What Percentage of Online Players are Winners?
> As far as online players, I would estimate that nearly 100%
> are losers. I know there are several well-known shills on this
> NG who claim to be online winners, but I don't believe it for a
> minute. It is my opinion that those who play online, lose online.
The original "Planet of the Apes" movie has a great scene where the ape judges sit in a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
pose when confronted with obvious truths. I can just imagine these guys sitting with their arms crossed, pouting, sure as God made little green apples
that Andrew Prock can't beat online poker.
Windows - Mac
> In 14,200 hands of .50/1 on Paradise:
> 2451 players seen
> 38.60% positive players
> 59.28% negative players
> total won lost for all players -2922.75
More data for sensible people to make a note of, and conspiracyites to pretend doesn't exist.
Dan Miller wrote...
> With all due respect to your opinion on this issue, poker casinos do
> not need winning players.
When dealing with online poker, this is absurd. Winners make up a far higher percentage online than in casinos for many reasons,
but the bottom line is, go to one of the major (even minor) sites. Look who is playing there regularly. Look at how good they play.
Winning players make up a high percentage of online players.
> So there are many more winners on the internet eh!! You can't be serious!!
By far. By a factor of about three.
> Mr. Badger I submit to this forum that you have finally painted
> yourself into a corner of conflicting refutations. You sir are so full
> of crap that I see no future in this discussion. I don't claim to be a
> holder of accurate statistics for an offshore inaccessible site but
> you can bet your patently absurd ass that you don't have them either.
Once again the conspiracyites ignore what amount of data is available, and what anecdotal speculation exists from very experienced people.
Here, online tools are available to analyze how the rest of the universe of players does (plus or minus) in the hands that you play.
This can't "prove" who are winners and losers, but information that has been posted here has shown numbers in the 25% to 40% range.
Now of course, you don't care about data, you just want to wave your arms and not take the time to
study what information is available, but in terms of
the brick and mortar world, estimates of winning players generally are under 10%. Now those estimates are anecdotal, but it should be
crystal clear that a higher percentage win online.
Lot of reasons for this, one being the much more favorable
rake, another being the restricted limits and bankrolls
which shove 30/60 players into 10/20 games, etc. Players who struggle to break even in 9/18 LA games beat 3/6 online games.
> One day you talk about how the rake is going to take all the money and
> the sites don't need to cheat and now you say that there are many more
> winners on the internet where they play twice as many hands and take
> twice as much rake per hour than B&M's.
You don't understand poker. Rake occurs on a per hand basis. So does income (or loss). You are making the argument that somebody who
plays twice as much is less likely to win. That's just silly. And, the way poker income is made is via the Weideman Edge Concept. The
more hands you can play with an edge, the more money you make.
> Please don't waste my time responding to this post.
I'm sorry that you want to close your mind when you quite obviously haven't given this ten minutes of thought. But, other people who
read RGP do indeed try to think about these issues, and I hope some of them will gain an appreciation of things you close your mind
to. The past week one thing I hope non-closeminded people have thought about is the rake. The rake is where the bulk of the money
goes. Rake is higher in b&m casinos, and rake is taken faster in speedy online games. Winning players have to focus on getting
some of the money of the 60 to 90% of the losing players before it is swallowed up by the cardroom.
> You obviously have another agenda other than trying to determine
> the truth about the inconsistencies with Paradise Poker.
What inconsistencies? Please be specific. Please state one thing that is backed up by one shred of evidence of any sort that points
out a bad, disturbing or dishonest inconsistency. Just one.
> I will agree with you that the quality of play is higher on the internet sites.
I did NOT say that. I said many top players play there, and at lower limits than their b&m play. The weaker players though are
atrocious. And I don't think trying to calculate an average player makes sense. Take Michael Jordan and my nephew and it might average
out to my ability as a basketball player, but that is no help in judging the merits of those two as players.
> I cannot accept your assessment from "anecdotal" estimates
> that 25% to 40% of the internet players are winning.
You misunderstood. The assessment of 10% winners for brick and mortar play are anecdotal. The data for online play is not anecdotal,
statistical. Pokerstat is one tool many people use to
learn about the game, rather than speculate aimlessly in the dark.
> I am not a front for any internet site. I am just a player who couldn't
> beat the games at Paradise and decided to move on. Maybe I don't play
> good enough to beat Paradise - that is certainly a possibility. I took my
> only out and moved to a site I could beat.
Maybe you found a site with weaker players in the games you play. Maybe you play better online poker now. But if you delude yourself
into thinking the fact you are winning at one is due to the cardroom or the software, you are in for an inevitable disappointment.
> I just find it amazing that you are so adamantly opposed to any
> discussion concerning possible improprieties of an offshore site that
> is not accountable to anyone for anything.
I am not opposed to any discussion, obviously since I spend time discussing this. But nonsense is nonsense. In discussing nonsense it
is perfectly appropriate to say that nonsense is nonsense. If somebody want to post that raising with 94o under the gun is a good
plan, I'll say the person is advocating a nonsensical position, and give my reasons, based on various data. The problem is the
conspiracyites refuse to look at data, and present nothing except absurd statements. That means the only thing to respond to are
absurd statements. Your winners online versus winners b&m is just another poorly considered idea. (One last thing, besides higher rake
in b&m's, there is also the freight of tipping.)
> Maybe someday there will be overwhelming evidence brought
> forward that Paradise is a site beyond reproach and that all of
> the players discussing strange events there were just whining losers.
> I just don';t see that happening when spokesmen for the industry like
> yourself choose to use anecdotal estimates to assure the public that
> everything is just fine and 40% of the players are winning on-line.
Perhaps you should read more carefully, since I clearly said the online estimates were NOT anecdotal. Start to educate yourself. It's
not hard. There is a lot of information available and tools to get more. Don't just live under a
Online Game Selection
Andrew Prock wrote...
> One of Badger's greatest skills is
> He likes to play in games where he can make more
> than a trivial amount of money.
Last night featured two of the liveliest online 10/20 Omaha8 games ever to go simultaneously. One had average pots of $339... and a
player percentage of only 41%. The other was in the $230 range. The bigger game had a player who raised every pot, bet every flop,
always bet if it was checked to him, lamely bluffed in hopeless situations, etc. Three dozen players on the waiting list for hours.
I only got to play a short time at the game's peak.
Some of the worst poker in the universe is played online. At the same time, fairly tough games exist too. Some people are unable to
use good game selection because of jobs or family commitments that dramatically restrict when they can play. I happen to do computer
work which allows me to monitor games all day and night, and pop in and pop out when the games are "good" (meaning, the type
of game that I like).
Game and table selection is a vital skill in casinos but it is absolutely a goldmine skill online -- where there are now ten cardrooms
with decent game selection. Players who only play one game at one limit on one cardroom simply are not exercising good game selection.
Again, this might be mostly unavoidable for non-poker reasons, but if it is avoidable then the player is playing very poor poker
indeed to not find the unbelievably juicy games available.
> Steve, I imagine you have some idea of your hourly expectation based on the
> average pot and flop %. So, numerically speaking, how good does a game have
> to be to be profitable for you, and what is your BB/hour in a typical/loose
> online game (say, 45-50% seeing flop and average pot = 8-9.5 BB)?
> This is the type of hard information that it would be nice to get from the
> "established" players.
I don't think the relationship you are looking for exists. There are two types of extremely profitable games that are diametrically
opposed statistically: games with huge pots and many people taking the flop; games with puny pots and few people taking the flop. Then
also one type of game that is usually bad -- biggish average pots with small percentages -- can sometimes actually be good if the
small percentage (say 24%) includes one player who plays every single hand.