I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

Some of you may have heard the stat thrown out that only 5-7% of online poker players are long-term winners. When I first heard that stat I thought it was BS and way too low.

The more I've played, the more I've come to believe that number is pretty accurate. Some of the reasons why it is so low have always been obvious to me. People who are otherwise good poker players do foolish things like improperly manage their bankroll, play over their heads, play while tired or pissed off and don't have enough emotional control.

However, I believe the number one reason why there are so few long-term winners is that most people cannot handle the extended bad runs. No matter how good you are, you are going to go through periods of time when you lose money and sometimes those periods are going to last for a really long time. I don't care how much control you have, after several months of this, it's going to get to you. I think that's when a lot of people who otherwise have the ability to make it long-term, go belly up. Poker can be an absolutely brutal game at times and anyone who plans on playing a lot better be prepared for that.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

excellent post

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

It has nothing to do with how well or how poorly anybody plays. The mathematics of the game can't support more winners than that.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with how well or how poorly anybody plays. The mathematics of the game can't support more winners than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

not true, the independent variable that determines how many people can win is the rake. If the rake changes, the % of winners changes.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

Thanks for the news flash.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
play while tired or pissed off and don't have enough emotional control.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing tired is my bane latley, I actually fell asleep in an online tourney after playing almost 4 hours and was dozing at a live touney after almost 5. When this happens I just start pushing to end the misery and go pass out. It is awful and stupid but I make a good living during the day so an extra grand playing poker isnt a big deal, and it should be.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with how well or how poorly anybody plays. The mathematics of the game can't support more winners than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder what the maximum possible percentage of winners actually is...

I guess it really depends on how much the donators are donating, instead of how many donators are donating. In any case, it is still possible for there to be 0% winners.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with how well or how poorly anybody plays. The mathematics of the game can't support more winners than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a math expert, but it seems to me that if many of the losing players worked to become better players they could take away some of the money that the winning players are getting. My thought is that the pie would still be the same size, but divided by more people, and the people who were getting the biggest share, would see their share shrink. Isn't that what all the good players are talking about when they worry about the games getting tougher?

Regardless of what the actual percentage is that the game can support as long-term winners, there are things that losing players do that make them losers. One of the points of my post was to discuss a major reason that people often overlook.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with how well or how poorly anybody plays. The mathematics of the game can't support more winners than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you please elaborate on this?

I think it has everything to do with how well or poorly you play- what else is the determining factor?

And why do the maths dictate that only 5% (say) can win long term?

Surely the logical conclusion is that (over the long term, with NO rake) if eveyone played perfect- then everyone would break even.

And if there is a rake and everyone played perfectly- then over the long term, everyone (bar the host) would lose?

That is my understanding- but I would love to be corrected- because if my understanding is incorrect, I need to know asap.

Cheers,
Ian

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with how well or how poorly anybody plays. The mathematics of the game can't support more winners than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

How well/poorly one plays in relation to opponents is directly relevant to longterm results.

Your statement is only really true if everyone plays the same way and/or play the same people. Which isn't reality.

b

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

i think what the 2+2 community is slowly discovering is this.. The marginal edge you may have in the game you play is becoming increasingly smaller, to the point that variance is having a greater impact on your long-term winrate than anything else (check out BBV). Many of these players are blaming it on other factors, instead of accepting that they no longer have a big enough edge to win consistently at their current limit. I think the lower limits are still quite beatable, because the fish market is still thriving down here (all the way up to 3/6 | 5/10), but the number of rich fish willing to throw their paper around at 10/20 and up is slowly diminishing.

Maybe its just me.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with how well or how poorly anybody plays. The mathematics of the game can't support more winners than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder what the maximum possible percentage of winners actually is...

I guess it really depends on how much the donators are donating, instead of how many donators are donating. In any case, it is still possible for there to be 0% winners.

[/ QUOTE ]Should be over 99.9999999% in theory (every poker player but 1 person). At least in NL cash that is true.

Consider 99 people playing perfect poker and 1 person playing reverse perfect poker. Over hte long run, 99 people will breakeven (-rake) if only played with eachother. The 1 person who only plays by raising to 99.9 bb's preflop and fold for .1 bb more repeatedly. This will make everyone else a winner, but him a loser.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with how well or how poorly anybody plays. The mathematics of the game can't support more winners than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder what the maximum possible percentage of winners actually is...

I guess it really depends on how much the donators are donating, instead of how many donators are donating. In any case, it is still possible for there to be 0% winners.

[/ QUOTE ]Should be over 99.9999999% in theory (every poker player but 1 person). At least in NL cash that is true.

Consider 99 people playing perfect poker and 1 person playing reverse perfect poker. Over hte long run, 99 people will breakeven (-rake) if only played with eachother. The 1 person who only plays by raising to 99.9 bb's preflop and fold for .1 bb more repeatedly. This will make everyone else a winner, but him a loser.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I realized this soon after I wrote it. I think this pretty much proves that the mathematics of the game CAN support more winners than that.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with how well or how poorly anybody plays. The mathematics of the game can't support more winners than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you please elaborate on this?

I think it has everything to do with how well or poorly you play- what else is the determining factor?

And why do the maths dictate that only 5% (say) can win long term?

Surely the logical conclusion is that (over the long term, with NO rake) if eveyone played perfect- then everyone would break even.

And if there is a rake and everyone played perfectly- then over the long term, everyone (bar the host) would lose?

That is my understanding- but I would love to be corrected- because if my understanding is incorrect, I need to know asap.

Cheers,
Ian

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you're right. If everyone played perfectly (whatever that is) everyone would lose all their money, over time (assuming they played long enough).

But while a particular player may win or lose money because of how he plays (or more likely, becuase of luck), the reason so few players win is because of the nature of the game - it's zero sum, minus rake.

And rake sucks out much more money than people realize.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

Another reason is that many of the people who win play multiple tables and play a lot (the latter is true in B&M as well). The losers tend to single table and play less.

~ Rick

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
However, I believe the number one reason why there are so few long-term winners is that most people cannot handle the extended bad runs. No matter how good you are, you are going to go through periods of time when you lose money and sometimes those periods are going to last for a really long time. I don't care how much control you have, after several months of this, it's going to get to you.

[/ QUOTE ]
For online players playing say 10k hands a month or more, there is no such thing as a bad run that lasts several months. If you lose money for three months in a row playing 10k hands/month, you are not playing winning poker. It would probably be fair to say if you lose money for even less than that, you are not playing winning poker, but I'm being conservative.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, I believe the number one reason why there are so few long-term winners is that most people cannot handle the extended bad runs. No matter how good you are, you are going to go through periods of time when you lose money and sometimes those periods are going to last for a really long time. I don't care how much control you have, after several months of this, it's going to get to you.

[/ QUOTE ]
For online players playing say 10k hands a month or more, there is no such thing as a bad run that lasts several months. If you lose money for three months in a row playing 10k hands/month, you are not playing winning poker. It would probably be fair to say if you lose money for even less than that, you are not playing winning poker, but I'm being conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funniest. Post. Ever.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, I believe the number one reason why there are so few long-term winners is that most people cannot handle the extended bad runs. No matter how good you are, you are going to go through periods of time when you lose money and sometimes those periods are going to last for a really long time. I don't care how much control you have, after several months of this, it's going to get to you.

[/ QUOTE ]
For online players playing say 10k hands a month or more, there is no such thing as a bad run that lasts several months. If you lose money for three months in a row playing 10k hands/month, you are not playing winning poker. It would probably be fair to say if you lose money for even less than that, you are not playing winning poker, but I'm being conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funniest. Post. Ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
And rake sucks out much more money than people realize.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yea, a hell of a lot more. Look at your PT stats. If I had no rake Id be rich... well very happy.

I have around 150k in hands and I have run into a bad 2 or 3 day session within the last 6 months. But then again I am sure I tilted somewhere and cause greater losses than expected. Worst I did was a bad 3 weeks but it was when I knew a lot less.

Mistakes count for a lot and when you are playing for 2-3 days and running bad, you don't feel right about playing that 4th day and make mistakes which increases the variance.

That BB/100 curve drops. Remember it only takes folding one pot to a bluff an hour to put you from +2BB/100 to -2BB/100.

I think these long term losses are more due to the player and not some rediculous mathematical average. (here comes the flame)

Every little thing you do affects your play. EVERYTHING.

I have learned the following:
If I am unlucky at a table, I move (bad image)
Tough opponents I move (can't make money)
Fish leave (I move)
Angry (I quit)
Frustrated (I take a break)
Hungry (I take a break)
Sleepy (I quit)
Making bad plays, heads not right (I take a break till it is)
LAG to my left, no fish to my right. (I change tables)

GOOD THINGS
I take my time making decisions (less mistakes)
I try to build a solid image (more successful bluffs)
Be polite and nice to opponets "nh" (they bluff less at me)

These are just 12 things I do. Lets say each is worth 1/2 a percent. Well thats 6% of value in a game where the difference between winning and losing is a lot less. Ace on the River taught me the best player is the one who has discipline. He does have to be the best reader, analyzer, experienced, or have natural talent. He is the one who has discipline and plays well, now I didn't say great or best.

So I know I am not even close to a Stu Ungar in balls, Chris Fergusson in analysis, Phil Hellmuth in player reading, but I try to have the most discipline possible.

This has helped my game and allows me to have 3, 4, 5, 6 days in a row that I win playing the amount of hands I want.

Well thats my 2 cents. It is in man's nature to lie. No one wants to tell you "yea I lost the last 2 months, its because I was an idiot playing, I was going through a divorse, I was drinking heavily too." They say, "I ran bad".

I think I'm a decent player, I am making a living at this now more than my old job working less hours. I love it and CAN wait to play the higher limits.

Discipline, thats what makes the difference.

There is so much information out there on poker, so much more than 5 years ago. Some of the players are better... or are there just more people playing now. People like me who never played poker before 2.5 years ago. I was like the other fish. People are more educated now but that doesnt mean they have discipline.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

So the reason there arent very many winning poker players is because of Party BJ?

Sounds about right.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

What's this business about the games getting tougher?

It's bunk, and I'll explain why.

Fish can learn odds. Fish can learn TAG. Fish can learn to lay down hands. Fish can learn all of these wonderful things.
Winning players can learn to adjust and exploit said fish.

That is why the games will never really get tougher for the true winner, they will simply require adjustment.

This is the reason why only %5 of players are lifetime winners.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
What's this business about the games getting tougher?

It's bunk, and I'll explain why.

Fish can learn odds. Fish can learn TAG. Fish can learn to lay down hands. Fish can learn all of these wonderful things.
Winning players can learn to adjust and exploit said fish.

That is why the games will never really get tougher for the true winner, they will simply require adjustment.

This is the reason why only %5 of players are lifetime winners.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's some truth to this, but you are also ignoring something obvious. When a fish makes fewer mistakes, there is less money to take from him. Yes, most players when they first learn to play tight before the flop, for example, still make a lot of mistakes and can be profitable for a good player to play against. But they are much less profitable when they were making the same postflop mistakes with a much worse range of starting hands.

HE is a hard game to master, but it's actually pretty easy to play so that others can't beat for much more than the rake. So they still profit off of you, but with a variance that is so high that making a living off this improved fish is no longer feasible. And it's a little tougher but not exactly requiring an IQ of 120 to play so that others can't beat you for more than the rake at all.

That said, failure to adjust and adapt does lead to the downfall of people who might otherwise have the potential to be lifetime winners.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

I agree with your post entirely. It seems like people are combining two things that arent really the same at all. The actual act of beating the games, i.e. BB/100, can be tough, and might only be possibly positive for X% of players, given current conditions. As the game conditions change, that % can change, and so can the degree to which X% win.

Then there is the other aspect, the long-term job of professional player. Its a tough life, and there are many distractions, all of which impact whether you can hold on to any of these BB's. I dont think this is what people mean though, when they say only X% are winning players. Stu Ungar was a winning player. He wasnt a winning person.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

True. But I remember 1 1/2 years ago. The players were easier. If I knew then what I know now I would have been much more successful. Even though I have improved so have the players. I still make money but they make less mistakes. Thus will I still will always beat X bad player. I will not beat X bad player for as much as 1 1/2 years ago. There are less bad players out there at 2/4+ than before. I remember going to tables loaded with fish. 1-2 TAGs at 3/6. Now 3/6 has maybe 3-4 really weak players.

You can't argue that beating a fish is easier then beating a guy that was a fish and has gained some information and is less than a fish. Which means you get less money. If he makes 1 less BB mistake per hours thats 1 less BB you make per hour.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

Correct. And eventually the fish play well enough that they still might be slightly losing players, bud not badly enough at all that a good player can beat the fish enough to overcome the house drop.

As has been posted several times recently here and in B&M, players seem to severely underestimate the amount that gets taken off the table in the rake.

[ QUOTE ]
True. But I remember 1 1/2 years ago. The players were easier. If I knew then what I know now I would have been much more successful. Even though I have improved so have the players. I still make money but they make less mistakes. Thus will I still will always beat X bad player. I will not beat X bad player for as much as 1 1/2 years ago. There are less bad players out there at 2/4+ than before. I remember going to tables loaded with fish. 1-2 TAGs at 3/6. Now 3/6 has maybe 3-4 really weak players.

You can't argue that beating a fish is easier then beating a guy that was a fish and has gained some information and is less than a fish. Which means you get less money. If he makes 1 less BB mistake per hours thats 1 less BB you make per hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

The reason why there are so few long term winners is because the poker economy works in a sort of pyramid. Granted the rake is a huge factor in the number of overall winners. But I think a bigger factor is that the winners at one limit end up moving up limits too quickly and lose their money to the the higher-level sharks who in turn move up and lose it to the top sharks.
For example, when I started playing poker it took me 1 year to grind out a $10K bankroll at .5/1, 1/2, and 2/4... all donations of small time fish. I then lost it all in less than a month to 1000NL sharks. By now I'm sure most of that money has landed in high-stakes players pockets or diluted in rake.

What I mean is that even if there were no rake, you wouldn't see 50% winners, 50% losers overall.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

The reason there are so few long-term winners at poker is that I don't play often enough.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

I think the pyramid thing is SO true.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

Another piece of evidence comes from PT data. There was a huge thead a long time ago showing that at each limit there are 60% losers and 40% winners. Why is this different from the 6-7% winners reported by online casinos? That's because online casinos report individual win/loses CROSS-LIMITS. It takes a lot of 0.5/1 losers to provide for the winnings of a 30/60 winner.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

I personally believe that if all players are counted, including those that lose $50 and never play again, the true number of winning players is less than 1%, likely much less.

Suppose a pro plays 8000 table hours per year, or the equivalent of one table continuously for one year. A typical table rakes around $100/hr or $800,000/yr. Let's say the pro wins $100,000 for a total of $900,000 taken off the table each year.

At 1%, the average losing player would need to lose $9000 to support the one pro. That seems kinda high to me.

Paul

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

Even harder if the average winning player makes 200k/yr. Neither of these are reasonable, but your point still stands. I guess.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
Another piece of evidence comes from PT data. There was a huge thead a long time ago showing that at each limit there are 60% losers and 40% winners. Why is this different from the 6-7% winners reported by online casinos? That's because online casinos report individual win/loses CROSS-LIMITS. It takes a lot of 0.5/1 losers to provide for the winnings of a 30/60 winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link?

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
Another piece of evidence comes from PT data. There was a huge thead a long time ago showing that at each limit there are 60% losers and 40% winners. Why is this different from the 6-7% winners reported by online casinos? That's because online casinos report individual win/loses CROSS-LIMITS. It takes a lot of 0.5/1 losers to provide for the winnings of a 30/60 winner.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, PT shows that 40% of the players are winners, I've seen that myself in my PT data. But I don't agree with your reason why.

I believe the reason is the winners stick around, play more often, and play more tables. A big percentage of the 95% losers that PokerRoom reports are simple not playing anymore or play very seldom. The 5 - 7% of the players that are winners make up 40% of the players actually seated at a table at any given time.

So if you look at a typical table, it's likely that 40% of the players at that table are long-term winners. However, only about 5% of the players that have played online are winners. These two statements do not contradict each other.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

I was thinking that obviously, this guy doesn't play 10K hands a month or more.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with how well or how poorly anybody plays. The mathematics of the game can't support more winners than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Others have pointed out that this isn't literally true, but I think it's true in practice, given the current mix of player skills/activity (i.e., who's playing how much).

Suppose you took, oh, say, a thousand new poker players, and trained them up into strong, winning players, and turned them loose on the online poker ecology. What would happen? Well, there would a thousand new winning players. But the games would become less profitable for (almost) everyone else, and some players who had been only small winners would become breakeven players, or small losers. So the overall number of winning players might not change much. (Note: 2+2 is actuallly an example of this.)

So the pool of winning players doesn't change size much over time. What OP's point suggests is that the turnover in that pool is larger than one might otherwise expect. What happens to the winning players? In theory, once you become a winning player, you should be able to remain one until you die, unless you get pushed out of the pool because online poker is getting tougher overall.

In practice, though, a lot of the current winning players just haven't run very bad yet, and rate to be taken out due to inadequate psychological fortitude (or bad bankroll management).

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

Yeah, I still don't really understand why poker players seem to naturally gravitate towards moving up limits as soon as they have the bankroll. Sure I'm all for taking calculated shots when you specifically think you are ready and your game has evolved to the point where it will be profitable, but the whole move up as soon as technically possible thing seems to me like it's all too often just a manifestation of that sick gambling instinct to seek action and take risks. I enjoy possessing and spending money personally [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] (Of course I do play much much higher limits now than when I started making money too, but I'm glad I never felt the impulse to keep taking shots every single time I had a well padded bankroll!)

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I still don't really understand why poker players seem to naturally gravitate towards moving up limits as soon as they have the bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are growing your bankroll solely from poker, then your bankroll reaching a level that is sufficient for the next limit would suggest that you are "ready" to move up. The reason people move up is because it makes sense - why play indefinately at a low limit when you could increase your hourly rate by moving up.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I still don't really understand why poker players seem to naturally gravitate towards moving up limits as soon as they have the bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are growing your bankroll solely from poker, then your bankroll reaching a level that is sufficient for the next limit would suggest that you are "ready" to move up. The reason people move up is because it makes sense - why play indefinately at a low limit when you could increase your hourly rate by moving up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is an accurate empirical observation. The reality is that just because you have a bankroll for the next limit does not mean you are ready to move up. Nor will your hourly rate necessarily increase.

But...most people moving up to new limits after winning up an adequate BR at lower limits aren't that far from beating the next limit if they aren't there to begin with. So if you are willing to keep working at the game, then moving up will eventually allow you to increase your hourly rate and, more importantly, improve your game.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

Moving up is fine if you are beating a certain level over a sufficient sample size. It also gives you a goal to shoot for, which is helpful. However, I think the problem with a lot of players is that they try to do it too quickly with too small a sample size and/or bankroll. A lot of newer players underestimate the power of short-term luck. They assume that their good results will always last, but if their sample size is small, it's quite possible they have simply been running hot and may not be as big of a winner they think they are at their current level, or at all.

Re: I know why there are so few long-term winners at poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, I believe the number one reason why there are so few long-term winners is that most people cannot handle the extended bad runs. No matter how good you are, you are going to go through periods of time when you lose money and sometimes those periods are going to last for a really long time. I don't care how much control you have, after several months of this, it's going to get to you.

[/ QUOTE ]
For online players playing say 10k hands a month or more, there is no such thing as a bad run that lasts several months. If you lose money for three months in a row playing 10k hands/month, you are not playing winning poker. It would probably be fair to say if you lose money for even less than that, you are not playing winning poker, but I'm being conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong.