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

[miajag]

[ QUOTE ]
Rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does this thread have 20+ replies when the correct answer was given in the very first one?

[Lunger]

Tommy Angelo has an article that talks about this:

Zero Sum Minus Some

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry- I don't quite agree. The rake is the same for everyone. What explains the dis-proportionate balance of winners to losers?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing the point. Without a rake, poker is a zero-sum game. For every dollar somebody loses, somebody else wins a dollar. Add a rake, drop, or time charge to the equation, and poker is a negative sum game. If there were no skill involved, everybody would lose long term. Because there is a large element of skill to poker, a minority of good players can extract enough from the bad players to pay the rake, and still have something left over. Good poker players like to think of themselves as sharks. But in a raked game, the true shark is the house, and the winning players are really remoras, who attach themselves to the shark and grab a few crumbs from the fish that the shark is devouring.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry- I don't quite agree. The rake is the same for everyone. What explains the dis-proportionate balance of winners to losers?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Pareto Principle:

[ QUOTE ]
The Pareto principle (also known as the 80-20 rule, the law of the vital few and the principle of factor sparsity) states that for many phenomena, 80% of the consequences stem from 20% of the causes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which says that 20% of the players win 80% of the money that is left after the rake.

[raze]

This is how I understand it - in a 5/10 game WITHOUT rake, say there are six players with winrates of (in bb/100) 4, 2, 0.5, -0.5, -2, and -4. 50% of players are winners, and 50% are losers.

Now, when we apply the rake of 2.2bb/100 (to everybody, you mentioned above that the rake is the same for everyone), these winrates are now 1.8, -0.2, -1.7, -2.7, -4.2, and -6.2. The split is now 17% winners, 83% losers.

The simple fact is the high rake will turn any winning player in a large range (from 0 to 2.2bb) into a loser.

[tilted]

most people are dumb and lack discipline.

[lehighguy]

The rake.

Do the math, don't be lazy.

It isn't because everyones an idiot. If every who played poker got twice as good then the winner % would be the same (actually, less I'd argue, but that's more math).

[SamG]

[ QUOTE ]

It isn't because everyones an idiot. If every who played poker got twice as good then the winner % would be the same (actually, less I'd argue, but that's more math).

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe the % of winners would be SUBSTANTIALLY smaller if everyone starting playing "twice as good." A great player's edge over a good player is much smaller than a good player's edge over an idiot, so fewer good-to-great players would be able to overcome the rake.

Of course, you're clearly correct that the rake is the reason few people beat the games.

Incidentally, I think someone pulled the 10% winners figure out of a hat once upon a time, and it has become a factoid everyone accepts as true because it's repeated so often. I would bet that more than 10% of the players playing on the Party real money tables right now are long-term winners, but of course I can't prove it.

[SamG]

[ QUOTE ]
This is how I understand it - in a 5/10 game WITHOUT rake, say there are six players with winrates of (in bb/100) 4, 2, 0.5, -0.5, -2, and -4. 50% of players are winners, and 50% are losers.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just because rakefree poker is an even sum game doesn't mean there would be 50% winners and 50% losers.

[lehighguy]

Poker execs have stated it is close to 8%. I saw the quote a long time ago.

Of that 8%, some are just barely break even. Those making 2bb/100 are very very small.