% of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

Maybe 90%?

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe 90%?

[/ QUOTE ]

that is crazy

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

Maybe not.

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

replace "2+2" with "p5" and you have a far more perplexing question with very disturbing answers.

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

I figure alot have accounts just never post much. Also alot of big winners have joined that were already top players. You figure probably not even 10% of on-line players win.

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

How do you define 2p2?

A lot of people at least have accounts with 3-4 posts.

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

5-7%

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

I was counting all accounts. Even the small post counts likely lurk on a regular basis. I lurk nearly everyday but rarely post. So yeah if only counting frequent posters the number would be lower.

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

[ QUOTE ]
How do you define 2p2?

A lot of people at least have accounts with 3-4 posts.

[/ QUOTE ]
Post count of @ least 100 or w/e it is when you get to member LDO

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

people who have any sort of accounts is probably around 40-60%

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

[ QUOTE ]
... very disturbing answers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

Like 15-20% tops.

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

i would assume it is INCREDIBLY small, as im sure atleast 50 percent of all 2+2 players r losing players. There are so many online players, u really think 50 percent of them post here?

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

110% just like the effort i give every day

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

[ QUOTE ]
i would assume it is INCREDIBLY small, as im sure atleast 50 percent of all 2+2 players r losing players. There are so many online players, u really think 50 percent of them post here?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ ] Reading Comprehension

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

never forget that there has never been a losing 2p2er

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

[ QUOTE ]
never forget that there has never been a losing 2p2er

[/ QUOTE ]

% of winning online players who post on 2+2 != % of 2+2 posters who win playing online

This is not super complicated.

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
never forget that there has never been a losing 2p2er

[/ QUOTE ]

% of winning online players who post on 2+2 != % of 2+2 posters who win playing online

This is not super complicated.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people who post in an NVG thread like this are probably the 2+2 posters that are the losing players.

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

i would guess like 20% have accounts here

maybe a bit higher.

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

Over 50%.

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

Something like under 40 or over 60

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

[ QUOTE ]
i would assume it is INCREDIBLY small, as im sure atleast 50 percent of all 2+2 players r losing players. There are so many online players, u really think 50 percent of them post here?

[/ QUOTE ]

i would love to point out the logic errors in this post, but the truth is i don't understand what you're trying to say at all.

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

Isn't this another 50/50 question?

Damn, wrong forum.

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

I'll take the under at 20.

Edit: Isn't this pretty easy to estimate though? Take number of online players (10 million?). Lets assume 2% of those are winning players. Thats 200.000 players. How many users does 2+2 have?

Yeah I'll definitely take the under.

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

My original guess was probably high. I play midstakes cash and rail highstakes. Dont keep track of micro stakes or tourneys at all. Alot of P5ers play tourneys, but alot of them have 2+2 accounts also. I still think its much higher than 50%.

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

for 3-6+ I'd say 40+ %

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

It's about 87.11%, but on Mondays it's only 86.97%.

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's about 87.11%, but on Mondays it's only 86.97%.

[/ QUOTE ]

i can confirm

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

eleventy percent.

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

15% max/thread
[img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

NVG:5%
OOT: 1.2%
BBV: 10%
O/O8: 49%-51%
MTT/STT: 25% other 75% still waiting for the long run
HSNL-Micro: 25%
Zoo: 0% Rigged OBV

So basically 115.2%-117.2% of 2+2'ers are whiners.

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

[ QUOTE ]
NVG:5%
OOT: 1.2%
BBV: 10%
O/O8: 49%-51%
MTT/STT: 25% other 75% still waiting for the long run
HSNL-Micro: 25%
Zoo: 0% Rigged OBV

So basically 115.2%-117.2% of 2+2'ers are whiners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Solid Analysis

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

For small small to big stakes limit hold em, i'd guess 75%+ of people who have produced positive winrates over 100k+ hands have posted at 2+2 at some point.

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

10% at most. I'd say it's closer to 5%.

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

Obviously this depends on what we call a winning player. If we count anyone who is up lifetime at online poker than the % is small. If we only count people who play on a regular basis and are winning than I would happily take the over on 20%.

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky
 

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

At 100NL and above, probably 95%.

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

I'm assuming you're including lurkers, if you only mean posters then it's impossible to say.

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

Whatever the % is it's much higher for NL and specifically HSNL than for online poker in general.

Imo.

Re: % of on-line winners that are 2+2?
 

after Party shut down and everyone outed their Party SNs, there were literally only a couple of Party SNs left that were winning regularly at MSNL who were unaccounted for. And some of them were probably non-American 2+2ers that didn't want to out themselves.