How many winners can a $20-$40 game support?

[semipro50]

I have always heard estimates that at least 90% of poker players at B&M casinos are long term losers. I play in a twenty forty game with a $5.00 rake. The standard tip is $1.00. I would estimate in my game there are usually five winners, one breakeven player and four losers. After 1000 hours of play I would estimate the results to be as follows. Do you feel my estimates are reasonable?


Player 1 40,000
Player 2 20,000
Player 3 20,000
Player 4 10,000
Player 5 5,000
Player 6 -
Player 7 (11,000)
Player 8 (15,000)
Player 9 (30,000)
Player 10 (45,000)
Rake + Tip (6,000)

[Lou]

Your results are reasonable if you only play 1 hand per hour in your game?

Assuming 30 hands per hour at $6 ( $5 + $1 ) x 1000 hours = $180,000 rake and tip. I would say at most one long term winner.

[astroglide]

my (extensive) online stats indicate that 40% of players are winners.

[semipro50]

Thanks for pointing out the error in my logic. I redid the numbers taking out $180,000 for rake and tips. I was able to come up with a case in which there were three winners. I am not sure how realistic the case is. It requires several players to lose more than $50 per hour. Do bad players really lose this much?

[astroglide]

turbo texas holdem v5 average player lineup, 25k hands, 20/40, counts rakes and tokes:

1 +14300
2 -9339
3 +15958
4 -11306
5 -54953
6 -46051
7 -38137
8 +507
9 +13662
10 +5897

as the sampling gets much larger it gets closer to 4-5 winners per table. the lineup makes a HUGE difference.

[andyfox]

How many guys who play 20-40 have the kind of bankroll to lose the kind of money 5,6 and 7 lose? Would it be reasonable to suppose that those guys are out of the action and replaced by other losers? That being the case, perhaps 40% of the seats win money, but only 10% of the players win?

[astroglide]

in my experience, plenty of people can piss away 50k/yr. i could name 5 regulars where i play who would not surprise me AT ALL if they said they dropped 30k/yr on the game.

it would be equally reasonable to assume that they were out of the action and replaced by like-minded losers. the winners shouldn't leave because, well, they're winning. that would make the stats hold up.

i've got over 50,000 real money online hands to validate the 40% winner theory. given the volatile nature of online play in general, 45-50% winners in brick and mortar doesn't surprise me at all.

[andyfox]

Let's say that a 9-handed 20-40 game goes 24 hours a day every day of the year at Commerce. Let's further assume 32 hands/hour and a $1 tip per hand. This would mean $280,320 off the table in tips and $1,261,440 in collections ($16/seat/hour). Total: $1,541,760.

Let's further assume every player plays 33.6 hours/week. That would be 5 players/seat, 45 total players. If only 60% of them lose, each losing player would have to average losing over $57,000/year.

Does this seem reasonable?

[Lee Jones]

It's been shown [1] that the larger limit online games are more efficient
at culling the herd. Because of the buy-in limits, the true whales are
limited by their ability to re-buy. We've all seen guys spend multiple
months worth of online buy-in limits while sitting in a single session at a
b&m poker store.

And I suspect that the whales provide much of the cash inflow in many
games. Without them, the profit margin for the winners has to be lower, right?

It also depends, I suppose, on your defintiion of "person". Do you count Al,
who plays 30 hours/week and drops $30/hour the same as Beth, who is
a winner at $5/10, had a good week, decided to take a shot at the 20-40,
lost her $400 buy-in, and decided to stay in the 5/10 for a while longer.
Beth has put 2.5 hours and $400 into the 20-40. Al has put 1500 hours
and $45000 into the game. Does each equal "one loser"?

I will admit to being astonished by Astroglide's number of 40% winners
online. I would have guessed the number much lower. But it will depend on
how he counts, the time period, etc. I just have difficulty imagining that
the game can support such a high percentage of winners. Without the
blue whales of the pack, I'd think the rake would prohibit that kind of
percentage of winners.

Regards, Lee

[1] This is standard academic-speak for, "I'm pretty sure I've seen this
in reliable references, but damned if I can tell you where"

[Lee Jones]

I forgot who said it, but I like the model that it takes more than one gazelle
to feed a lion. Visualize this: seats 1-4 are occupied by winners who
never leave. Seats 5-10 are held by losers. But because they're
losers, they're permitted to play in eight hour shifts. So each loser is
donating $19K/year to the table, some of which goes down the tube,
some goes into the dealer's fanny pack, and the rest goes to seats 1-4.

The above model produces 25% winners though.

Regards, Lee