Online Poker : 75% of loosers

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
"Most" players play at stakes where they can still lose and show a profit (rakeback, bonuses etc..)


[/ QUOTE ]

The Percentage of people playing with Rakeback, is very small (<5%). The percentage taking advantage of bonuses is only slightly larger, but again the percentage taking full advantage of all available bonuses, such that they are always working off a bonus, is also very small.

The vast majority of players, however, neither win or lose an amount of $$ that is significant to them.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, you are arguing statistics with a professional mathematician. Your game selection sucks, and your bluff has been exposed.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL... Well I certainly wouldn't want to be arguing with you then, but I also certainly would enjoy seeing you add some value to this conversation, other than trying to dispute the 40/60. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It's like you aren't even reading his posts.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
It's like you aren't even reading his posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm reading his posts, but he hasn't told me anything I don't already know! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I expect better info from a statistician [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ewashingtons]

when you are asking how many players are winners are you asking
1) taking a snapshot of this moment right now what percentage of people are up and what percentage of people are down $$$?
OR
2) over the long term what percentage of people will be winners (aka what percentage of players are "winning caliber")?

basically, does it matter if you say that you're not going to determine if someone is a winner or loser until they have played X number of hands?

its spelled "losee" not "looser". and yes, everybody's losing but none will admit it.

[ QUOTE ]
its spelled "losee" not "looser". and yes, everybody's losing but none will admit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Losee is not even a word.

[Komodo]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />
By the way, you are arguing statistics with a professional mathematician. Your game selection sucks, and your bluff has been exposed.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL... Well I certainly wouldn't want to be arguing with you then, but I also certainly would enjoy seeing you add some value to this conversation, other than trying to dispute the 40/60. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

40-60 as sniper says is impossible. Short-term it should be 40-60, but not long term. The 60% who lose short term will not lose everytime they play. Some of the 60% will move over to the winners lounge and some of the 40% will move to the losers lounge. Because of the rake, more of the 40% will be losers long term.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
40-60 as sniper says is impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think the factual data available from data mining is inaccurate, then display some proof.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
40-60 as sniper says is impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think the factual data available from data mining is inaccurate, then display some proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not innaccurate, it just isn't indicative of what you think it is. Perhaps if you actually took the time to understand what meow and pzhon posted you would realize that.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not innaccurate, it just isn't indicative of what you think it is. Perhaps if you actually took the time to understand what meow and pzhon posted you would realize that.

[/ QUOTE ]

My comments are based on extensive review of a large amount of data available... and I fully understand what both meow and phyzon are saying.

If you don't believe that roughly 40% of all online poker players that have played during the boom of the past couple of years are +$1 or better from their online ring game play... then please add value to this thread by posting what you think a more correct number is and explain why.