The "Primary" reason why there are less than 10% LONG TERM winners?

[Poker Plan]

[ QUOTE ]



If I had to state a primary reason why there are so few winning players is because learning poker is very counter-intuitive. Players will often get rewarded for making poor decisions and punished for making correct ones. When you touch a stove and you burn yourself, you learn to not touch the stove any more. (Note I have no extensive knowledge on the learning process or the brain itself.) Learning poker is difficult because have to ignore short term results. Even if 10% of players realize this then they have to figure out what is correct and what isn't REGARDLESS of results and that's a whole other can of worms.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO, this is the best offering so far.

I am far from convinced about the rake being the reason.
All you can say for definite about the rake is:
-It makes you take home less than you would without it (obvious)
-If you are not profitin much- it will put you into the red.

Theoretically- if we ALL had the SAME skill level, we would ALL be losers, except for the rake.

So if you accept the last statement as true, you can't then say that the rake "is the reason" why only 5%(ish) of players are long term winners.

My own personal view is the same as the poster I have quoted here- to be able to beat the game over the long term is just so alien to the VAST majority.

Ian

[thebeebster]

pbj.

[kazana]

[ QUOTE ]
Theoretically- if we ALL had the SAME skill level, we would ALL be losers, except for the rake.

So if you accept the last statement as true, you can't then say that the rake "is the reason" why only 5%(ish) of players are long term winners.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how the previous statement being true makes it incorrect to claim rake is the reason. Please elaborate.

Did you read fabadam's reply?

[Poker Plan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Theoretically- if we ALL had the SAME skill level, we would ALL be losers, except for the rake.

So if you accept the last statement as true, you can't then say that the rake "is the reason" why only 5%(ish) of players are long term winners.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how the previous statement being true makes it incorrect to claim rake is the reason. Please elaborate.

Did you read fabadam's reply?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK: How about this:-

Take away the cards and the winning hands, etc. Replace with a dice. Six players. 1 number each. 1 chip ante per turn off everyone. Winner takes all but House takes 1 chip in rake.

Over 5 million goes- we all should be losers, right? The win and losses have evened out- but we've all payed the rake each time. An even distribution, yeah?

What I am trying to demonstrate is that just by having a rake system, does not (to me) explain why there should be such a high proportion of losers (95%) to winners (5%)?

What "actually" makes it 5% (or some say even less)- rather than say 25% or 30%?

Ian

[kazana]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how the previous statement being true makes it incorrect to claim rake is the reason. Please elaborate.

Did you read fabadam's reply?

[/ QUOTE ]

What "actually" makes it 5% (or some say even less)- rather than say 25% or 30%?

[/ QUOTE ]
Read the bold part. Then read his reply. That should explain how that is possible.

[jb9]

[ QUOTE ]
Rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are asking "what other than rake is the biggest contributing factor to losing", I'd say ego -- specifically, overestimating your own skill level. Emotional control would be a close third.

[Poker Plan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how the previous statement being true makes it incorrect to claim rake is the reason. Please elaborate.

Did you read fabadam's reply?

[/ QUOTE ]

What "actually" makes it 5% (or some say even less)- rather than say 25% or 30%?

[/ QUOTE ]
Read the bold part. Then read his reply. That should explain how that is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did read it.

What it does it explain is "why" today's current crop of poker players are in the red. (Because of the non-linear nature of the bell curve)

What it does not explain (and what I am trying to get to the bottom of) is "Why" players are distributed in the ratios they are; along the bell curve?

You almost make it sound like there's a mathematical reason (some critical mass) that only "allows" 5% of players to be long term winners.

Sorry for any confusion: I really am interested in this point. It is the main thing that got me interested in poker over a year ago- Why do only a small percentage of people really succeed at that game?

Ian

[jb9]

[ QUOTE ]
What it does not explain (and what I am trying to get to the bottom of) is "Why" players are distributed in the ratios they are; along the bell curve?

You almost make it sound like there's a mathematical reason (some critical mass) that only "allows" 5% of players to be long term winners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like what you are really asking about is the skill v. luck factor of the game.

I can't remember which book, but I think it might be Gambling Theory and Other Topics (Malmuth), has some discussion about game structure and how that influences how much luck is in the game.

The level of luck influences how interested people are in playing it. Too much luck and it becomes "a crapshoot" and skilled players lose interest. Too little luck and non-skilled players lose interest (and their money).

Games that have a good mix of luck are more sustainable as the skilled players keep the games populated and the non-skilled players don't lose so much money that they give up. However, this means the "edge" of the skilled player is small. So small that the rake is proportionally quite large and turns many small winners into losers.

[poker_n00b]

self control and discipline. I KNOW FOR SURE.

[2461Badugi]

[ QUOTE ]

What it does not explain (and what I am trying to get to the bottom of) is "Why" players are distributed in the ratios they are; along the bell curve?


[/ QUOTE ]

Then you should have posted this in SMP.