Percentage of online players who are profitable

[Fierce Lion7]

Too funny!

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[shymijo2love4]

im very profitable but i only play very low micros LOL.

[illegit]

[ QUOTE ]
According to my poker tracker stats which has 537,643 hands for 12,576 different players, 38.82% are winners and 61.18% are losers. This doesn't seem right to me but stats can lie.


[/ QUOTE ]
That's an average of 42 hands per player i.e. utterly irrelevant in determining if they're actual long term winning players.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
95-5 would not surprise me.

Pokertracker databased are biased.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've spoken to mgmt at some of the sites, I've heard 92%+ are losers, depending on how long a time frame you define it over.
From multiple firms I've heard this.

[Gigglegirl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
According to my poker tracker stats which has 537,643 hands for 12,576 different players, 38.82% are winners and 61.18% are losers. This doesn't seem right to me but stats can lie.


[/ QUOTE ]
That's an average of 42 hands per player i.e. utterly irrelevant in determining if they're actual long term winning players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate that. However the OP didn't specify 'long term winning players'. He said % of players who are profitable online.
I think people are over complicating the question.
If a player plays 100 hands, wins $10 and never plays again, he's a winner. If a player plays 100 hands and loses $10 he's a loser.
Its simplistic (and maybe not helpful) but it's what I feel the OP was asking.
If we take only players that have a large enough sample size played surely the % of winners is going to be similarly skewed?
I would imagine that the more hands a person plays, the more likely it is that they are a winner since winners will continue playing whereas losers will either quit or go broke.

[chicagoY]

amazing numbers when you consider the game's popularity.

[emerson]

[ QUOTE ]
One more point. As you, runout_mick, suggest winners at one level will tend to be losers at a higher level, and that may result in a higher percentage of players being losers overall. Hard to figure that with any precision though, except by those who have access to the players' accounts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that most of those who have done well over the long term made most of the money in years gone by. Most of those with a 3 year positive record are probably still losers over the last 12 months. Almost nobody (other than colluders) can beat the house rake with so few fish.

[lucky_mf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One more point. As you, runout_mick, suggest winners at one level will tend to be losers at a higher level, and that may result in a higher percentage of players being losers overall. Hard to figure that with any precision though, except by those who have access to the players' accounts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that most of those who have done well over the long term made most of the money in years gone by. Most of those with a 3 year positive record are probably still losers over the last 12 months. Almost nobody (other than colluders) can beat the house rake with so few fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't be serious? There are still tons of fish. I don't even think the games have gotten appreciably worse since last year.

Lucky

[formula72]

NOT TO SOUND LIKE A KNOW IT ALL..
have done a lot of research on the topic for a long time and without getting into the numbers here is the the most simplistic and probably most accurate answer you will get.

If everybody was forced to play at the same limit and never more ever and played 1million hands in which a rake pulled 5 percent of the pot, you are looking at 85-15. It is the players who have the ability but move up above their bankroll and run unlucky whiched causes the numbers te really be at about 92-8. THIS IS PRETTY CLOSE

[formula72]

"....forced to play at the same limit and never MOVED....