10% of poker players are winners???

[scrapperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The bad player that will lose their stack is giving away to the table an amount that is equal to the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

These amounts are NOT equal.

This is based solely on common sense and I did not read the "secret report."

Edit: The total juice = 1 buyin in a Sit and Go, are you talking about those? Everyone else is talking about ring games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brain you seem to be one of the people that are thinking about this instead of insisting an old wives tale is correct. Yes my example applies perfectly to a sit and go. It does apply less perfectly to ring games as there will be variation in how fast they lose their stack. It might be very quick or it might take a while. If it takes a while then yes the rake will be more then what they lose, if it is fairly quick then it might be less. To be honest it does not matter that much, there is still rooom for more than 1 person at the table to make money.

[driller]

If you include all the people who deposit a small amount and then don't play after they lose their initial deposit, then 8% might be correct.

But if you include the players who play steadily for, say a year or even 6 months, the the percentage is probably the 40-50% that we have in our poker tracker db's.

Think about it...very few people would be playing if only 8% were winning, and winning means beating the game for more than the rake.

And for those complaining about the rake, try a casino sometime.

[pokerrookie]

Don't forget that these numbers include every person that deposited their one time 50, played 2/4, lost it all, decided online poker was rigged, and never came back.

He mentions that not many are way in the black...he also didnt specify how many are way in the red. I bet not too many. I would like to see the data for the people that have played 10K or so hands. How many of them are winners? Or better, what is the average number of hands played by those that are in the red? My guess is it would be a low number.

[Tilt]

This thread has become comical. Why is it so hard to believe that its only roughly 10% that win? When:

* We know that the average win rate is minus 5% at best (due to the rake)
* We know that there are some big winners (some of us on here are in that group)
* There can't be many big losers cause big losers have to quit

Think of what the distribution of players yearly win rates over a year must look like. The bubble has to peak at -5% of the average stakes * frequency of play. It must have a rapidly declining slop into negative territory with a quick intersection (cause very few big losers can sustain losing). And it must have a long but very narrow tail in winning territory. The 10% figure isn't just intuitive; something close to it is necessary based on what we know.

[scrapperdog]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread has become comical. Why is it so hard to believe that its only roughly 10% that win? When:

* We know that the average win rate is minus 5% at best (due to the rake)
* We know that there are some big winners (some of us on here are in that group)
* There can't be many big losers cause big losers have to quit

Think of what the distribution of players yearly win rates over a year must look like. The bubble has to peak at -5% of the average stakes * frequency of play. It must have a rapidly declining slop into negative territory with a quick intersection (cause very few big losers can sustain losing). And it must have a long but very narrow tail in winning territory. The 10% figure isn't just intuitive; something close to it is necessary based on what we know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep it has become comical all right. More math quotes and less common sense please. There are bad players all over the place in case you have not noticed. Yes the rake is 5% but the bad players more than make up for it with a tiny bit of table selection.

I have been playing less than a year, have huge holes in my game, dont have the proper stablility when it comes to emotion, play when I am bored and tired. And yet I still manage to win money when the numbers are added up at the end of the month. If I can do it I am sure 1 other person at the table can do it as well, that is why I say 20% are winners and 80% dont win. Now go back and read your double super secret report and talk about bell curves, standard deviations and convince yourself you are right.

[boose_bagina]

[ QUOTE ]
More math quotes and less common sense please.

[/ QUOTE ]
ahhh, the makings of a poker legend.

[BaggyAnt]

Part of the issue is that all the anlaysis you see on here is based on ring games only - As a matter of fact the majority of players are Tournament players - For what it's worth I think somewhere
between 20% and 25% of players are winners

[Synergistic Explosions]

Rake percentage being discussed here is wrong. People say if .50 is taken out in rake at a 5.00 pot it is a 10% rake. However, when you figure out your rake cost on a net basis, the pot less your contributions to the pot, your fee to play and win that pot is more than 10%.

For example, if everyone folded to the blinds and both blinds contributed 2.50 to the pot for a total of a 5.00 pot then the winner will receive back a net winning of 2.00 from that pot after a rake of .50 is taken. Therefore rake is equal to 25% of his net winnings in this case.

Playing low limits at places like Party who charge such high rakes is a tough road to hoe. Unless you only play there to hoe.

[Sniper]

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.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

You're wrong. ~35% of all 2BB/100 losers are going to look like winners over a sample size of 100 hands or so. Scroll up and look at my drawings to see an illustration about why.

With ~10% long term winners you'll forever see a 40/60 split in your pt data.