Percentage of winning 2+2ers

[roundhouse]

[ QUOTE ]
My Party 3/6 DB
FILTER WINNER/LOSER
no filter 41/59
50 hands 45/55
200 hands 47/53
1000 hands 48/52

The original poster saya 90% are 'long-term losers'.. but from this data, I can argue that there really isn't any such thing as a long-term loser. The longer the term, the higher proportion of winning players. Losing players seem to be much more prone to quitting before becoming a relatively long-term player.

[/ QUOTE ]

1000 hands is still nowhere near enough to draw these conclusions - see my previous post.

(Though I think you're correct that you are more likely to have 1000 hands on a good player than a bad, but IMO this has more to do with the fact that the better players play more regularly - and are more likely to multitable - you come across them more often rather than being a function of longevity.)

Cheers,
RH

[KKbluff]

Very well put.

With that said I have a friend who plays 10/20 short handed and 15/30 full and is a +1.5 BB/hour player over many thousands of hands, BUT he can not grasp this concept due to the fact that his pokertracker database misleads him.
I have tried a few times to explain this concept to him, but your explaination of this is very well put and I will have to point him to your post.
Nice post!

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
My Party 3/6 DB
FILTER WINNER/LOSER
no filter 41/59
50 hands 45/55
200 hands 47/53
1000 hands 48/52

The original poster saya 90% are 'long-term losers'.. but from this data, I can argue that there really isn't any such thing as a long-term loser. The longer the term, the higher proportion of winning players. Losing players seem to be much more prone to quitting before becoming a relatively long-term player.

[/ QUOTE ]
Raze,

The problem isn't resulting from you not having enough total hands. What's lacking is the hand sample on each player individually. In your database, you will see winning players that ran bad and lost, and losing players that ran well and won. The amount won doesn't matter in that stat. Lots of long term losing players have 5 hands in your database and won for those 5 hands. That will skew the results incredibly. Sample size is an issue. If each player in your database had 75,000 hands, you would see something closer to the 90/10 ratio.

[ QUOTE ]
I can argue that there really isn't any such thing as a long-term loser.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is entirely false. If they quit playing, all they've done is postponed the problem indefinitely. Unless they improve their game, they will lose. Others are in denial. Others are compulsive gamblers. All of these types are long term losers.

Everyone's game (now..at this point in time) has a true winrate. Just because we have no way of knowing what it is, doesn't mean it's non-existant. The phrase "long term" means what's expected to happen if the current rate were applied for a certain period of time, or in this case, number of hands. It doesn't mean that a person has to actually play for a long time.

[andyexpat]

I think that 2+2ers are more likely to be winning players, because they are obviously making a conscious effort to improve their game, by reading 2+2 books, and regularly contributing to the forum.
Cheers [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ebranig]

[ QUOTE ]
Several online sites are on record as saying that about 7% of real money players are winners.

[/ QUOTE ]

link please.

[raze]

Fair enough stewie. You guys seriously think only 10% of players are winners, huh? Kind of makes me smile [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[gabbahh]

[ QUOTE ]
but that means half of us are losing and still posting advice to others on how to properly play

[/ QUOTE ]
When I am thinking something different than other posters in a certain thread, I will post my advice. Not necassary because I think I am right, but because I know I will be corrected when I am of the mark. So don't worry about bad advice: if it is bad you will see a lot of negative replies to the advice.

So if you have certain thoughts about a subject which is controversial or just plain different then all the other advice you see: post it and learn. This is way better then not mention your thoughts, since you might be on to something.

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough stewie. You guys seriously think only 10% of players are winners, huh? Kind of makes me smile [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this. I think it's lower, from what I've seen. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Edit: I think the 7% number is far from "well documented," but it comes from a Jackpot Jay article on ESPN.com. He was talking to a couple of online poker executives at the WSOP last year. Without naming the sites, he said the percentage of winning players given were 6% and 8% over the course of the year.

I think in ring games, this number is slightly higher, but tournament play probably brings it down significantly.

Edit 2: I seem to remember Barry Greenstein giving a slightly more optomistic view in Ace on the River, though I can't remember exactly...maybe it was about 20% breakeven or better, 10% winning, and 5% winning significantly. Those aren't cumulative (so it's not a total of 35% breakeven or better - rather, the winners are a subset of the first 20%).

[Chromis]

The problem isn't resulting from you not having enough total hands. What's lacking is the hand sample on each player individually. In your database, you will see winning players that ran bad and lost, and losing players that ran well and won. The amount won doesn't matter in that stat. Lots of long term losing players have 5 hands in your database and won for those 5 hands. That will skew the results incredibly. Sample size is an issue. If each player in your database had 75,000 hands, you would see something closer to the 90/10 ratio.


I don't quite follow this. It should'nt make any difference if you look at 5 hands from each of a thousand players or 5000 hands from one equally skilled player. The results should be the same.
It seems much more likely to me that the results are skewed because a lot of the data from players with few hands logged are from hands played against each other .

[bernie]

If you know how to watch a hand, and analyze it, it doesn't take even close to 1000 hands to figure if someone is playing winning poker.

Even easier when they explain their thought process about their plays.

b