Why do most players lose overall?

What is it? 1% of people who play poker on the internet make money overall?

So why do 99% or whatever it is lose?

Bad bankroll management

Too many starting hands

Multitasking and not paying attention

just not good enough

Are only in it for fun and dont mind if they lose



I play $25nl and I would say 50% lose because although they have a reasonable understanding of the game, they get impatient and tilt / loosen up too much after bad beats. And the other 50% are just bad players - too many flops, incapable of folding top pair or a flush draw and eventually the -ve situations far outweight their +ve situations so they go broke.

I have made a list of my personal leaks and keep trying to fix them and it has increased my profitability.

because of rake

/thread

because of rake

/thread

Because of rake.

/thread

I will go with Bad Bankroll management.

Thats why I kept losing everything.. I played really well then found myself putting 40% of all my cash on 1 table and losing it all... Bad beat or not I should not have been in the position!

Because many ppl just play for fun and they dont care about Bankroll Management. They dont know the even the basic expressions of poker. Moreover this game needs skill, it's 50% luck 50% knowledge.

rake
gambling in bad spots
good players

Serious, the answer is "because of rake".

The surprising thing is that a few people are actually good enough to beat the rest so badly that they can win despite of rake. But overall, your expectation is to lose on average the rake that the site collects.

Well, I've made a decent profit playing online for the past 3 years, but I know I probably could have made a lot more if I had better bankroll management. I generally like to play at least a $20 sit n go because if I play anything less than that I get way too many loose players taking me out by calling draws (even gut shots) and hitting em when they should have folded the pot. However, when my bankroll starts at $100, I certainly shouldn't be playing $20 SnGs.

Its not because of rake.

If your a losing player you lose irrespective of the rake. It might speed it up perhaps but thats it.

It is because of rake..

umm what

i say bank roll management i just keep tilting and being stupid by rebuying and losing to much at once next i deposit or win in cardchat pvt game im gunna try and play small sitngoes and give up ring games for a while

First of all, I think alot more than 1% of online poker players make money.

~Half+ of all players would lose if the games weren't raked because they don't perform well enough to beat the competition, the rest lose because they don't perform well enough to beat the rake.

I don't know what reason for poor performance is most common. I would say poor BRM was a downfall for many who are otherwise good enough, but not the reason most people lose, since so many of them would lose anyway.

bankroll management to many people buyin for more then they can afford take a few bad beats that smash there bankroll add tilt factor in there and it adds for a all down hill

phil ivey is another reason

This is like saying most racing drivers lose because gas costs too much.

The rake is a business expense, just like commissions in trading and paying the electric bill for an office. If you can't overcome a nickel on the dollar rake then something is really wrong.

Up to 200nl, the long term win rates of the best regs of each level are about the same as the amounts they pay in rake. Only at high stakes does rake become irrelevant thanks to capping.

So unless you are a 400nl+ winner, what you say is essentially "i have no clue about the poker economy". If you happen to be a 400nl+ reg, my apologies, and i would love to know your screen name. But somehow i doubt that's the case...

That nickel on a dollar adds up and if it weren't for horrible players would be very difficult to overcome. Look into how many bb/100 that amounts to in your database if you have one. Higher stakes have capped rakes, otherwise hardly anyone would be able to come out ahead with the tougher competiton.

Sure it adds up, just like the electric bill does. But all you have to do is turn the thermostat up 1 degree to save money.

Likewise, all you have to do is fold two more hands before calling a blind for each $1 you win to basically guarantee break even on the rake. So fold that 9-7o and that J-5o that you might play "for fun" and save some money.

It's a matter of cutting expenses somewhere. You have to look at it like a business. Yeah, it makes it harder. Well, no one said it was going to be easy. But blaming the rake is just an excuse.

Actually most people turn the thermostat DOWN if they want to save money

Most people lose because of the following 3 reasons in order of importance.
1. lack of experience (how much is enough)?
2. rake (sucks away their life blood)
3. lack of a big enough bank roll to cover the variances in play ( the swings are going to happen)

cuz theyre bad

Found this kinda funny, its the north vs the south mentality :P People in the north turn the thermostat down to save money, people in the south turn it up to save money :P

they don't know when to stop. when your luck is bad people need to quit playing for awhile. also most people are not patient, the frustration gets the better of them.

The rake is a rake on the pot. So if you are playing .01/.02 and the pot reaches $1.00 a 5% rake is .05., or 2.25BB. The rake isn't even taken on pre-flop pots, it's capped, and here's the kicker, the rake is taken from winners, not losers. Losers are going to lose the same amount whether there is a rake or not. It's the winners who pay. So you only have to worry about the rake if you are a winner, not a loser. It's sort of a like a tax on the wealthy. So if you come in and win few pots the rake isn't the problem that caused you to lose.

Look at it this way. Suppose there was one player who in play money games contributed 5% to every pot you won. Now suppose when you move to real money games that player is no longer there and you don't get that 5%. Do you really think him not being there is going to be the difference between you being profitable or not?

I'm not saying the rake doesn't hurt. I'm just saying it's not close to the primary reason there are a lot of losers. It might tip the scale against some close-to-breakeven players, but it's not what creates the majority of the losers.

Yep. It's been 100+ in Central Texas for a month now. When we want to save money, we turn the thermostat up.

I'm a trader and in real trading the commissions and exchange fees are the equivalent of the rake in poker. Commissions hurt and a lot of newbie traders don't figure their cost into their business plan. However, winning traders do figure them in. Commissions make trading harder, but a trader who can win without commissions can win with them. Likewise the rake makes playing for real money harder. But a player who can win without it can learn to win with it. It's just a matter of doing certain things more efficiently, that's just common sense, too.

You have to have a business plan and it has to add up. You have to be brutally honest with yourself. Don't say, "I won $100 today not counting the rake." Just say, "I won $95 today." Likewise don't say, "I would have broken even today if it hadn't been for the rake." Just say, "I lost today."

rake

Did I say Rake
hmmmm
RAKE
RAKE !!!!!!!!

Must Be They can't keep up with the RAKE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would have to say it's RAKE ............................

Someone say CAKE?.........oh, RAKE, nevermind

This is where you go wrong. Many traders (poker players) that can win without commissions (rake) CAN'T win with them (it). If you are a marginal winner for .5 bb/100 before rake, you will be a losing player after rake.

here's the rake i paid at different stakes in big bets/100 hands (1 BB = 2 big blinds)

25nl FR: 3.5 BB/100
25nl 6max: 5.1 BB/100
50nl FR: 3.2 BB/100
50nl 6max: 4.7 BB/100
100nl FR: 2.6 BB/100
100nl 6max: 3.2 BB/100
200nl FR: 2.2 BB/100
200nl 6max: 2.6 BB/100

I haven't played any significant amount below that, and the micro stakes numbers are about a year old. I only play 200nl now. Overall i've paid about $12k in rake so far in 2009 and i don't even play that much volume. Anybody who thinks that rake is just an irrelevant nickel on the dollar is either a microstakes fish or simply delusional.

another proof that you have no clue.

typically, the fishes pay more rake than the winning regs because they play much looser and more passively.

this

newsflash: losing players win hands sometimes