What Percentage are "Winning Players"? |
|
Posted Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:17 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
Just your guess. What do you think?
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:28 am GMT by Jefecaminador
Depends on the size of the rake.
Posted Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:03 am GMT by Poto
10% or fewer sounds like a reasonable number.
Posted Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:09 am GMT by shorn7
I put it at 10-20%. Certainly no higher than that. And that would include players who are only marginally profitable or close to break even every year.
Posted Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:12 am GMT by suitedaces84
Depends if you're talking about money or bets. If bets probably 20%, if money way less.
Posted Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:20 pm GMT by groton
20-30% 
Posted Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:22 pm GMT by ninetensuited
im guessing right at 10%
Posted Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:34 pm GMT by LeafsFan1122
Aren't these results a little odd, seeing as I think everyone who has posted on this thread are winning players (including myself)?
I voted 40%+ heh. I'm obviously wrong, just don't quite get the reasoning why we can't have 50/50 or 40/60winners and losers.
Posted Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:41 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| LeafsFan1122 wrote: | | I voted 40%+ heh. I'm obviously wrong, just don't quite get the reasoning why we can't have 50/50 or 40/60winners and losers. |
So 60% of the people are paying the other 40%, and paying the rake on top of it? I think that's extraordinarily optimistic.
I voted for the 10% or less. That has to be much closer to the truth than the other end of the spectrum.
Posted Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:42 pm GMT by suitedaces84
The Peter principle prevents many compentant players from winning. And the large rake in small games won't allow many better than average players to win. In bigger games there are way more winners due to the smaller rake.
Posted Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:44 pm GMT by LeafsFan1122
I understand better now.
It's scary though to hear that like only 1/10 people are making money at this game.
Posted Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:47 pm GMT by groton
god damm Nine ten and Supa 
Posted Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:54 pm GMT by ninetensuited
| groton wrote: | | god damm Nine ten and Supa |
WTF did i do?
Posted Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:15 pm GMT by groton
you and Supa
are the reason the rest of us are destend to be break even at best
Posted Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:27 pm GMT by ScanX
~5%
Posted Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:32 pm GMT by Skribbles
What is the definition of a long-term winner?
Personally, I would still have to lose over $10K before I am actually in the negative for money won. If I played $1/2 FL for the rest of my life, I would not lose over $10K, so am I a long term winner because of MTT success?
Posted Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:46 pm GMT by UrAteUp
Man...that is a tough question. I have to agree with the Peter Principle but I also have to think given our own levels of play it seems several of the regular posters in here are winning players. Now if you look at it as a whole...we are a small portion of poker players around the world. So lets say the number is some where between 10-15%. This is actual players who win more often then they loose and do not have to spend extradinary amounts to restore their bankrolls. That to me is a winning player.
Groton if your going to cuse winning players do not forget the Belgian Beast, ScanX....  ...that guy plays one SNG that would take my entire bankroll and doesn't even blink doing it.... 
Posted Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:18 pm GMT by tame_deuces
And then ofcourse you have the distinction between being a winning player and playing winning poker.
I'm no stats guy but I read an factor analysis thing on a large handsample of FL hands, and they concluded by something below 10% as 'true winners' in the long picture. I don't know if it was for money or bets. Over 60% would at any given time be 'short term' winners on a roll though.
On a funny sidenote in a survey done by a large online poker magazine, 90% of the people asked claimed to be winning players.
I never think I've met a losing poker player either. 
(Actually last month the tighest nit in the world (a guy which would serious fold overpairs when getting like...15:1) explained to me how I should win money online. )
I guess there is one born every minute still.
|
|
