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

[joel2006]

It's so wrong it isn't even funny. One could be a player winning 1.5 BB/100 and lose over 40k hands easily.

[theredpill75]

Hi.

[jschaud]

at limits as high as 2/4, you still are paying almost as much in rake as you are winning. From my 2/4 database, I won at a 3.12 BB/100 rate over 30k hands(ran hot/whatever). I paid rake at 2.29 BB/100. It gets worse as you move to SH. Thats one of the reasons I am doing whatever I can to pimp WSEX, BR requirements will drop nearly in half, winning players will make huge amounts more money, and there will be a ton of losing players that will now be winning money. I would love to see someone graph a normal distribution of player's winrates at different limits and then shift it the average amount of rake to see how many players really are going from -.xx to plus .01.

[surfinillini]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the news flash.

[/ QUOTE ]

seriously...

[surfinillini]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

and I also think people have to realize that poker IS GAMBLING, there is no other way to slice it

once people can concretly comprehend this, it will be apparent to them that large upswings in poker are not sustainable with the proper sample size

i.e. a player can exploit a 70/30 edge for an entire year and lose everytime, the long run let's say is 30 years where the winrate will be apparent for this edge, lot's of people go busto before they can even objectively view their winrate in terms of "the long haul"

[ColdCaller]

[ 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 ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]