winning

Has anyone done research on what percentage of online poker players are winning players? (Which means, players who have won more than they have lost over their playing careers, even if it's just 1 cent more.)

My guess would be the top 2%, but that's just a guess.

Woody

For careers, the general consensus is about 10%. For any given level, about 30%.

Are we including rakeback in this? When I look at my lifetime line in HEM or PT3 I am negative, but with rakeback I'm up well over 1k. I would guess this makes me a losing player, but I would argue that I am a winning player who can't beat the rake.

KyleJRM said:

For careers, the general consensus is about 10%. For any given level, about 30%.

Click to expand...

I can't recall where, but I heard it was close to 10% taking the other 90%'s money.

JEP712 said:

I can't recall where, but I heard it was close to 10% taking the other 90%'s money.

Click to expand...

I remember seeing something similar to this. I think it's around 10% of players are winning players. Give and take a few %

I believe it's a bit higher in the micro levels... closer to 20%+

http://www.sharkscopers.com/blog/thestatistician/what-fraction-online-poker-players-are-winners

Yeah, I know... You're welcome.

How well does that correlate to cash games though?

Mase31683 said:

How well does that correlate to cash games though?

Click to expand...

Have no article for that, but I'd think it's probably a little less. When you think about it it's easier to tilt in cash games.
Can't back this one up with stats though.

I read something on pkrcurious site and they said 10%. But 99% of all statistic are all made up. So who knows. Maybe i just made that one up. Kind of throws you for a loop dont it.

SharkScopes numbers must be wrong...

look at your own databases. Look to see how many people you have tracked are winners over your sample and how many are losers. If you have a good sized database (over 100k) that should be fairly accurate.

I did a quick look at a 25k sample I have of $0.01/$0.02 NLHE I have and a full 30% had won more than $0

There are probably more filters I should put on that, but I would say it is in the ballpark (+/-10%).

I know I am still ahead. When I win I will cash most of it out. And build it back up. I would like to build it up more in the future.

I'm a winning tourney player(Chris Ferguson Challenge) but a losing cash game player. I'm also micro stakes player only too. Percentage on winning players can't be that high at the micro levels imo.

i am a winning cash player and a losing tournament player, but overall i am winning. i head it's only about 8% winning players, the rest are donating!

hmm so sharkscopers thinks it is about 33% winning players with rakeback.

I'm tending to believe sharkscope and would say about 1/3 of all (regular)on-line players are winners. I've actually posted this question in PTR's forums but he never quite answered it. I'm sure they could with all the data they got too.

From PTR's newsletter. winrate of $50NL, $100NL and $200NL players that played over 1,000 hands in 2010.

I can't believe its true that a third of people who play online poker make a profit.
Those statistics are probably fiddled to make more people play.
I would guess it was more like 5-10%.

You need to take into account all the players who are no longer active but played for a time in the past and lost money then gave up.

Also all the sharks play multiple tables while fish generally play 1 or 2 table.

Love how all people are sceptical about sharkscope's results. And yet they come up with their own vague estimates of 5-10%.

Seriously scepticism is ok, but conspiracy theories only go so far before becoming completely ridiculous.

And I am NOT a representative for sharkscope or any other online gambling entity. Although if you are recruiting...

But winning player doesn't mean someone who's grinding out 2k+/month over a huge sample size, but someone who could be +- break even over 200 games with a 20$ profit.

BelgoSuisse said:

From PTR's newsletter. winrate of $50NL, $100NL and $200NL players that played over 1,000 hands in 2010.

Click to expand...

Thanks for all the replies, folks.

From this graph it looks like full-sized table is the best bet, 6-max is somewhat worse, and HU is a ripoff.

Woody

Durwood said:

Thanks for all the replies, folks.

From this graph it looks like full-sized table is the best bet, 6-max is somewhat worse, and HU is a ripoff.

Woody

Click to expand...

Actually it looks like HU gives a much higher BB/100, it just has less breakeven players and more extremes. Kind of confirms the luck/skill repartition compared to the number of players.

Winning - a million times better than losing.

/thread

on a side note heads up variance is sick