hi all
Is it true that the average poker player is a long term losing player? Someone said so a while ago and after thinking about it, I think it's probably true. But what about at different stakes?
As the net money won by people playing poker is zero, then the average should be a break even player right?
Thanks
The net money won by people playing poker is way below zero, since rake takes a big chunk of it.
It is true that the vast majority of players are losing ones, this is where all the money originates from. Most of their money is 'invested' in micro stakes games though, it is rare to have complete fish like this on higher limits. Their money is taken from them by semi-decent micro stakes players who then move up limits and lose it again to better players - so I think on most limits most of the players are losing players.
most people are just too stupid to not lose money playing a card game.
Yesterday I played poker and lost 10 bucks. FML 
This is an interesting read from sharkscope. In their database only 26% of people are winners, 33% if you exclude the rake.
Originally posted by peche025
This is an interesting read from sharkscope. In their database only 26% of people are winners, 33% if you exclude the rake.
Very interesting, thanks for posting that.
I guess it depends on what you call "average player". Micro-Low stakes are filled with people who play poker just as a hobby or recreational activity and couldn't be bothered with educating about this glorious game.
So yeah, "average players" are losing. Now, on the other hand, if you would do statistics for players who belong to communities like PokerStrategy and are keen on learning poker, I'm pretty sure that at least 70% could be considered winning.
Anyway, thinking about this is just plain mental masturbation, because knowing statistics like that won't change the fact that u'r winning or losing
Here's my take, keep in mind I have been around here for a while and have read other strategy books and such as well.
I am a slightly above breakeven player at NL but if I didn't have rakeback I would possibly be in the category of "losing player" because of rake. Aka my bankroll doesn't grow much without it.
I am doing fairly well playing PLO, when I have a bad NL session instead of tilting away more money I go play PLO and most times win money to cover any NL losses or even make the entire session profitable.
However, I keep trying to play PLO8 and lose lose lose 
I seem like a complete fish and because of this my bankroll isn't really growing. Any money I make playing NL and PLO I piss away at PLO8 so I just end up feeding the poker economy by losing. The thing is I want to get better so it doesn't really bother me too much to lose the money in this fashion as I won't get any better by not playing.
Seeing as average means you are in the middle, ie better than 50% of players and worse than 50% (Maybe 46% is better here). Only 20-25% of players win in the long run. Just because you beat NL2 or NL 5 doesnt make you one of the top 20%. A winning player technacaly can lose money but profit after rakeback...to me though this is not a winning player. A winning player is a player who profits from his play. Average players are lossing players. Average players only have edge against the retarded/gamblers.
no i do not believe the average poker player is a long time loser but neither will he make a large porfit in poker. the average player is usually a grinder trying not to lose money however slowly increasing his bankroll this however counts for lower stakes especially
I seriously doubt even 50% of PS.com members are winning players. Even from the ones who drop by on a regular basis.
I am deffinetley a lossing player.
No matter how much I read,no matter how much I watch videos or practice ICM its always like this :
Build BMR pretty succesfully, dobule it or even tripple.
THan I ran onto series of bad beats, downswings which lasts for few days or a week and I am again where I started or even below.
It happened for third time now.
I hate Full tilt ♠_evil:
Assuming at any limit, let's say NL5, there are x number of players.
There are y number of players coming into NL5 and z number of players leaving, so in the long term, in (y) = out (z).
The amount of money they bring to the tables are fixed. Therefore, for some players to profit, other players will have to lose.
This is why I think the average is a breakeven player, give or take a little.
The same should apply to higher limits as well in my opinion.
If I read that Sharkscope article correctly they are talking about players being winners who play MTTs and STTs.
Do they also include cash games? The way it reads they are simply discussing tournament and S&G players not cash players.
The percentages they gave are interesting even with those limitations. I would have guessed the % of winning players as less than 20% myself.
Originally posted by michaelqian
Assuming at any limit, let's say NL5, there are x number of players.There are y number of players coming into NL5 and z number of players leaving, so in the long term, in (y) = out (z).
The amount of money they bring to the tables are fixed. Therefore, for some players to profit, other players will have to lose.
This is why I think the average is a breakeven player, give or take a little.
The same should apply to higher limits as well in my opinion.
Average = lossing because of the rake
Originally posted by Atoks
I seriously doubt even 50% of PS.com members are winning players. Even from the ones who drop by on a regular basis.
+1
I'm sure there are thousands of SSS grinders that think they the shit because their game is mathematically correct. In reality most of them are breakeven producing shitloads of rake to the poker rooms and in turn to ps.com and that is why I wish I thought of their business model first.
Not necessarily, because even though the same amount of money is in circulation, there will be a few of these players taking most of the money.
Lets say there are 10 players at a table, they all buy in $10. $100 in circulation. However, one player could take all of this money, making him the only one a winning player.
Just because all the money going around stays roughly the same, there will be a few that are winning more than others.
Originally posted by Fagin
If I read that Sharkscope article correctly they are talking about players being winners who play MTTs and STTs.
Yeah Fagin they only track SnG's and MTT's I guess there is no way of knowing in cash games as no software tracks them, maybe someone with a high database in HEM or PT3 could see what percentage of their opponents are winners?
