|
|
#1
08-08-2006, 06:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
The \"Primary\" reason why there are less than 10% LONG TERM winners?
Various figures are thrown about as to how many people are long term winners at poker. I've heard figures of between 3 and 10%.
Whether it is 3 or 10 (or anywhere in between)- this is still a realtively small percentage. So what do people think is the the no.1 reason why 90%+ of players are long term losers? Ian 
|
|
#2
08-08-2006, 06:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The \"Primary\" reason why there is less than 10% LONG TERM winners?
Rake.
|
|
#3
08-08-2006, 06:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The \"Primary\" reason why there is less than 10% LONG TERM winners?
[ 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?
|
|
#4
08-08-2006, 06:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The \"Primary\" reason why there is less than 10% LONG TERM winners?
The rake would make semi-tags good. Ever had 20k of breakeven? Without rake that'd be a ton of wins, probably close to 2BB/100
Someone who's somewhat good but doesn't quite value bet hard enough or can't fold his QQ on Kxx board would be a small winner. For what it's worth I don't think anywhere CLOSE to 10% of poker players are long term winners. 5% would seem more likely.
|
|
#5
08-08-2006, 07:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The \"Primary\" reason why there is less than 10% LONG TERM winners?
[ QUOTE ]
The rake would make semi-tags good. Ever had 20k of breakeven? Without rake that'd be a ton of wins, probably close to 2BB/100 Someone who's somewhat good but doesn't quite value bet hard enough or can't fold his QQ on Kxx board would be a small winner. For what it's worth I don't think anywhere CLOSE to 10% of poker players are long term winners. 5% would seem more likely. [/ QUOTE ] I think it depends on how you define poker players. If you mean what percent of seats are taken by winning players versus what percent of the schmucks on PartyPoker are winnings, these are two very different things.
|
|
#6
08-08-2006, 08:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The \"Primary\" reason why there is less than 10% LONG TERM winners?
[ 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 ] All players habve a winrate somewhere on a Bell curve with a mean of 0 BB/100. We don't know the standard deviation of how players are distributed over the various long-term winrates. Let's say that the std dev of the Bell curve is 1.3. In that case about 90% of the players will have a log term winrate of 2 BB/100 or less. The rake costs everyone about 2 BB/100, thus putting everyone with a winrate of less than 2 BB/100 into the red. That is why rake causes the large majority of players to be losers: it turns small winners into small losers.
|
|
#7
08-08-2006, 08:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The \"Primary\" reason why there is less than 10% LONG TERM winners?
[ 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 ] That's why we all start off as losers initially. Without rake we'd start out break-even. Overcoming the handicap is the challenge. It's not simply being better than 50% of the players that make you a winning player, you need to be better than 50% + handicap leverage. Count the losers, add the theoretical winners who lose due to bad bankroll management and you've got the 90%+ bunch of long-term losers. Man, do I hope I'm not part of them. Time will tell. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#8
08-08-2006, 08:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The \"Primary\" reason why there is less than 10% LONG TERM winners?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The rake would make semi-tags good. Ever had 20k of breakeven? Without rake that'd be a ton of wins, probably close to 2BB/100 Someone who's somewhat good but doesn't quite value bet hard enough or can't fold his QQ on Kxx board would be a small winner. For what it's worth I don't think anywhere CLOSE to 10% of poker players are long term winners. 5% would seem more likely. [/ QUOTE ] I think it depends on how you define poker players. If you mean what percent of seats are taken by winning players versus what percent of the schmucks on PartyPoker are winnings, these are two very different things. [/ QUOTE ] I mean people sitting in the seats at any given time, if you think about it, they are the same time. 70,000 players on Party right now, 7,000 are winners over more than 20k? No sir.
|
|
#9
08-08-2006, 09:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The \"Primary\" reason why there is less than 10% LONG TERM winners?
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ] That's why we all start off as losers initially. Without rake we'd start out break-even. Overcoming the handicap is the challenge. It's not simply being better than 50% of the players that make you a winning player, you need to be better than 50% + handicap leverage. Count the losers, add the theoretical winners who lose due to bad bankroll management and you've got the 90%+ bunch of long-term losers. Man, do I hope I'm not part of them. Time will tell. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Being "better" than 50% of the players does not make you a winning player with out rake. There are a lot of variables based how you play that could make you a loser vs some 50% and a winner vs other 50%. You might play well vs terrible weak tight players but you might spew chips against terrible LAGs and LPs. We all start out losers initially because we all start out sucking at poker. If I had to state a primary reason why there are so few winning players is because learning poker is very counter-intuitive. Players will often get rewarded for making poor decisions and punished for making correct ones. When you touch a stove and you burn yourself, you learn to not touch the stove any more. (Note I have no extensive knowledge on the learning process or the brain itself.) Learning poker is difficult because have to ignore short term results. Even if 10% of players realize this then they have to figure out what is correct and what isn't REGARDLESS of results and that's a whole other can of worms.
|
|
#10
08-08-2006, 09:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The \"Primary\" reason why there is less than 10% LONG TERM winners?
[ QUOTE ]
Being "better" than 50% of the players does not make you a winning player with out rake. There are a lot of variables based how you play that could make you a loser vs some 50% and a winner vs other 50%. You might play well vs terrible weak tight players but you might spew chips against terrible LAGs and LPs. [/ QUOTE ] You're absolutely right. But we're talking about different definitions of "better" here. I was talking in terms of playing at 0.1+ BB/100 over bazillion of gazillion hands not considering rake which makes you better than (at least) 50% of the players. Either way, your explanation and esp. that of fabadam is a lot better expressed and founded than my attempt.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
