Which percentage of poker players are winners?

[bkellog1]

well, what are everyones stats from PT in the summary section? What % of players do you have that are overall winners/losers?

[lotus guardian]

That doesn't really count, cause you are going to have a very small sample size on most of those players so it's going to be much closer to 50%.

[BugsBunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No way its higher than 10%, u got to be kidding me

[/ QUOTE ]

So then, every time I sit down at a full ring game, all the rest of the players are losers? Really?

Funny, my bankroll doesn't show that...

[/ QUOTE ]

No. What happens is that winners keep on playing. At any given table you probably have more than 10% winners. Probably more like 20-30% + 10% or so break even. Of the active poker players at any given time more than 10% are winners. Losers tend to bust out and then get replaced by new losers.

So the 10% figure represents the winners in the entire poker population, including all those that busted out never to play again.

Somebody, I think in Cardplayer, did an article on this, IIRC. But I don't remember who. Cooke? It was a while ago.

[lotus guardian]

That's what I was looking for, an article on cardplayer or some respectable poker site. If someone had a link I'd appreciate it.

[kslghost]

I believe on the internet its considerably higher than 10% due to the rake being much much lower than live. I believe this 10% quote was a saying about live games because the rake is much harder to beat there. You not only have to win money from other plays, but you must also do it faster than the rake takes away from your stack.

As for people who continue to play over time, I'd say that a good 15% or more could be winners. If you include people who deposit one to two times, run it up and lose and quit, it would probably be lower than 15%.

[mikesd619]

I think the rate that is most widely used is 12.5% but I realy believe this to be too high

[Synergistic Explosions]

I think because of the amount that is raked each year from the pool of players, the number of winners couldn't possibly be more than 10%.

I base this reasoning on the fact that most players online play for small stakes where the rake is the most detrimental to winning long term. Therefore the number has to be low.

[xSCWx]

Sharkscope showed 1/3 accounts were profitable.

[RoundGuy]

[/ QUOTE ]
Also I thought you were saying that you had a low bankroll which made me think you sucked, which im sure you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where, exactly, in my post did I say I had a low bankroll? Are you really that ignorant? Or are you ignoring my question?

I meant that my bankroll does not reflect the fact that, on average, every table I sit at is filled with losers. Which, if what you are implying is correct, should be the case.

Let's leave me out of it. Let's say *you* are a winning poker player. Does that mean that every time, on average, that *you* sit at a full table, all the rest of the players, on average, are losers?

[lotus guardian]

Most people have few sng's played at sharkscope, and it's pretty easy for a loser to show a profit over a couple of hundred sng's.