and obviously unscientific poll entitled, “How Much Money do You Make per Hour Playing Online Poker!” has produced some interesting results.

1228 views 532 votes 44%

I make $200 an hour or more—40 votes 7.5%

I Make Between $100 and $200 an hour—39 votes 7.5%

I Make Between $50 and $100 an hour—65 votes 12%

I Make Between $25 and $50 an hour—118 votes 22%

I make less than $25 an hour—238 votes 44.7%

I Am One of the Five Percent Who Lose—32 votes 6%

Comments—Opinions:

Over half who bothered to open the thread did not vote—I wonder why?

79 voters make over $100 an hour playing online poker—14.8%. This seems a little high to me. (Actually it seems a lot high, but I don’t want to get to picky—But if I’m wrong and it is accurate, or close to being accurate, then I would really like to meet some of these people.)

Almost 48% of the voters said they make $25 an hour or less. This rings true, and seems like the most accurate of all the votes. (All statements are my opinions only.)

And finally, 6% of the voters said they lose. This seems way too low, but it falls remarkably close to my 5% prediction.

David Sklansky once made an interesting observation, and I’m paraphrasing:

He postulated: how much money has to be lost in one month (B&M) for a winning 10-20 player to earn $20 an hour, playing a 160-hour month.

Assume a $3 max rake. Further assume a $2 average rake. Also assume 40 hands per hour. (I know many of you think that 40 hands per hour is much too high for a B&M game, but I can assure you it is not.) 40x160x$2=$12,800 raked off the table in one month over a 160 hour period. Next: our mythical hero will make 160x$20 for $3200. $3200+$12,800=$16,000 that must be lost in one month of playing for ONE winning player to earn ONE big bet per hour. If the average rake is $3, then the number comes to $22,400. (You’ll run into these higher rakes at many B&M casinos, and notice I didn’t factor in the money leaving the table in the form of dealer and other tokes.)

Now just for fun, lets assume that in a nine-player game (most B&M games are nine-handed by the way) that on average, eight of these players are winners and only one is a loser. That’s 88% winners and 12% losers, more than twice as many losers than in my unscientific poll. In order for all eight of these players to earn their mythical $20 an hour, with a $2 average rake, $128,000 has to be lost in one month by our losing players! Does that seem possible—even online!?

Conclusion: my unofficial and clearly unscientific poll is obviously, very seriously flawed. Way too many players win big, and far too few players lose at all. But let’s take a look at the argument that those who read and post at two plus two are an amalgam of winning players. After all winning players have to congregate somewhere, right? OK, in that case let’s assume my poll numbers are correct. If that’s true, then are the online players really losing enough money to make my poll results a fact? In other words, an enormous sum of money must be lost in order for there to be so many winning players (not just on two plus two, but everywhere), so even though this forum might have a large sample of players who make inordinate sums of money, do they really make as much as they say they do, and are there really as few losers as my poll numbers might suggest?

Once again thanks to all who participated.

[Wyers]

Over half who bothered to open the thread did not vote. I wonder why?

I'm sure there were posters who may have opened the thread multiple times, thus inflating the view count. I would say that 1200 views and 500+ replies is a pretty decent number.

79 voters make over $100 an hour playing online poker... This seems a little high to me.

There were several posters in the original thread who questioned the usefuleness of this poll. At least one of them admitted to lying when they answered your poll.

In addition, there was not an "I just want to view the results" option.

So how many people randomly clicked an option (1) out of spite or (2) just to get to the results page?

my unofficial and clearly unscientific poll is obviously, very seriously flawed.

Sadly, your data may be even more flawed than you suspected.

[Nightwish]

[ QUOTE ]
79 voters make over $100 an hour playing online poker—14.8%. This seems a little high to me. (Actually it seems a lot high, but I don’t want to get to picky—But if I’m wrong and it is accurate, or close to being accurate, then I would really like to meet some of these people.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Come on, just about any good player multitabling 15/30 and higher should be making $100/hour or more.

[TylerD]

[ QUOTE ]
Over half who bothered to open the thread did not vote. I wonder why?

[/ QUOTE ]

because your poll design sucked

[grimel]

For online play you left out certain things like rakeback and bonus money. Just clearing bonuses can be (using BW numbers) $9-15/hr (AP 3 tables) plus rakeback will put someone making 1BB/100 close to (if not over) $25/hr.

If someone is playing 3/6 making 1BB/100 3 tabling (say 200 hands/hr at AP) that's $12/hr plush the $11 or $12 in bonus plus rakeback and the slightly better than break even player is making a bit over $25/hr.

Shift to a faster site (and 4 tables) making 1BB/100 playing 4 tables short handed is now around 400 hands/hr or $24/hr at 3/6 again playing 1BB/100 poker plus rakeback, so again, the hero is over $25/hr this time not counting any bonuses.

Hence my personal goal of 3 tabling 3/6 short and full games. It's still remains fun, but I'd be making a good second income with the option of stepping it up at any time to 4 tables or up limits.

[imported_CaseClosed326]

I lied, and I am sure other people did. I thought the pole was stupid. So I put 200$ an hour.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure there were posters who may have opened the thread multiple times, thus inflating the view count. I would say that 1200 views and 500+ replies is a pretty decent number.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yup.

While I did vote in this one ($25-$50 bracket...I was the 2nd or 3rd person who voted I think) I would say that I actually vote in less than 1 out of 4 poll-threads that I bother to open.

[Homer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
79 voters make over $100 an hour playing online poker—14.8%. This seems a little high to me. (Actually it seems a lot high, but I don’t want to get to picky—But if I’m wrong and it is accurate, or close to being accurate, then I would really like to meet some of these people.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Come on, just about any good player multitabling 15/30 and higher should be making $100/hour or more.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no way 15% of the posters in the Zoo are making $100/hr, simple as that.

[WLVRYN]

I think that your loser number might not be too far off from reality for this crowd. I would be willing to state that the average 2+2 poster is a better player and thus earns more money than the average fish, who probably doesnt know this site even exists.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
even though this forum might have a large sample of players who make inordinate sums of money, do they really make as much as they say they do, and are there really as few losers as my poll numbers might suggest?


[/ QUOTE ]

No.

If you dropped it by 50%, you wouldn't be too far off the mark of people who make specific claims about their winrates.

If you factor in the people who don't say anything, the average 2+2er is probably a net loser.

There are some honest people, but they're the exception.

This isn't specific to 2+2. People aren't particularly honest generally, and they're especially likely to lie or exaggerate when their ego is on the line, or there's little or no chance of getting caught.