Loading...Who Really Wins at Poker?
Pretty sure these guys are winners. Every poker player is a winning poker player ... to hear them tell it. But how many of these players are telling the truth?
Winning. It's a drumbeat theme on Web sites and poker blogs, and in chat rooms and discussion groups. I'm active on a couple of these and have invested a lot of time and energy on this topic.
My fellow poker junkies are a knowledgeable and successful gang. A good bit of what follows comes from our discussions, although the opinions expressed are mine.
I expect that not everyone will agree with me. If you take issue, leave a comment. There are few better ways to learn than by having legit, solid disagreements.
First, the stakes being played for are critical. This feature so overwhelms all others that we need to break the discussion down into levels - where "level" refers to cash, not skill. You can find excellent players at the lowest stakes and truly horrible players at the highest.
Second, private house games are different from games in licensed cardrooms, live play is different from online play and short-handed play is different from full-ring games.
For this essay, I'm restricting myself to ring games, played live in a brick-and-mortar casino or cardroom with a dealer hired by the house.
The other settings have a host of basic differences that force a different kind of discussion - which we can have some other time.
Even OMGClayAiken started out small.
Lowest Levels: Limitations of Low-Limit
Here I am thinking of the lowest stakes routinely played, from the 50¢/$1 Limit games (although games this small are rare), through the more frequently spread $1/$2 limit, to the popular $2/$4 games.
An awful lot of folks play at this level. I suspect that maybe as many as 80% to 85% of all regular poker players never venture above it.
There aren't any No-Limit games spread these days that, in my mind, qualify. The least costly that's commonly found is a $1/$2 with a maximum buy-in of $100, which is certainly not at the "lowest" level.
I am quite certain that, among these legions of regulars, there are no long-term winners. None, ningunos, net, keine. This game essentially cannot be beaten on anything like a long-term basis.
The problem is the natural variation in the game (i.e., "luck"), plus a host of other factors. These include the rake - usually between $3 and $5 (although some rooms are now raking $6) per hand - the dealer's toke and, as is often the case in these lower-limit games, a "bad beat" jackpot.
Combined, these costs mean that up to $8 is taken out of every pot. In a $1/$2 game this amounts to 4BBs an hour.
Winning 1 or 2 BB/hour under these conditions would be a glorious but essentially unreachable goal and, even if you were sufficiently skilled to pull this off, the gas, food and waitress tokes will flatline you.
These lowest-level games are for recreational players only. If you play here and are only losing a little, which I interpret as 1SB an hour or less, you should be very pleased with yourself and happy.
William Hung's known to play some low limits.
You're having a great time playing a fabulous game with friends and compatriots, and it's costing you less than dinner at a decent restaurant or a movie for two at the local Cineplex. Life is good.
Low to Mid-Levels: The Five Percenters
Here I include Limit games from $4/$8 up to $10/$20 or perhaps $15/$30, and No-Limit games with blinds of $1/$2, provided that the maximum buy-in is no more than $200.
At these levels it is possible to be a long-term, consistent winner, but it is a tough row to hoe. As in the above games, the rake, tokes and bad beat jackpots present a nearly insurmountable barrier.
It's difficult to see how one can play with +EV at this level. My guess is that fewer than 5% of the people who routinely play at these levels in legitimate cardrooms are making money.
Yes, a few whose skills are near to top of the game, with good bankroll management and nonexistent tilt factor, are clearing 1 or perhaps 2BB a hour, but they are rare creatures.
Mid- to Semi-high Levels: The True Pros Emerge
These games run from $20/$40 to $80/$160 Limit and $ 2/$5 to $10/$20 No-Limit. At these levels, things change. My estimate is that between 10% or 15% of regulars in these games are long-term winners (it could be a tad more; it's hard to tell).
The impact of the rake is lessened at these stakes, but the critical factor is that it is at this level that you first find regular "contributors," folks with a lot of money and a lot of gamble in 'em.
Regular gamblers who routinely shoot craps with black chips and play blackjack with purples like to play poker too, but they don't get any zip out of playing at lower levels. They are rarely sufficiently skilled to present much of a problem to the experts and, as a result, provide the profit margin.
Not surprisingly, it is at this level that the true poker professional first shows up.
Guy falls into this next category.
High Stakes: Preying on the Rich
I'm counting as high stakes anything above the previous levels. Here, things shift once more. My educated guess is that well over half of the players are longtime winners.
As with the preceding category, this is mainly because they feed off a (smaller but reliable) stable of well-heeled contributors.
There are a lot of millionaires who love action - you would likely recognize some of their names. They are often good players and might do well at lower levels, but prefer to play with the very best. Without these folks, the top players would just move money around and around the table.
A common guesstimate is that only about 5% of all regular players are long-term winners. This is probably correct, but you need to appreciate that these players are distributed unevenly throughout the levels at which poker is played.
Author Bio:
Arthur Reber has been a poker player and serious handicapper of thoroughbred horses for four decades. He is the author of The New Gambler's Bible and coauthor of Gambling for Dummies. Formerly a regular columnist for Poker Pro Magazine and Fun 'N' Games magazine, he has also contributed to Card Player (with Lou Krieger), Poker Digest, Casino Player, Strictly Slots and Titan Poker. He outlined a new framework for evaluating the ethical and moral issues that emerge in gambling for an invited address to the International Conference of Gaming and Risk Taking.
Until recently he was the Broeklundian Professor of Psychology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York. Among his various visiting professorships was a Fulbright fellowship at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. Now semiretired, Reber is a visiting scholar at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.
More poker strategy articles from Arthur S. Reber:
Comment(s) on this article
Fred Mar 13, 2009
I agree with most of the articles although I think it is much easier making consistent money playing 1/2 NL than playing 2/5 NL. 90% of the poeple that play poker at the 1/2 tables are poeple that go to the casino for a good time and don't care much about the outcome. However when I stepped it up the the 2/5 tables the competition got much harder, and instead of making around 600$/night at the 1/2, I made between 100 to 200$ at the 2/5$. The better conpetition considerably reduced my net profit. So I think even after the rake and everything, it is much easier to make money at the 1/2 tables than it is at the 2/5 tables.
Tim Mar 14, 2009
Weird, about the author saying how you can't make money in the long run at those 1 2 tables. I mean I understand what he's saying but I can usually grind out a couple hundred dollars playing. You could build a pretty decent bankroll with that.
Astral Raven Mar 14, 2009
I have to disagree: The common expected hourly rate is always described as converging to 1BB/H. However, everywhere i found this number the reference was to a LIMIT game. A winning NLHE player with good bankroll management and deep understanding of implied odds, should, IMHO look at much higher numbers (with higher variance of course). I never heard of a common BB/H for NL games, but i would guess more in the range of A full Buy-In per couple of hours (playing as a TAG). Even if I'm off by 50% that's still 50BB/Session - profitable on all levels. (I assume this number would be much much higher on the 1/2$ tables).
Edward Mar 15, 2009
I don't quite agree with this article. IMO the lower stakes are much more profitable than the higher ones. The rake and other costs are easily compensated by the prevalence of many loose-passive players.
I do agree however that (1) probably 95% of the players at lower-stakes tables are losing, and (2) the winning at lower stakes are not enough to live on, so decent players will move to higher limits rather quickly.
Francisco Serrano Mar 16, 2009
Excellent article, those dreaming on earning some real and consistent money at the poker tables, better be prepared for a tought ride.
I will like to hear about online poker, where no food, tipping the waiters, drinks take place with a high cost.
You can also multitable making the number of hands a lot higher than in live games.
Arthur Reber Mar 17, 2009
I appreciate the comments.
Fred: $600 a night works out to $150,000 a year! You may be making this at 1/2, but that's one hell of a win rate --- at any low to mid-stakes game.
Tim: I wasn't saying you can't make money at 1/2. I was merely pointing out that very few do. If you are. Terrific.
Astral: You're right about limit vs. no limit. But I don't think it works to talk about buy-ins or sessions since these differ so much. The NL number often tossed around is 5 to 10 BB/hour for the better players. I honestly don't know what the real story is here.
Edward: I don't know why you don't agree with the article. I say exactly what you said.
Francisco: I'll get around to doing a column on online play soon. It gets very complex because (a) the vast majority of players play less than 100 hands, lose and quit and (b) the regulars multi-table.
Arthur
kyle preckwinkle Mar 18, 2009
I'm pretty new to the game and have been playing very low limit games online and recently tournaments, I find I do much better in tournaments, and lose badly in cash play. I've read super system and find it's rules of play don't necessarily translate to these small cash games, what books might you recomend me specifically about odds on different hands and such. A specific example I'm thinking of is this; I go all in, in a tournament with AK off suit against an A5 suited and 10J suited and 10J is the favorite, huh. Then if you switch out the A5 suited for an AJ he has slightly worse odds. What? Perhaps you have some good suggestions for some in-depth theory for a newbie looking to be a serious player.
Sean Lind Mar 18, 2009
Hey Kyle, you should read around our articles on this site. Most of this stuff comes from a little hint here, a tip there.
In your hands AK vs A5 vs 10J. 10J has the chance of hitting a straight, or a flush, or any pair to win the pot. AK has to dodge all straights, flushes and pairs.
Here's the answer to your second question, which might help you understand the first. Straight and flush chances are valuable. When A5 is vs AK, A5 has the chance of hitting the wheel (lowest straight, A-2-3-4-5). When you put AJ vs AK, AJ loses the chance of hitting the straight, since 10-J-Q-K-A will chop the pot with AK. Because of this, A5 will have a slightly better chance of beating AK than AJ will.
Read every article you can, and talk to player. The more you do, the better you'll get.
kyle preckwinkle Mar 18, 2009
Thanks a lot shaun, I was on tilt at the time, I think I'll be more hesitant about going all in with multiple players in the future unless I'm very short stacked or have kings or aces. I have been reading around on this site and one of my first articles was how to crush 1$/2 by Skolovy. I wonder what you guys think about that article it would seem that Reber would disagree that even a pretty good player has much chance of being profitable over time on that level.
Sean Lind Mar 18, 2009
LIVE $1-$2 is a tricky game. As Reber says, the problem is the rake. basically you're getting taxed 10% on every pot $60 and below, that makes up the vast majority of all $1-$2 pots.
You have to be able to beat the game at a level that compensates for that rake. 90% of players don't beat the games they play, out of the 10% that do, not many of them are beating it enough to be able to suck up a 3bb per pot tax.
The Skolovy article is written about "the perfect $1-$2 table". This is where 6-8 of the players on the table are bad to absolutely horrible. At a table like this any good player will make good money.
If you play at a strong room on a weekday with only regulars, playing 6-8 decent players, one good player, and one fish if you're lucky, then the rake will win in the end.
Poker is all about table selection.
Fred Mar 18, 2009
I agree with Skolovy's article. (Although he over simplifies it) Most NL1/2 tables are "perfect tables". I don’t know where you play but where I play, there is not much competition at the 1/2 tables. Like I said in my previous comment, most people are just looking for entertainment, so it is very easy to beat the rake.
Like Sean said, Poker is all about table selection and at the 1/2 level most tables are good. This makes poker at this level easier and the rake is not hard to beat for strong players.
Leave a comment