% winning players vs % losing players *DELETED*

jkamowitz · #1 10-10-2007, 01:21 PM

Post deleted by jkamowitz

Brooklyn Fats · #2 10-10-2007, 01:23 PM

Why don't you take a pole?

Overseer55 · #3 10-10-2007, 01:34 PM

First of all, rake + tokes are likely taking ~4 BB/hr off the table ($7/half-hr time charge x ~9 seats x 2 time charges/hr + $30 in tokes = $156/hr = 3.9BB/hr).

I would also add a "donator" category, since some players are really, really bad (even at 20/40).

I would break it down like this:

Consistent winners (1 to 3 BB/hr): 10%
Small winners (0.5 to 1 BB/hr): 20%
Break even players (-0.5 to 0.5BB/hr): 25%
Small losers (-0.5 to -1 BB/hr): 20%
Medium losers (-1 to -3 BB/hr): 15%
Donators (-3 to -10 BB/hr): 10%

This is based on about 200 hrs of experience at a live 20/40 game. IMO, if it weren't for the donators, the live games would not really be worth playing.

jkamowitz · #4 10-10-2007, 01:40 PM

This was roughly my thinking too. Although I think that consistent winners is actually a smaller percentage.

I too believe that break even players make up the majority.

My friend thought otherwise that big losers make up a big percentage and that there weren't as many break even players. Just curious what you guys think.

Sorry I deleted the post, I thought it was going to go no where. But If possible I can bring it back.

Brooklyn Fats · #5 10-10-2007, 01:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This was roughly my thinking too. Although I think that consistent winners is actually a smaller percentage.

I too believe that break even players make up the majority.

My friend thought otherwise that big losers make up a big percentage and that there weren't as many break even players. Just curious what you guys think.

Sorry I deleted the post, I thought it was going to go no where. But If possible I can bring it back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkscope's experience is that one third are winners and two thirds are losers. I believe this is a most reliable source, even though they track only sit and go's. Sharkscope's results can be extrapolated to your question, since the house must make money, someone must pay off the house, and the remainder of the players keep the games going. So its a third winners, a third break even, and a third losers.

I don't believe there would be an accurate, moreover reliable solution to your query, since you would have to collect a representative sample of the population of mid limit players.

Mr Rick · #6 10-10-2007, 05:23 PM

on-line it has been consistently 60% losers vs 40% winners. That is pretty much inline with Overseer's breakdown assuming that the breakeven players split about 15% losers to 10% winners.

Live I think it could be 66% losers or higher, because it seems like bad players leave after busting out a lot more frequently than good players leave after having a good run. Good players tend to stay at the table when it is favorable...

Captain R · #7 10-10-2007, 06:12 PM

[ 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.

sternroolz · #8 10-10-2007, 06:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
on-line it has been consistently 60% losers vs 40% winners. That is pretty much inline with Overseer's breakdown assuming that the breakeven players split about 15% losers to 10% winners.

Live I think it could be 66% losers or higher, because it seems like bad players leave after busting out a lot more frequently than good players leave after having a good run. Good players tend to stay at the table when it is favorable...

[/ QUOTE ]

It's nowhere near 30% of live players win. Factor in the house drop and its like 5% of live players are long term winners and another 10-15% are breakeven(-.5 to +.5 BB/h). There is rarely another 2+2er or winning player at my table when I play at Commerce $20-40. I have not yet come across a winning player in the $8-16 at Hawaiian Gardens.

ssmallz · #9 10-10-2007, 10:44 PM

[ 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

HOWMANY · #10 10-10-2007, 10:49 PM

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

[/ QUOTE ]

You may not see any good players but someone has to make the money

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this quite possibly be untrue in small games with giant drop. Over however many hours I played 8/16 live there were only 3 people I can recall playing with that I am pretty sure were winning players (one was for sure) and they were not regulars in the game. I strongly suspect that only the drop monster was winning if one of us was not in the game. If there are 9 people playing atrociously and just limping preflop and playing super passive postflop and nobody taking advantage of any of the mistakes then the people that are slightly tighter may have a small edge against the other players but I think it's likely that they are so bad that their edge does not make up for the drop.

I've had similar discussions with a 2+2er about a certain live game we are/were regulars in and when we get to the "is X a winning player" discussion they always say no but the game is big enough in this case that I think your idea is correct. The people we are talking about are really pretty bad players but in situations where none of the strong or expert players are in the game the smaller drop relative to the stakes probably makes them a winner.