% winning players vs % losing players *DELETED*

[sternroolz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have not yet come across a winning player in the $8-16 at Hawaiian Gardens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if every player is awful at the table, someone has to be less awful and therefore will get the money. You may not see any good players but someone has to make the money

[/ QUOTE ]

#1 No, the only winner has to be the house. If all players are equally bad(or good), there are no winners. The game drops $4+1 to the house and $1 on no flops. Thats plenty enough money sucked out of the game to = no long term winners.

#2 Its not like players stick to the same location, or even play with any sort of consistency. There is one guy at HG that was probably a slight loser when I used to play Commerce $9-18 and now plays at HG $8-16 and is probably break even or a small winner. But thats it. Everyone in that game is awful. While some are more awful than others, I don't think its enough to tilt in anyone players overwhelming advantage(except me).

[pocketpared]

That's right. Rake and tips mean poker isn't a zero sum game.

[ImBetterAtGolf]

A few observations:

1. It's pretty hard for a donator who plays much to lose more than 3BB/hr. At 3BB/hr for 500hrs/year, that's $60k at 20/40; not many people can do that and remain solvent. So, while I think there are donators losing more than that, they aren't playing a lot of hours, limiting their impact on the other player's win rate. My own experience is that about half the time there is a 3BB/hr donator at the table (the other half the time, i'm not on tilt.) While I am a bit more pessimistic than Overseer55, I think that in the presence of a donator there are maybe 3 winners at the table. However, when there is no donator, the math doesn't work out nearly as well. Now it is difficult to have more than one winner!

2. About a year ago there was a thread wherein respondents gave their previous year's total poker win. Out of the HUGE number of responses that i read, only two posters admitted to losing money. Point is that people lie about their win rate, a lot.

3. For those of you who are not big winners, think about your win rate and how you compare to the others in the game. I'll bet that if you have a small positive rate, you will simultaneously believe that you are better than the great majority of the players in your regular room. That's because you have to be one of the best players in the room in order to be a small winner.

4. We have really been talking about what percentage of the seats at the table are occupied by winning players. That's very different from answering what fraction of the players are winners. The former question weights players by the amount of time they play, the latter doesn't. Since a lot of players play only a little and they are usually bad, the percentage of all players who lose is much higher than anyone here has estimated. But, when viewed from the perspective of assessing the people sitting down at a table at any given time, the estimates become more defensible.

[Adebisi]

[ QUOTE ]
It's pretty hard for a donator who plays much to lose more than 3BB/hr. At 3BB/hr for 500hrs/year, that's $60k at 20/40; not many people can do that and remain solvent

[/ QUOTE ]

That's like 15k hands/year. These types can win for several years in a row. Some guys like this can bounce around various limits for 5-10 years before finally going bust. Also, losing 60k/year isn't that much for a guy who owns a succesful small business or two. I've never really been a huge live player, but from what I have seen, there's no shortage of regular bad players who own restaurants, bars, construction companies, convenience stores, etc. I think owning a business is probably the most common occupation of terrible players that play a lot. A casino is usually drawing from a geographic customer base of ten million plus . There will be plenty of people that group that can afford to lose lots of money every year.

[Overseer55]

[ QUOTE ]
1. It's pretty hard for a donator who plays much to lose more than 3BB/hr. At 3BB/hr for 500hrs/year, that's $60k at 20/40; not many people can do that and remain solvent.

[/ QUOTE ]
You would be surprised at the horrid play I see from some people at the 20/40 game that I play at...I've seen a couple people cold-call caps PF with 96o (and hit a boat). I would estimate that their BEST possible "win" rate is -3 BB/hr. I would not be surprised if a loose fish can lose money at -8 BB/hr when he is playing more fishy than normal.

The thing to remember is:
1) They are not playing 500 hours / year. Donators are probably playing 50-100 hours / year.
2) Many of them are very wealthy and to them, losing $1k at the 20/40 game in 6 hours once a month is not a big deal to them.
3) There are many such donators in the game.

Now, I have to caveat that I play at Brantford (small charity casino in Southern Ontario) and that the regular largest game is 20/40 (50/100 spreads on Tuesdays). So, all the real "sharks" that can beat the 100/200 game in LA & Vegas are not playing in that game...so, my experience may be vastly different than yours.

However, I've seen similar donators in the 20 game at Bay 101 and the 30 game at Bellagio.

[Overseer55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Consistent winners (1 to 3 BB/hr): 10%


[/ QUOTE ]

Is there really anyone out there that can win 3BB/hr.? I would be astonished if there were. I don't know of anyone making over 1.5 BB/hr., and even that is extremely good and maybe not sustainable over 100k hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
Probably not over the long run...but, I imagine there's a couple % making >2 BB/hr at live games, just given how bad some players are...

[sternroolz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Consistent winners (1 to 3 BB/hr): 10%


[/ QUOTE ]

Is there really anyone out there that can win 3BB/hr.? I would be astonished if there were. I don't know of anyone making over 1.5 BB/hr., and even that is extremely good and maybe not sustainable over 100k hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
Probably not over the long run...but, I imagine there's a couple % making >2 BB/hr at live games, just given how bad some players are...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd find that hard to believe given the house drop and full tables.

With a marginal house drop and short handed games, I think it would be possible if some players were bad or predicatble enough.

[jkamowitz]

mmm late night short handed free time games.

[Overseer55]

[ QUOTE ]
mmm late night short handed free time games.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah...nothing tops those games! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Brooklyn Fats]

[ QUOTE ]
A few observations:

1. It's pretty hard for a donator who plays much to lose more than 3BB/hr. At 3BB/hr for 500hrs/year, that's $60k at 20/40; not many people can do that and remain solvent.







It is at the Bogata.

2. About a year ago there was a thread wherein respondents gave their previous year's total poker win. Out of the HUGE number of responses that i read, only two posters admitted to losing money. Point is that people lie about their win rate, a lot.









Not necesarily on two plus two. The tendency is that the better players are in fact on two plus two.

3. For those of you who are not big winners, think about your win rate and how you compare to the others in the game. I'll bet that if you have a small positive rate, you will simultaneously believe that you are better than the great majority of the players in your regular room. That's because you have to be one of the best players in the room in order to be a small winner.









Who's to say who is better or worse? You can only keep track of yourself honestly, and many can't even do that.

4. We have really been talking about what percentage of the seats at the table are occupied by winning players. That's very different from answering what fraction of the players are winners. The former question weights players by the amount of time they play, the latter doesn't. Since a lot of players play only a little and they are usually bad, the percentage of all players who lose is much higher than anyone here has estimated. But, when viewed from the perspective of assessing the people sitting down at a table at any given time, the estimates become more defensible.










I don't believe this will ever be answered accurately.

[/ QUOTE ]