What percentage of people win money?

[Zidane18]

I heard, that long term, 90% of players lose

is this correct?

[Fnord]

Not far from the truth. There are a lot of "it depends" in there.

[biondino]

The stats from my Pokertracker, mainly played at £25NL and thereabouts, shows that just over 60% of the 6,000 or so players I've played against are LOSING players.

[Zidane18]

The stats from my Pokertracker, mainly played at £25NL and thereabouts, shows that just over 60% of the 6,000 or so players I've played against are LOSING players.

i think a higher percentage of tourny players lose

[Fnord]

The stats from my Pokertracker, mainly played at £25NL and thereabouts, shows that just over 60% of the 6,000 or so players I've played against are LOSING players.

There is a lot of perspective you're missing here.

[Zidane18]

The stats from my Pokertracker, mainly played at £25NL and thereabouts, shows that just over 60% of the 6,000 or so players I've played against are LOSING players.

There is a lot of perspective you're missing here.

what u mean?

[Fnord]

what u mean?

What does it mean to be a winner? Where does the money come from? How about all of the masses of about break-evenish guys?

[sejje]

In my stats I nearly always have a 60/40 winner/loser. But out of 2,522 players currently shown, only about 100 are up a buy-in or more. Furthermore, about one-third of the players listed are up or down less than 4ptBB.

[siknd]

i wouldnt be surprised by a figure that high. i mean, EVERYONE loses at roulette/ craps, but a lot still play. so thankfully, there is strain of humanity who for losing is not a deterrent.

also, its scary when you think of the amount of money the sites/ casinos rake in each year. thats a lot of money continually being taken directly out of bankrolls.

another factor in Fnords 'it depends' column is the constant moving up and down the food chain. what i mean is, you may be playing against 'winning players' at YOUR stakes, who have just been busted out from higher limits.

[Miffed22001]

can anybody explain this extensivly or point to an article?

All my pt stats have ever shown is a 65-35 ratio of losers to winners.
Of that barely 5% are significant winners over a decent period (ie winning players) and perhaps 15% can show stats good enough over a period to suggest they will eventually move up but not get much further.

[dpe8598]

Siknd, you are right on. A LOT of players are successful at the lower levels and then dump there winning at the 2/4 and up levels. Also, I lot of players dump winnings in the tourneys and satellites.

[siknd]

Siknd, you are right on. A LOT of players are successful at the lower levels and then dump there winning at the 2/4 and up levels. Also, I lot of players dump winnings in the tourneys and satellites.

Freudian slip with "I dump winnings..."

lol.

yep. also, i wonder how many ppl are kept afloat on the basis of bonus whoring alone.

[BankItDrew]

It's all about the pryamid structure baby.

The base of the pryamid are the micro limits. The pryamid is made of electronic money. The tip are the high stakes limits. Those at the bottom, try to work their way up. Those at the top, have worked their way up and made it.

If I'd have to guess, I'd say that 55-65% have been loosing money overall (people who don't consider the HH and Strategies section of FTR as their bible). 5-10% Are break-even players.10-15% Are players above average. And <5% are players that are making a lot of $$ (those at the tip and sibscribing to FTR, jk).

If you want to take online poker seriously, I sugest you take bankroll management seriously. Do not withdrawl funds, as this will only slow down your process. Keep trying to improve, and try to make the best possible decision, each and every time.

[bigboy5540]

master the limits before moving up. the 15 buy in method is ok but can be deadly. play at a limit until you KNOW you win there. I am at 1/2 and 2/4 nl right now and makng good money there but before i moved up i KNEW i was one of, if not the best player at those limits. The reality of poker is you just have to be that good before moving up. Unless you dont mind losing for a while. be good enough to withstand the better players at the higher limits.

[Pelion]

10-15% Are players above average.

I think this is gunna be my new sig

[siknd]

lol. now thats just a glass-is-half-empty attitude. or should i say 10-15% full? lol.

[jackvance]

i wouldnt be surprised by a figure that high. i mean, EVERYONE loses at roulette/ craps, but a lot still play. so thankfully, there is strain of humanity who for losing is not a deterrent.

Yeah it's a strong human drive to go for the 'possible huge pay-off' even if the odds are low to get it. (I'd have to get into evolutionary theory as to why this is, but probably no-one cares lol)

And then the occasional pay-off will keep them chasing these abysmal odds time and again!

A LOT of players are successful at the lower levels and then dump there winning at the 2/4 and up levels.

Couple of friends of mine are here lol. They keep going higher and higher until they lose it all :P.

I guess this phenomenon is why every limit will have its new influx of fish. The beginners go fund the lowest limits, those that turned a profit there but don't quite cut it for the higher limit, go fund those, etc.

10-15% Are players above average

Yet 75% of all people *think* they are above average!

[biondino]

The stats from my Pokertracker, mainly played at £25NL and thereabouts, shows that just over 60% of the 6,000 or so players I've played against are LOSING players.

There is a lot of perspective you're missing here.

Well yes, of course there is. But most poker players are hobbyists, and most hobbyists will cheerfully put up with breaking even or even being slightly down.

If you want to introduce a threshold of "winningness" that actually means something, you'd want to use bb/100 or some other stat, since a player with 1000 hands who's $100 up is more "winning" than a player with 50,000 hands who's $100 up.

The bald truth is that I've played against 7,500 other people (I checked last night) and just under 40% of them are in profit in these hands, even if hundreds are only up a few bucks or less.

[andy-akb]

10-15% Are players above average.

I think this is gunna be my new sig

Id say that that original statement is correct or if it is incorrect it isnt because of the reason you think. 50% of people arent "above average" and the other 50% arent "below average," that stems from a lack of understanding of what an average is. The average is not the middle, the median is. So 50% [essentially] of people are above median and the others are below. So if 90% of players lose in the long run, then the average player is a losing player. To be above average you would need to be a winning player, ie. in the top 10%. These arent exact numbers as probably the top 30% ish are above average, but it definitely isnt split right down the middle 50-50.

[jackvance]

Depends.. if you interpret it as "10-15% Are players who are are above average players" then it is indeed utter folly since it would be split in the middle.

If however you interpret it as "10-15% Are players who make above average winnings" then it's way still off since the "average" is a negative number due to rakes..

(the winnings/losses spread in poker, due to the magnitude of players, is most likely a pretty fluid transgression, I'd expect something gaussian-like with the peak at a slight negative.. so the median is probably very close to the average)

EDIT: for 10% to be above average in their gains (the second interpretation), you would need a spread like:

-2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, -2, +18.

Somehow I doubt that's what resembles reality..

[BankItDrew]

10-15% Are players above average.

I think this is gunna be my new sig

Id say that that original statement is correct or if it is incorrect it isnt because of the reason you think. 50% of people arent "above average" and the other 50% arent "below average," that stems from a lack of understanding of what an average is. The average is not the middle, the median is. So 50% [essentially] of people are above median and the others are below. So if 90% of players lose in the long run, then the average player is a losing player. To be above average you would need to be a winning player, ie. in the top 10%. These arent exact numbers as probably the top 30% ish are above average, but it definitely isnt split right down the middle 50-50.

Thank you andy. This was exactly my line of thinking.

[andy-akb]

Depends.. if you interpret it as "10-15% Are players who are are above average players" then it is indeed utter folly since it would be split in the middle.

No, if they were split in the middle then that would be above median, not average. The average number is not the middle number as shown by the data set in your edit.

If however you interpret it as "10-15% Are players who make above average winnings" then it's way still off since the "average" is a negative number due to rakes..

Yes, the average would be a negative number. If 90% of all players are losing players, then 90% of players would have a negative average, the 10% that are not losing players are above average. Some of the losing players who lost less would be considered above average, but still not 50%

[jackvance]

No, if they were split in the middle then that would be above median, not average. The average number is not the middle number as shown by the data set in your edit.

In this interpretation we would be talking about "skill level" and not "money made/lost", so the average would be in the middle.

Yes, the average would be a negative number. If 90% of all players are losing players, then 90% of players would have a negative average, the 10% that are not losing players are above average. Some of the losing players who lost less would be considered above average, but still not 50%

It really depends on the win/loss spread across poker players. I have a hunch this is somewhat gaussian, ie most people are centered around the average (which is at -5% probably due to rakes) and as we get to both extremes, ie people who either win a lot or lose a lot, then we get less and less people. Someone in this thread said that 40% of all people he played against were winning players (>0), and 60% were losing players (<0) which gives some credibility to a gaussian spread with a slightly negative average. In which case the median would be about the same as the average.

Ofcourse without actual data, I can't make a definite conclusion.

[andy-akb]

In this interpretation we would be talking about "skill level" and not "money made/lost", so the average would be in the middle.

While again it isnt always safe to assume that money won equates to skill, but we are talking about longterm winners and losers, so here it is safe to assume that the winners ahve skill and the losers do not.

Yes, the average would be a negative number. If 90% of all players are losing players, then 90% of players would have a negative average, the 10% that are not losing players are above average. Some of the losing players who lost less would be considered above average, but still not 50%

It really depends on the win/loss spread across poker players. I have a hunch this is somewhat gaussian, ie most people are centered around the average (which is at -5% probably due to rakes) and as we get to both extremes, ie people who either win a lot or lose a lot, then we get less and less people. Someone in this thread said that 40% of all people he played against were winning players (>0), and 60% were losing players (<0) which gives some credibility to a gaussian spread with a slightly negative average. In which case the median would be about the same as the average.

Ofcourse without actual data, I can't make a definite conclusion.

I understand what you are saying here and agree that it very well could be close to 50%, without the actual numbers we dont know. The post I quoted essentially assumed that the percentages were off because they figured the average were in the middle, so my main point was just that average and median are not the same and the average is not the middle. As an example, Stephen King lives in my small town [35,000], his income has a HUGE impact on the average income, but very little [essentially none] on the median income. This just shows that averages can be skewed, and if you want the middle of something and not the average, then you go with the median.

[bdawg56kg]

It would be interesting to see the % of winners and big winners for each stakes. I'd imagine at 400nl and up, probably 50% of the players are winners, and at 2000nl, maybe 75% winners (?). But these are just guesses, I really have no idea.

[jackvance]

While again it isnt always safe to assume that money won equates to skill, but we are talking about longterm winners and losers, so here it is safe to assume that the winners ahve skill and the losers do not.

I think you should see this more as a "half the class is below average (at the bottom 50%) and the other half of the class is above average (at the top 50%)" kind of situation.

As an example, Stephen King lives in my small town [35,000], his income has a HUGE impact on the average income, but very little [essentially none] on the median income.

The thing is, in your example there is no "really negative income" possible to compensate for the one that shoots out. (or more generally a sample size problem) In practice, if you take a large enough sample (=enough people), and measure an attribute - be it IQ, height, weight, lung capacity, skill at something, anything - it'll always turn into a gaussian spread. So if you look at enough poker players and their wins/losses and plot this out, I'm pretty sure it's a gaussian spread. A few people win a lot, a few people lose a lot, most people win or lose a little.

If you want to artificially skew this to drive the median away from the average, you'd have to like sit down 10 poker GODS at 10NL and let them 8-table for a few months on end. But even then, it might turn out there will be a few people paying most of these bills..


Hm, I'm just now wondering why I'm discussing this lol..

[Irisheyes]

100% of me makes money at online poker.