Winning Players

[rakemeplz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've heard 10%, but that may be optimistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard this figure too, but I'm not sure it's right. 45% of players are >0BB/100 according to my PT database, and this number increases as I filter for a greater number of PROS.

[/ QUOTE ]

fp

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've heard 10%, but that may be optimistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard this figure too, but I'm not sure it's right. 45% of players are >0BB/100 according to my PT database, and this number increases as I filter for a greater number of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Survivor bias.

OP, if I had to pick a number, it would be about 5% are winning players, though maybe 10% end up beating the game (winning players who don't go busto + losing players who win some and don't lose it all back, like they go on a heater or win a tourney, withdraw a good percentage and lose the rest and don't redeposit.)

[jackaaron]

Could it be possible that the population of players that play predominately cash games have a higher percentage of profitable players than the population of players that predominately play MTTs and/or STTs?

[ConfusedAgain]

I guess the 5% casino edge online crushes even decent players over the long run except at higher stakes where it is maxed out easily. Higher limits could have much larger % of winners.

[jtr]

Survivor bias sounds cool, and I'm sure it has some effect on the problem. But it's a much more complicated concept than is needed to explain the basic pattern in the data, i.e., that a surprisingly high percentage (e.g, 40%) of players look like winners in people's databases when we believe from other sources that only 10% of players are actually long-term winners. Generate some win-rate numbers drawn from the appropriate distribution for the typical numbers of hands played by people in your PT database and you'll see what I mean.

[boc4life]

[ QUOTE ]
Could it be possible that the population of players that play predominately cash games have a higher percentage of profitable players than the population of players that predominately play MTTs and/or STTs?

[/ QUOTE ]

No

[AlanBostick]

[ QUOTE ]
Survivor bias sounds cool, and I'm sure it has some effect on the problem. But it's a much more complicated concept than is needed to explain the basic pattern in the data, i.e., that a surprisingly high percentage (e.g, 40%) of players look like winners in people's databases when we believe from other sources that only 10% of players are actually long-term winners. Generate some win-rate numbers drawn from the appropriate distribution for the typical numbers of hands played by people in your PT database and you'll see what I mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never seen a reliable cite for the 90%-losers-10%-winners statistic. It strikes me as being a number some poker author pulled out of his butt.

[jtr]

You may well be right, Alan.

My post was not so much about the validity of the "10% winners" assumption, more about the fact that 10% winners long term is not incompatible with 40% winners in many people's medium-sized PT databases.

As for the reliability of the 10% claim, the only semi-reliable cite I know of was I think a CardPlayer article where the author had been talking to unnamed sources at two of the larger online sites (i.e., Party & Stars one assumes) and was told in both cases that only 7-9% of their customers were in the black.

Forgive me for not digging up the reference, I am probably just contributing to the further circulation of what might just be an urban poker legend.

[kemystery]

try thinking of it this way;

In a hand of poker 1 person out of nine will win the pot, barring a split. Over the lifetime of the game if the same 9 players play (or 9 million) on average only the percentage that represents 1/9 would show a profit (in a zero sum scenario)

[Turn Prophet]

My guess would be 15% or less.