Distribution of winning players to losing players

[Dice Man]

By winning players I also mean good players and by losing players I also mean bad players. For the purpose of this they are the same thing. My question is, what do we think the model looks like of winning players to losing players in the online poker economy?

Here's one fact: losing players outnumber winning players by virtue of the rake.

As agents in the online poker economy what kind of model best expresses how the players are distributed? Anecdotal evidence is what I expect and is acceptable as an indicator. If anyone has any statistical facts about this then that is ++EV.

Anyway I came up with two vastly different models, both seem to make a bit of sense, but clearly can't both be.

Graph 1



Graph 2



I think I may have just worked out the clash. Would I be right in saying that Graph 1 is a good indication of actual skill level of players? And Graph 2 is an indication of profit? That contradicts the very first statement I made but it seems it was probably a poor premise.

My claim for Graph 1 representing skill is that surely skill (in any industry or activity) gets rarer the higher the degree, and more common the lesser. The people on the very left comprise total beginners but are mostly habitual losers who aren't beginners. Since winning players don't tend to retire from the game that suggests that people don't really "rise up the ranks" (improve their position on the graph) just through experience. If this graph is correct (or at least resembles the truth), then most people who begin to play never improve or improve only very marginally, but usually not enough to take them over the border into a +EV skillful player. Do we agree with this?

My claim for Graph 2 representing profit is the average player is a losing player, hence the peak is just below the 'breaking even' point. Yet this graph differs because I am supposing that players who do consistently lose eventually give up (they are replaced by other losers though), and your average loser won't lose loads of money. A low stakes player should load $50-$200 and lose it 3 times and quit as far as I can see. Some people will load $500-$5000 and lose it 3 times and quit. There aren't many people who will re-load ten times or more. Or am I not giving enough credence to the powers of addiction? Is there a substantial section of online poker society that has re-loaded significantly many times and continues to re-load? I have catered for massive financial losers but I've compared them numerically to massive winners.

OK so what thoughts do we have on any of this? As a player I don't tend to pay any attention to anybody's bankroll but my own (one reason I lose at cash games). So I'm basing these claims on really just economic foundations, maybe with some folk psychology thrown in. Does anybody have any better evidence relating to the structure of the online poker economy than this?

[Noe]

Nope, I felt like I was in an economics class in college, which was too much for me on a Sunday afternoon. :P

[Professor]

As a quick guide..
70% long term losers..
25% break even..
5% long-term winners.
Though the INTERNET games have become tougher with all the free "how to play" info available so the winning percentages are possibly on the up but most losers are just that because they believe its rigged or down to luck they don`t seem to be able to grasp variance and bad play as possible causes for their losses.

[Professor]

By the way Dice... if you excerted as much mental effort into improving your play as you do on "Theorising" you would probably make a lot better player....just a thought.
Oh and if poker was all about logic and maths....you would be World Chimp...Ooops Champ

[Dice Man]

OK so this thread finally gets replied to.

As a quick guide..
70% long term losers..
25% break even..
5% long-term winners.

How are you defining these things though? There can really be very very few break-even players as most people have either won or lost more than a cent. That's why I only wanted to know about losers and winners really.

[Dice Man]

By the way Dice... if you excerted as much mental effort into improving your play as you do on "Theorising" you would probably make a lot better player....just a thought.
Oh and if poker was all about logic and maths....you would be World Chimp...Ooops Champ

I agree with you. If I cut the time I spent thinking about mathematics and logic then maybe I would be this good as well. Just a thought...

[wilfuljoker]

I think people do not have a true sense of whether they are winners or losers and other than housing every player in a Truman Show you are dependent on self-reporting which is notoriously flawed. How often does the average player tell you about the $1500 tourney they won? Did it cost them $400 in satellite buy-ins? Compared to how often they will have finished a session < $50 down (which they just happen not to think worth mentioning)? Like a lot of people, I tell myself that the &#163;40 I spent in a live tourney last night was just what I'd have spent on a night out with mates and I had a good time so it doesn't really count. The reason I have money spread across about 20 online sites is because I have deposited money, got close to the felt and then not wanted to reload. It would probably be really telling if you asked someone to keep track of how often they deposit and how often they withdraw money.

Following the release of the Gambling Commission report last September I posted a question on the other forum about "how much did you gamble last week?" and it was interesting the variation on what people understood what was meant by the question. Some people see gambling as a hobby with costs, same as any other hobby and don't expect to make money. I think all these recreational players would skew any attempt to balance it out across the whole population of poker players.

[Professor]

HI dice...Please enlighten me (Seriously)which site? and which name? thanks..Prof.

PS please also furnish us with your stats graph...

Maybe a heads up match 12 games at $,,,say $20....just to prove the stats?

[Dice Man]

That's the account, "no comment" for Poker.co.uk.

This is my graph, however the profit is at about $1000 as I was loaning the account to someone else for a bit. Would be pretty tough to actually deliberately make a graph like this:



ROI is still positive anyway.

[Professor]

Agreed your still in proffit...And I`m not... so now the heads up match ...just t prove how bad I am on this site.
Later this week perhaps?