Pro win rate vs. Other Pro...

Megenoita · #1 01-07-2005, 02:23 PM

If 2+2ers played against other 2+2ers all the time, what do you suppose the average win rate would be for the winning players? Take any 2+2er with a 2 BB/100 win rate for 3/6 or better, and have them all play against each other for a year. What do you suppose win rates would look like? Is this a ridiculous question? Has it merit? I desire to speculate because I wonder how the truly great players in cash games make a living where there are so many other sharks...it would be depressing if the truth is that they only win off the wealthy fish. All comments appreciated.

M

Michael Davis · #2 01-07-2005, 02:36 PM

"it would be depressing if the truth is that they only win off the wealthy fish."

Look into Zoloft, then.

A game such as you described would involve a lot of adjustments. Perhaps the very best, maybe one player, would be able to grind out a meager profit and everyone else would get crushed.

Wait and see what happens on Party Poker in another year.

-Michael

Onaflag · #3 01-07-2005, 02:36 PM

I'm not sure this can be answered. I think it is incorrectly assumed that each of the hypothetical 2+2ers have precisely equal skill sets which would not be the case. Assuming variations in skill, someone in the group would have to be the best and someone the worst. Win rates would range from profitable to unprofitable.

Onaflag.........

Megenoita · #4 01-07-2005, 02:42 PM

I don't assume they have equal set skills...only that they are winning players against the party poker field.

My question is rooted in thinking about the cash games that are played at the, say, 100/200 level. Phil Ivey said that he would play that game to learn...in that field, it is assuredly almost all great players, no? If Phil was going there for an education, most of it should have been (of course this was NL and I'm talking about LHE, but I think the principle applies).

Also, although Party will get increasingly better and better, it seems that even in 10 years it would be exceedingly profitable at all levels for a good player simply because not everyone can be great at poker...like anything else, most people will always suck.

Maybe it's just that most 2+2ers really aren't that much ahead of anyone that plays TAG???

What do you guys think?

M

k_squared · #5 01-07-2005, 02:56 PM

I think right now you do not have to be a highly skilled player to make money. I doesn't hurt you to be able to make some good reads and to have a sense of table textures, and pot-odds... but all those attributes are not needed to be a winner. In fact, some players might even make a larger profit at a table where people have some sense of what is going on because that will fit their game better. Right now, because many of the fish out there are soo bad, and there are so many the low limit game is highly specialized to factor that in. When the game changes, the level of play increases then so will the strategies a successful player needs to employ. From the set of winning players, if and when all the fish are removed we will find those players who make the appropriate adjustment making money and some formerly winning players losing... If all the weak little fish get eaten by the middle and large sized fish, then the large fish will start eating the middle sized fish!!! We just better hope we become large fish before that happens or that the pond always has little fish in it.

-K_squared

JinX11 · #6 01-07-2005, 03:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, although Party will get increasingly better and better, it seems that even in 10 years it would be exceedingly profitable at all levels for a good player simply because not everyone can be great at poker...like anything else, most people will always suck.
...
What do you guys think?

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you're right and that Michael Davis is not. I think he is closer to the eventual truth, though. Those that have played a while are already seeing the signs.

PokerSlut · #7 01-07-2005, 04:20 PM

Not to get too far off-topic, but Phil Ivey plays in games much larger than 100/200.

If everyone is of equal or near-equal skill level, then the only one making money is the casino. However, all a game really needs is one or two soft spots to be profitable in the long run (assuming stakes are high enough in relation to the rake/time charge).

SlowStroke · #8 01-07-2005, 04:41 PM

I've been playing for more than 20 years, and I think that poker gets easier to beat every year.

k_squared · #9 01-07-2005, 05:23 PM

But can that trend continue indefinately? The one downside about online poker is that it allows bad players to get fleeced (or skewered) so quickly that they might realize how bad they are. Playing a few hours a day and rarely winning you might figure out... hey I suck at this... why am I bothering... but in real life you go once a week (maybe once a month) to the casino, have a good time lose a little money, but have a good time... you went out got some drinks met some people... online you are just losing money, there is little ancillary benefit because no drinks, no laughs, no bright lights, just losing!

Also, with more skilled players multitabling we end up playing in an artificially higher percentage of the seats compared to the bad players, and as such we deplete their bank rolls even faster. It is an interesting question, and the advent of online poker is a signifigant change to the dynamic of the game.

-K_squared

Onaflag · #10 01-07-2005, 06:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, with more skilled players multitabling we end up playing in an artificially higher percentage of the seats compared to the bad players

[/ QUOTE ]

This phenomenon is certainly noticeable when there are popular bonuses to clear like the Empire one right now, but I disagree that the losing player loses his/her money by playing a few hours a day rather than once a month in a casino.

I think the casual player is just that: casual. I see in my database that there are a lot of players who play once a week or twice a month and don't get milked so bad that they'd stop coming so quickly. Sure, they'll eventually have to send more money to Neteller, but over the course of how long? I think there are too many casual players for the pasture to dry up anytime soon.

We should probably worry more about how the government can effectively shut it down before worrying when the nice donators will stop donating. They'll always be there because of the popularity of poker on TV.

Finding a table without 5 2+2ers on it, now that's a different story. Not that you can't do it on Party (I find juicy tables everyday) but I could agree that that could become more difficult over time because of PokerTracker. Once software for professionals is usable across all sites as effetively as it is on Party/skins, they'll start to migrate elsewhere once again evening out the field.

Onaflag..........