poker and losers

[allingator]

I think it's fairly obvious why, despite the plethora of knowledge and advanced strategical insight made available to the general public, there will always be a group of superior players. The fact is, Poker, like most any other game, is not so superficial. Other aspects such as talent effect the outcome greatly; in some cases much more than simply an insight into the games fundamentals. There will be players who have not read a single strategy book that play the game much better than someone who has read every strategy book and watched every instructional DVD made available to them.

There are extensive archives, DVD's, television programs etc. on how to play the game of chess, however, does reading a few books and watching a few DVD's make you a grand master? Obviously it doesn't.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it is true that at least 80% of the poker players will lose their money.only 5% can make a living of poker

[/ QUOTE ]

My estimate is that at least 70 percent of the regular players win. When I play it is very typical to be in a game where one player, usually a tourist, looses at a high rate that not only pays the rake but theorectically turns everyone else into a winner.

Bet wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

70%? You're crazy. Most people can't beat the rake, and that includes regulars too. Maybe as much as 80% regulars can't beat the rake online, and live it's worse, right?

[fuzz66]

i think one of the biggest factors involved in seperating winning players from losing players is game selection.with all the "poker education" out there today, i dont think there is enough emphasis on this subject.

[wizexel22]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it is true that at least 80% of the poker players will lose their money.only 5% can make a living of poker

[/ QUOTE ]

My estimate is that at least 70 percent of the regular players win. When I play it is very typical to be in a game where one player, usually a tourist, looses at a high rate that not only pays the rake but theorectically turns everyone else into a winner.

Bet wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

70%? You're crazy. Most people can't beat the rake, and that includes regulars too. Maybe as much as 80% regulars can't beat the rake online, and live it's worse, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I've heard this 5% before....but I think when people say 5%, they mean 5% that are considered "pros" that make a great living at poker. I know several people that just play poker for a living...and it seems everyone knows at least one. Even I "play for a living" as I haven't worked in over 6 months and I just play a couple times a week and make more than I did at my job. So I know many people that are "winners" in poker, but wouldn't be considered a "pro" of any sort.

As far as the 70%, that number does seem high. I'm wondering what the context is though. Maybe on a single table, 70% of the people are winning? Which is true for most of the games I play in. In really small games, it seems like only 1-2 people have huge stacks, but in my games, most of the table are fairly adequate players , all with positive stacks, and we (or at least I) depend on the 2-3 bad people being at the table to win any significant amount.

OR maybe he means 70% of people who "play often" are winners?, ....so he's excluding losers that have busted out and quit. I know 70% can't include everyone...cuz yeah, when I first started, there were LOTS of us playing in regular home games and at some point most took some sort of shot at the casinos...and now most of them simply don't play anymore. Only 2 of us are still playing, me being an above average player, and my friend who is now playing high stakes.

As far as why a few people are so good, its basically a combination of everything mentioned here, and usually not just one thing or one secret key to success.
First off, poker is a game that is very simple to learn, yet its very complex in nature and very difficult to master. So there is a big difference between knowing the rules, and playing well.
Then as mentioned, it USUALLY takes hard work...you need to study poker (if not books, at least play with a mentality to learn and improve and talk or think about hands) and most people aren't going to put in the effort. Its true of any profession really though, there are kids out there with the natural talent to play in the NBA or NFL, but don't have the work ethic to make it.

And lastly, there is such a thing as "talent" in poker. My friend went from playing $1/2 limit to playing $100/200 (and higher when available) in a matter of MONTHS despite not reading a single poker book. However, I have progressed much slower despite reading every book out there!

Why are there so few great poker players? Cuz the great ones have the entire "package". They are not just good at ONE or TWO things, but good in every aspect of the game. They take poker seriously, they know the math, they have good reading skills, they can think on multiple levels, they adjust well, they have patience and self control, etc etc. A serious deficiency in any one or two aspects of poker can make the biggest difference in the world and its what can seperate a merely good player from a great player.

[wizexel22]

fuzz66,
Thats a good point about game selection. Despite my friend and books telling me the importance of it, I pretty much dismissed it for a long time. It's only recently that I saw the importance of game selection. I could've saved myself a lot of money in the past. I think the an important lesson is also that if you take an abnormal amount of bad beats, you need to change tables. You can't correct a "losing image". If your image is tight or loose you can always counter act this and exploit it. But if you are labeled mentally as a "loser", what I noticed is people will play much more aggressively against you, and also call you more with their draws (and of course in turn you get sucked out on more often.). It's illogical. I'd think, "can't they see I was a heavy favorite going into the river!? I'm basically showing them great hands!" But to most people you didn't show down the almost winner, you showed down the LOSING hand and they will often decide to test their luck against yours.

[JavaNut]

I consider myself a mediocre player by 2+2 standard, but I am winning and have been almost from the beginning a little over 2 years ago. Lost my first deposit of $100 after having built it up to $200 in a month. Put in another $100 and took out $225 a few months later. Since then I haven't used my own money, only winnings, which of course includes bonuses.

I know that I make a lot of mistakes, I don't do much game/table selection, only to a very modest level do I try to exploit my opponents styles. Still I am winning.

I am what you might call a natural card player with a very good sense of combinations, IQ 150+, so from nature I have some advantage over most of the rest of the poker players, but still I shouldn't be winning that easily, I really should have to work harder for it.

I know that when I used to play bridge and chess, I would have had to work extremely much harder to get to this level I feel I am in poker in those games, never did bother. And what is the difference? Money.

For a short while after moving up a level, I can get to the point where I consider chips as money, but I get over it, and start to win a bit bigger again. I am not rich or anything, I've got a job with a decent pay. But the money I have on various sites is really not important to me, winning is.

I guess that many players that are losing are the other way round. Money is important to them, winning isn't.

[Dreamer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it is true that at least 80% of the poker players will lose their money.only 5% can make a living of poker

[/ QUOTE ]

My estimate is that at least 70 percent of the regular players win. When I play it is very typical to be in a game where one player, usually a tourist, looses at a high rate that not only pays the rake but theorectically turns everyone else into a winner.

Bet wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering that the vast majority of players (playing live) are playing in low limit games such as 2/4 and 3/6 makes a 70% winning claim frankly "off the charts" silly.

Did somebody hack into MM account?

D.

[MaxWeiss]

There's a couple aspects to this. First off, poker is not about being good or bad, it's about being better or worse. If more people "know how to play" then that does nothing more than change the dynamic of the game. There's still going to be winners and losers in that new game.

[allingator]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a couple aspects to this. First off, poker is not about being good or bad, it's about being better or worse. If more people "know how to play" then that does nothing more than change the dynamic of the game. There's still going to be winners and losers in that new game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, the winners are going to be those who evolve and adapt to an ever changing playing environment the best.

Keep in mind though, although it seems like everyone is learning to be a better player reading books and forums etc. the majority wouldn't be taking it so seriously or devoting so much time to improving their game. So although the landscape may be changing somewhat, it's not like we are going to be faced with a majority of highly trained professional players by any means.

[Abbaddabba]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Chomp:

I constantly see statement like "Only 2 percent of the people who play poker win" and it's flat out wrong.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

2% of people at any given table is not the same as 2% of people who play.

(i dont think it's 2%, but it's definitely a very low number for small to midstake games both live and online)


The exception to the rule would be big games. But we're talking about poker in general as far as i can tell. And for the vast majority of games that are played (live and online), there many losers for every winner.