Whats the average yearly result for 2+2-posters? -10 000$?

72% of 2p2ers are better than average. Interesting!

Duh…just look at my screen name

This is the number one poker fallacy.

Ask everyone at a poker table if they are a good player and 80-90% will tell you they are.

The disconnect is only about 5% of people beat the live game after rake and tips.

Its basically the delusion that keeps the games good.

IMHO if you have a winning record over a decent (recorded) sample size you are probably in the top 5% of players.

I would guess the vast majority of people posting on here don't even keep any records.

The surprising thing is the poll results indicate 75% of posters on this site accurately gauge their skill level.

The only people more delusional than poker players about their skills are pool players.
For the most part, both groups suck...

That seems really, really high, but I guess that depends on who one includes in "2+2 posters". I would think the majority play poker either as a hobby, or very part time.

I have no idea if that is accurate for those who responded, but I'd completely expect that the average of the more active 2+2ers would be better than the average of all 2+2 posters.

If posters are willing to list their player ID, how about running them through PokerproLab and find out? By the way, I don't know how reliable that data is.

< average compared to the new wave.

A player with an average or even below average skill set can be a long term winner in the game if there are substantial whales blowing off tons. It used to make the world go round. I don't see as many whale suckers nowadays.

There's a lot of players who would have qualified as 'good' 10-15 years that very much are not now with everyone getting way better. But yes these days I'd say your percentage is pretty accurate.

Hi Dreamer:

I believe that if you were to go into a major poker room and took a count of the players seated the percent of winners would be around 70 percent. And at the high stakes games it should be around 90 percent.

Mason

"I'm Ze BEST!!!!"

thats gold jerry. gold

Dan Bilzerian is a poster. Hes won about 100 trillion billion. Takes the average up quit a bit.

Yes, i am better than you all. Life is not fair.

Ppl also think this about their IQ.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6029792/

A recent survey found that 6% of Americans think they could beat a grizzly bear in unarmed combat.

Hi Mason,

I see you caveat is "major poker room" You didn't mention stakes.

I think you mean the top/big games where the best players try and slice up the fish.

Most poker rooms across the US deal 1-2 or 1-3.

The vast vast majority of the players who are playing right now live in the US are playing those stakes.

What % are beating the game after rake and tips in those games

If its 5% I would be amazed.

Some experts claim some of those games are almost unbeatable especially at some of the rake drops that are common.

Again I stand by my 5% figure (and would not be surprised if its lower)

D.

27% think they could beat Bigfoot....

While the percentages may vary a little bit this should apply to almost any poker room.

Here’s how to see this. Suppose you have two players, A and B. A plays 1,000 hours a year and wins while B plays 10 hours a year and loses. Shouldn’t A count 100 times more than B?

Notice that there’s some sort of contradiction here. If only 5 percent of poker players win, why are there so many winners when you walk into a poker room? The answer is in my example above and the 5 percent figure, while possibly true if everyone who sat down in a poker room was counted equally, is not accurate.

Mason

Hi Mason

No, because I am talking about % of players not % of hours played.

Your contention is most people are winners because they play the longest.

The best players I know (solid proven live winners) tend to play only at the best times. Quality games over quantity.
A great person once told me, "Poker is a great part time gig and a poor full time one"

I have seen games during the day that are filled with OMC types, grinding it out for promotions or maybe comps.
They look at it as cheap entertainment even if they are slight losers.
Mostly terrible games where the biggest winners at the table are the rake and the dealer.
There are tons of these slight losers who play many hours especially during the week.

Because there are not? I just don't see what you are seeing. That's my personal experience.
Most people are not great but even the half decent players probably can't beat the rake at 1-2 and 1-3

As mentioned I counted people not hours.

Have you ever sat at 1-2 to 1-3 games recently. The average player is not great. Of course the better players graduate to higher stakes pretty quickly leaving the pool at 1-2 to 1-3 (by FAR the vast majority of games AND hours being played) to losing players and a few who are barely breaking even.
You also have the players who are just good enough to win at 1-2, take shots at 2-5 or 5-10 and get smashed.
Are they winners or losers......Or are they part of poker ecosystem that funnels the money to the 5% of real winners.

Yet as my original point stated the vast majority of players at these games think they play well but almost certainly lose after rake and tips.
The poker delusion.

D.

No. What I'm saying is that when you walk into a poker room, the majority of players seated are winning players. And if it's a room that offers high stakes game, the percentage of winners seated at the tables is even higher.

Okay.

This is certainly true for some players.

Okay

What I suspect that you're missing is that many games are well worth playing if there is only one terrible player, and games like this happen a lot.

Games like these will often include one or more terrible player. They may not be there all the time, but they'll be there often enough.

And that's a big mistake because many of the people you're counting are only rarely seated in a poker game.

Actually, I play these games much more than you think. At The Bellagio, I'll often sit in the $1-$3 no-limit game since I can get in it immediately while I'm waiting for the game, usually limit hold 'em, that I want to play.

That's not my experience. What I see is an occasional terrible player who loses rapidly and pays for most of the rake in the long run.

Per your description, which I don't completely agree with, these people are winners since most of their time sitting in the poker room will be at a game they beat. Also, now you're making a distiction between marginal winners and "real" winners.

In my view, when I say the majority of players who are seated at the table are winners, I'm counting someone who is ahead $1 at the end of the year. And this would include the comps they receive since that has value.

I do agree that many players think they play better than they do, but that's a different issue.

Mason

The Dreamer's original contention is that "only 5% of people beat the live game after rake and tips," not 5% of the people seated at any given moment.

You are trying to tell him he's wrong by arguing a different question.

What percentage of people who ever do play or have played poker for money in a card room do you think are overall winners on their lifetime graphs (or would be if they actually kept records)?

Actually, if you count someone who has only played one hour of poker in a live poker room, the 5 percent figure may be high. But it's a very misleading statistic since it doesn't represent what's really going on in our public poker rooms. So, when someone says that only 5 percent of poker players are winners, in my opinion he's not talking about any poker room that I know of.

By the way, years ago I got to play in probably the best poker games that there ever were in our public poker rooms. Ironically I had just moved to Las Vegas, but in 1987 in the Los Angeles area hold 'em and seven-card stud by a court ruling had become legal.

In the large poker rooms in that area, there were lots of high draw and lowball players, many of whom played high stakes, who wanted to try limit hold 'em or stud. So, even though I had just moved to Nevada, I found myself coming back to South California to play limit hold 'em, and I was often in a game, usually $10-$20 in a Gardenia poker room, where no one else had a clue of how to play. These games were consistent with the idea that only 5 percent of the players were winning players (and they were, in my opinion, better than the games at the peak of the poker boom).

Mason

Wouldn't be surprised if the median member doesn't regularly play poker at all