% of people who win more than they lose?

[sms3484]

I was wondering the other day if anyone knew what % of people are profitable players (online). I would venture to guess that 90% of online poker players are in the red, and the other 10% break even or are making any type of profit.
Keep in mind, I mean over months or years.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

You're probably not far off the mark.

 

[quads]

A year or so ago I read that 90% are losers, making your estimate probably still accurate. In addition the 10% that are winners change hands allot. Another words new winners come in and old winners become losers.

I was a loser for years, but cashed big in a couple of big tournaments. Still a winner today, but if I keep losing the way I did last year, it won't be for long.

Every week the first 3 seats that get paid in the million tournament should be winners for awhile. High stakes cash game players I can't speak for.

 

[pantin007]

sad too say i think it is less than 10%
when u factor in rake and entry fees
more like 8% maybe even 6%
that really shows why you should try not to turn pro

 

[Monoxide]

Only 1.223% of poker players make money.

All else is tricksy+false.

 

[Rossta]

Those arent the kind of numbers players like us want to see

 

[pantin007]

Those arent the kind of numbers players like us want to see

it makes me feel better about myself knowing that after 2 years of playing real money online poker im up 40$
thats the best trophy i have,being a winning player :smile:

 

[ChuckTs]

Those arent the kind of numbers players like us want to see

There's a reason that they say "anything is possible". Just become a winner, and push one of the barely winning players down a notch into the losing category

Seriously though, I think just about anyone can win at poker if they study enough, play solid enough and have discipline. Don't just give in because you hear stats like this.

 

[aliengenius]

70%:30%

 

[DeadMoneyDad]

I was wondering the other day if anyone knew what % of people are profitable players (online). I would venture to guess that 90% of online poker players are in the red, and the other 10% break even or are making any type of profit.
Keep in mind, I mean over months or years.

If you start off with the fact that around 30% of all on-line players never deposit, then even the most optimistic estimates come closer to reality. Most surveys I've read put the estimates above 90% for all on-line gaming as net loosing.

Given that most people never figure in related costs like e-pass, and rake, or over value the return of rakeback into their profitability the reality is most forms of gambling and, yes Virginia, even poker are simply forms of entertainment. Even the recent AGA survey shows that profit isn't even a motive for most gamblers, less than 10%.

When you add in to that the amount of lying about results in all forms of gambling, and human nature to remember the big wins and minimize the regular losses, if more than 5% were consistent winners online I'd be shocked.

Personally I refuse to deposit yet I have managed to accumulate a respectable bankroll for as an inexperienced player as I am. If you expect to get rich on-line or even playing for a living your chances are likely better getting struck by lighting.


D$D

 

[Bentheman87]

You guys are saying 10% or less are winners? That doesn't make sense. The % winners + % losers have to add up to about 100%. Maybe a little less than 100% because of the rake you have to beat as well as the players. Something like 20% winners 20% losers 50% breakeven players sounds close to right.

 

[zachvac]

First of all the 70/30 number is flawed if the person posting it played as well. If he was a winner, he was taking the money in the long term, and PT would show more losers, if he was a loser, PT would show more winners.

And I still maintain that the methodology was flawed. I couldn't tell if it included people who had only played around 100 hands. In the short term the rake is insignificant. For example, assume everyone was equal in skill. That means in the long run they are all losers. Yet by this method half would be winners and half would be losers because over one session about half would win and half would lose, the rake in one session isn't going to erase a good session.

 

[zachvac]

You guys are saying 10% or less are winners? That doesn't make sense. The % winners + % losers have to add up to about 100%. Maybe a little less than 100% because of the rake you have to beat as well as the players. Something like 20% winners 20% losers 50% breakeven players sounds close to right.

Rake is brutal. I have lost $390 to rake according to poker tracker, over 37k hands. And I'm playing at the lower limits. So if in a rakeless game, I was a winner winning $350 over that time frame, I would currently be an online loser.

 

[nevadanick]

If you start off with the fact that around 30% of all on-line players never deposit, then even the most optimistic estimates come closer to reality. Most surveys I've read put the estimates above 90% for all on-line gaming as net loosing.

Personally I refuse to deposit yet I have managed to accumulate a respectable bankroll for as an inexperienced player as I am. If you expect to get rich on-line or even playing for a living your chances are likely better getting struck by lighting.


D$D

I'm in that 30% of non-depositors and plan on keeping it that way. With small BR's on Stars and Tilt, guess I'd be in that 'winning' percent but that's not realistic either. Hard to claim to be a winner if you have not actually invested anything but time.

I get the opportunity to play cash games and tables - free. That's a win.

Being retired, I save my cash for live casino play. At least if I were to have a problem in a casino, management is 30 feet away in the pit, middle management is a phone call or elevator ride away and the Gaming Commission is easily accessible. For us U.S. players, managers/owners of offshore online rooms really don't care who we are unless we are playing thousands or more each day on their site.

Overall, I would agree that there are only 10 to 15% actual winners in any substantial amount.

 

[aliengenius]

First of all the 70/30 number is flawed if the person posting it played as well.

Not significantly, and not with that large of a data base of number of hands.

 

[GabryRox]

Well, it's technically possible for there to be only 10% or less winners, but if that's the case, most of those 10% would have to would have to be BIG winners in order to offset the ~90% of losers. Statistically, this is improbable.

Think of this... let's say you've got 100 players in rakeless games. Let's assume that 90 of those are losers, with and average loss of $40 (total loss of $3,600). So, for the 90/10 theory to work, the 10 winning players in this scenario would have to be averaging $360 each in winnings. To me, this just doesn't not seem very likely. Factoring in rake would change the numbers slightly, but not significantly.

 

[nevadanick]

Rake is brutal. I have lost $390 to rake according to poker tracker, over 37k hands. And I'm playing at the lower limits. So if in a rakeless game, I was a winner winning $350 over that time frame, I would currently be an online loser.

The rake amount that online poker rooms make is almost obscene.

Let's say the average casino has 20 tables. Most run 24 hours a day but late nites/early AM's are usually very sparse, but go with 20. Optimum hands per hour is about 20. If the tables operated full (180-200 players), that's 400 hands per hour, with a rake from most hands (except the no flop/no drop hands).

It's 9:30am here, and Stars has 14,300 tables active (95,300 players). Let's say only 7,000 tables are 'cash play', the rest being somewhat inactive or dedicated to non-rake freerolls. Online they get 60 hands per hour. That's 420,000 hands per hour and let's round down to 400,000 for easy math.

An online room like Stars is raking 1,000 TIMES the rake of a BnM casino PER HOUR. You tell me who is making the money and that rake doesn't figure in. I'm with you, Zachvac.

 

[soccerfreakjj10]

Interesting article, sorta relates:
(if I am not allowed to post this just delete it please)


Is Online Poker +EV for the average player?