''Only 5% of Poker Players win over time''

[TheChipPrince]

In this months InsidePoker magazine theres an interview with Richard Redmond from Bad Beat, in which he staes that only 5% of poker players make profit over time, is it really this low a figure??

Discuss.

[kinboshi]

Don't even know if it's that high.

[AndrewT]

In this months InsidePoker magazine theres an interview with Richard Redmond from Bad Beat, in which he staes that only 5% of poker players make profit over time, is it really this low a figure??

Discuss.

Depends on how the data subset is - is it all poker players, or all active poker players, or what?

Bear in mind that there are very, very, very many players who start playing poker, play for a very short time, lose their money and never play again. The ones who start playing and win are far more likely to continue to play, so a subset of active players (like any poker forum) will be self-selecting for winners.

[Moskvich]

Interesting question - I've often wondered about this. You always see the figure of 95% losers / 5% winners trotted out, but I don't know where it comes from.

Obviously you'd expect losers to outnumber winners because of the rake, so that in itself would make it roughly a 55-45 split. Then you'd expect that more players would fall into the average, break-even-without-the-rake category than into any other - ie players would be 'normally distributed' in terms of ability, with more being in the middle 5% than in any other 5%. All these players would end up losing because of the rake, so you'd expect a wider split than 55-45.

Then you'd also expect that the game attracts a lot of players who give it a go, lose money, and stop playing. Losers are much more likely to give up and be replaced by someone else than are winners, who are much more likely to stick around. So that would make the split wider still.

Intuitively, I'd guess that the split was something like 75/25.

But after all this, my Poker Tracker tells me that after 110k hands of NL cash I have played against 40.7% winners and 59.3% losers. Nowhere near 5%/95%. (If I filter it to only include players with more than 500 hands, I get slightly more winners than losers).

I read a thread somewhere else where other people also said the split in their PT was about 40/60 winners/losers. (Would be interested to know what figures everyone else has, but I imagine it's similar).

So where are all these losers? And where does the 5% figure come from?

[Moskvich]

Bear in mind that there are very, very, very many players who start playing poker, play for a very short time, lose their money and never play again.

I'm sure this is a big part of it - but still, you have to ask who these people are playing against. I don't seem to have played against my fair share of them.

My suspicion is that the 5% figure is total fiction that lots of people have heard so many times that they now just repeat it as fact. But I'd love to be proved wrong..!

Is it likely that tournaments produce fewer overall winners and more overall losers? The rake's generally higher, and maybe it's harder to get lucky in the short-term (you can't win a couple of hands and leave the table). Also, tournaments are cheaper and have the prospect of winning more, so are perhaps more attractive than cash games to losing players.

[doubleup]

But after all this, my Poker Tracker tells me that after 110k hands of NL cash I have played against 40.7% winners and 59.3% losers.

Your stats tell you about sessions not winners or losers. 

[matt674]

Provided i am in the percentage that are winners i don't care what the figure is..............

[Moskvich]

Your stats tell you about sessions not winners or losers.

How do you mean? On the Summary tab, "13,136 Unique Players, Winners 5,502, Losers 8,022". I'm not referring to the Session Notes tab - is that what you're talking about?

[fearisthekey]

I thought the figure was 10 pc, but I can accept 5.
Would expect that most regular good players would be able to make a rough estimate: you know the general standard of play, and can extrapolate along with some guesses. It is pretty easy to just keep losing money at poker, and despite the damage this does to your pocket, keep playing roughly the same way, while winning occasionally to keep you itnerested. The qualities that put you in the 5 percent really are absent in most players' games. Probably missing in mine also, I'm just going through an incredibly lucky 4 year streak.
I'm also tighter than a gnat's.

[doubleup]

Your stats tell you about sessions not winners or losers.

How do you mean? On the Summary tab, "13,136 Unique Players, Winners 5,502, Losers 8,022". I'm not referring to the Session Notes tab - is that what you're talking about?

PT only records sessions.  In any session it would be reasonable to have a 6/4 split between losers and winners.  Your total figure doesn't have enough data on the individual players to determine whether they are winners or losers, you would need 10k hands minimum.  Put it this way, if you lost 55% of sessions long term - do you think you would be a winner?   

[bolt pp]

I remember reading that it was 10% win 5% break even 85% lose

[matt674]

I remember reading that it was 10% win 5% break even 85% lose

and 90% of the 85% say that they are part of the 5%!!

[bolt pp]

I remember reading that it was 10% win 5% break even 85% lose

and 90% of the 85% say that they are part of the 5%!!

and 80% of those think online poker is rigged

[lazaroonie]

maybe my maths is way out here, but if only 5% are winners, it must mean that their ROI is on average 2000%, since that 5% will share all the money in the pot between them, meaning they win 20 times what they put in...

[Longy]

The figure I have seen is 8% and this was based on one of the major sites data (stars i think). It has to be pointed out that this data has certain bias in it, where one time losers played once and then quit. You get very few people who win once then decide its not for them!

Its hard to estimate how many consistent winners you have from the current pool of active players, my guess would be about 15% maybe less. You have to be some what skilled to beat the rake in the game long term.

If you take sng's for an example, a person running at 10% roi is actually beating the game for closer to 20% when the rake is taken into account. So half your "winnings" end up with the site. Then again im very of the opinion that sng's with the edge becoming ever lower that rakes should be cut to keep the games moving long term as im sure numbers will fall over time as no-one can beat the rake.