Percentage of winning 2+2ers

[rbenuck4]

OK, so we've all heard that around 90% of poker players are long term losers, meaning only 10% are winners. Now I'm wondering that if we just look at the subset of 2+2ers, what percent of this subset (who actively tries to improve their game by reading and posting here) are winners.

I initially thought it might be somehwere around 50%, but that means half of us are losing and still posting advice to others on how to properly play, which I don't like the idea of.

My new guess is somewhere around 60-70%.

Thoughts?

[4_2_it]

What's your definition of a 2+2er? Is it anyone who signed up at this site? Anyone who has read at least 1 2+2 book? Or do you have any other criteria?

I think most of people who read the books seriously and try to apply them can be winners. As to how many actually try to do this, your guess is as good as mine?

[raze]

Where does this 10/90 business come from? My PT says Party 3/6 (where the rake is supposedly terrible) has a winner/loser of 41/59.

[Mr. Now]

I'd say the percentage of winners (anyone up money on a rolling 12 month basis) is probably in the neighborhood of 60%. It might be correlated with some minimum number of posts since posting is evidence of at least minimal active effort to improve by interacting (vs. <noncommital> lurking.)

[Rooster71]

As far as long term (2+ years and/or 150,000+ hands), I'd say 50-60%. People can argue over how "long term" is defined, but I think game selection is also an extremley important factor. For example, I have focused on game selection intensely over the past 6 months. Because of that, I am probably not as good a player as my stats may indicate. On the other hand, someone may play at a higher level and intentionally seek out tough games and be a better player.

If you took a poll, it would probably show 80-90% winners. All we can do is guess at the real number.

[roundhouse]

[ QUOTE ]
Where does this 10/90 business come from? My PT says Party 3/6 (where the rake is supposedly terrible) has a winner/loser of 41/59.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know where the 10/90 comes from but your 41/59 logic is flawed - unless you have tens of thousands of hands on each of those players. Imagine a sample of 100 losing players (i.e. actual 0/100 long-term winner to loser ratio). Now imagine you've witnessed each playing 50 hands: variance means a significant number of them will be winners over the 50 hand sample - for arguments sake lets say it's 41/59. See the problem?

Cheers,
RH

[ottsville]

[ QUOTE ]
Now imagine you've witnessed each playing 50 hands: variance means a significant number of them will be winners over the 50 hand sample - for arguments sake lets say it's 41/59.

[/ QUOTE ]

would that require that they were playing the 50 hands against each other - ie. some have to win and some have to loose? On the other hand, put each of those players at a table with 9 "good" players...will they have the same 41/59 results? Those 100 losing players would probably be more like 90% losers over 50 hands. But then again, maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying.

[Riverman]

thats way high

[bernie]

All 2+2ers?

Less than 20%, imo.

[ QUOTE ]
but that means half of us are losing and still posting advice to others on how to properly play, which I don't like the idea of.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's how you learn. You call them on it and work it out if you think it's wrong. That's why it's an interactive forum and not just a cookie cutter teacher as some would like.

Remember, many also post good advice, but don't put it into practice or only play well early on in sessions then buckle.

b

[raze]

My Party 3/6 DB
FILTER WINNER/LOSER
no filter 41/59
50 hands 45/55
200 hands 47/53
1000 hands 48/52

The original poster saya 90% are 'long-term losers'.. but from this data, I can argue that there really isn't any such thing as a long-term loser. The longer the term, the higher proportion of winning players. Losing players seem to be much more prone to quitting before becoming a relatively long-term player.