Online Poker : 75% of loosers

[KidPokerX]

[ QUOTE ]
I read it was 90-95%

I bet there's a lot of players who think they're winners, but have put in hundreds before they got any good, and just 'forgot' about all that expense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hundreds? How about thousands?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought it was more. Something like 90%

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple years or so ago Sklansky posted here that it was 90% for live games and that the reason for this was the amount in rake that the losers had to lose in order for a winning player to make 1BB/hr. Although the total dollar amount of rake is much larger online because of the number of hands played, the rake is usually proportionally less per hand so that might indeed lower the 90% figure to 75%. If the losers multitable though, even the effect of lower rake will accelerate in time, and so the 90% figure might be applicable after all.

[Rotterdaum]

I don't know if this is statistically correct, but isn't it common for break even and losing players to have many winning sessions before a very large losing one? So pokertracker people are recording a lot of people having a lot of winning sessions thus recvording them as winners. And the losing sessions happen much more rarely so you are more likely to observe a break-evenish or a marginal losing player win than lose.

[Sniper]

Here's my thoughts which were posted in another thread on this topic...

[ QUOTE ]
If you examine all the factors, its fairly easy to see where all these numbers are coming from...

Rough expectation for long term players:
Ring Games - 40% win / 60% Lose
SNG - 20% win / 80% lose
MTT - 5% win / 95% lose

Other factors to account for...

The winning expectation numbers move up a bit when you account for extra $$$ from RB, Bonus, Point programs, Freerolls, etc.

The losing numbers move up alot when you account for the large number of players that try to play and lose their initial deposit and never return.

If you consider the relative number of people that play ring vs tournaments, its not to hard to understand how a casino mgr would be quoted as saying winners are less than 10%, but a ring players PT database shows 40% winners.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought it was more. Something like 90%

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple years or so ago Sklansky posted here that it was 90% for live games and that the reason for this was the amount in rake that the losers had to lose in order for a winning player to make 1BB/hr. Although the total dollar amount of rake is much larger online because of the number of hands played, the rake is usually proportionally less per hand so that might indeed lower the 90% figure to 75%. If the losers multitable though, even the effect of lower rake will accelerate in time, and so the 90% figure might be applicable after all.

[/ QUOTE ]
I gotta think it's close to 90% also. It would certainly explain why Party/Empire can afford to give away free money to play on their site.

[Komodo]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />
I don't care about the rest of the world/players. I'm up, and that's all that matters. However, I'm definitely not a winning player. Isn't poker a beautiful thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its pretty important, since if 90% is losing players, then its not hard to see that many of them will stop playing.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Its pretty important, since if 90% is losing players, then its not hard to see that many of them will stop playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not necessarily true... there are many reasons why people play poker, other than to make money.

More than 99.9999999%+ of lottery players are losers, I don't see any slowdown in the number of people playing the lottery [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
It would certainly explain why Party/Empire can afford to give away free money to play on their site.

[/ QUOTE ]
Party would actually love 50% winners and 50% losers, because that means fewer people would stop playing and Party would get more rake.

[Hattifnatt]

I think it's like 90% that loses money. But they might mean that 75% of the people playing online are just losers...

i think it's more.