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

[Mossberg]

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.

[captZEEbo]

[ 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.

[_TKO_]

[ 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.

[LinusKS]

[ 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.

[Rick Nebiolo]

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

[TomBrooks]

[ 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.

[sweetjazz]

[ 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.

[Gildwulf]

[ 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

[winky51]

[ 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.

[vhawk01]

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

Sounds about right.