how many players are winners?

[True]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm winning

[/ QUOTE ]

must be a small sample

[ikestoys]

i is a winner, my mommy told me so...

[roundhouse]

[ QUOTE ]
I remember reading some post a long time ago that basically said that the 40/60 pt spread was incorrect, even though that's what everyone's PTDB says, and it explained why. I think it concluded that 10-20% of all online players are LONG TERM winners.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, the 40/60 split means diddly-squat - see here for the reason why.

RH

[delta k]

winner. it's amazing to think that most people aren't yet they continue to play and pay us winners.

there have been posts on 2+2...i dont think the majority of people here are winners.

[Whitewash]

[ QUOTE ]
I remember reading some post a long time ago that basically said that the 40/60 pt spread was incorrect, even though that's what everyone's PTDB says, and it explained why. I think it concluded that 10-20% of all online players are LONG TERM winners.

[/ QUOTE ]

I first read that from a post on Cardplayer forums a while ago. I'm not a statistician but it sounds convincing.

http://forums.cardplayer.com/forums/...ic.php?t=32034

These numbers are based on 2/4 limit poker online, which is probably just about the same as 100NL.

It's not just that rake creates a small number of winners - it's also that there are generally a small number of people making a LOT of money in proportion to the stakes. "It takes lots of fish to feed a few winners."

[ajmargarine]

[ QUOTE ]


there have been posts on 2+2...i dont think the majority of people here are winners.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on your parameters. If you take ALL the 2p2'ers, no, a majority is probably losing at poker.

If you take the SSNL regulars who have been around and contribute and are known, 90+% are winning pokah players.

[pr0crast]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I remember reading some post a long time ago that basically said that the 40/60 pt spread was incorrect, even though that's what everyone's PTDB says, and it explained why. I think it concluded that 10-20% of all online players are LONG TERM winners.

[/ QUOTE ]

I first read that from a post on Cardplayer forums a while ago. I'm not a statistician but it sounds convincing.

http://forums.cardplayer.com/forums/...ic.php?t=32034

These numbers are based on 2/4 limit poker online, which is probably just about the same as 100NL.

It's not just that rake creates a small number of winners - it's also that there are generally a small number of people making a LOT of money in proportion to the stakes. "It takes lots of fish to feed a few winners."

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for the link.

fyi the equivalent of 100nl 6max is probably closer to 3/6 or 5/10 limit.

[True]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I remember reading some post a long time ago that basically said that the 40/60 pt spread was incorrect, even though that's what everyone's PTDB says, and it explained why. I think it concluded that 10-20% of all online players are LONG TERM winners.

[/ QUOTE ]

I first read that from a post on Cardplayer forums a while ago. I'm not a statistician but it sounds convincing.

http://forums.cardplayer.com/forums/...ic.php?t=32034

These numbers are based on 2/4 limit poker online, which is probably just about the same as 100NL.

It's not just that rake creates a small number of winners - it's also that there are generally a small number of people making a LOT of money in proportion to the stakes. "It takes lots of fish to feed a few winners."

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for the link.

fyi the equivalent of 100nl 6max is probably closer to 3/6 or 5/10 limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow no way, 100nl = 1/2 limit

[tufat23]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I remember reading some post a long time ago that basically said that the 40/60 pt spread was incorrect, even though that's what everyone's PTDB says, and it explained why. I think it concluded that 10-20% of all online players are LONG TERM winners.

[/ QUOTE ]

I first read that from a post on Cardplayer forums a while ago. I'm not a statistician but it sounds convincing.

http://forums.cardplayer.com/forums/...ic.php?t=32034

These numbers are based on 2/4 limit poker online, which is probably just about the same as 100NL.

It's not just that rake creates a small number of winners - it's also that there are generally a small number of people making a LOT of money in proportion to the stakes. "It takes lots of fish to feed a few winners."

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for the link.

fyi the equivalent of 100nl 6max is probably closer to 3/6 or 5/10 limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow no way, 100nl = 1/2 limit

[/ QUOTE ]

nah bro. NL100 plays in size probably closest to LHE3/6 imo.

think about it, dropping $100 at LHE1/2 is a pretty bad day, but its nothing at NL100. why u think when i have my LHE adventures i only play LHE1/2? It plays imo somewhere between NL25-NL50

[the machine]

i think i would be if it wasnt for variance. only 3k hands but 1.16BB/100 sucks and maybe i suck