Who Really Wins at Poker?

Deathmatch at the Rio

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.

The Stakes Matter

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 poker 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.

Lowest Levels: Limitations of Low-Limit

Here I'm thinking of the lowest stakes routinely played, from the 50¢/$1 Texas Holdem Limit games (although games this small are rare), through the more frequently spread $1/$2 Limit, to the popular $2/$4 games.

Here Fishy
Not a lot of winners down here.

An awful lot of folks play at this level of poker.

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 $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.

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.

Dan Skolovy
Rare creature.

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 +Expected Value 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's at this level that the true poker professional first shows up.

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'.

His new book 'Poker, Life and Other Confusing Things' from ConJelCo Publishing was just released and is available on Amazon.com.

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 semi-retired, Reber is a visiting scholar at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.

More poker strategy articles from Arthur S. Reber:

Please fill the required fields correctly!

Error saving comment!

You need to wait 3 minutes before posting another comment.

The Mummy 2017-04-05 17:30:18

It will make more sense when every time they mention dollars you replace it with the word shekels. Then it makes sense why they complain about a rake. They forget they are not even paying taxes on that income. I guess for SOME people, nothing is every a good deal.

wolfe 2017-02-19 23:46:29

The numbers in this article seem ridiculous and out of step with reality as far as my own experience. I make about $100 an hour at 1/2 NL, and this is -after- toke, drinks, and food (and I tip well on big pots). Further, I am not alone. I watch quite a few other regulars make as much, and sometimes more just as consistently.

What the author fails to take into account is that generally there are several "revolving door" seats at any given table. Sure, money gets pushed around between the better players, but we always have new money coming in with fish in these seats. In many cases, the fish get busted out so fast, I barely have time to notice them or recognize their faces.

fuckinguy1 2016-11-11 01:36:17

"ran good, i ran good, Play after work and I run good. Haven't experienced the bad side of variance yet cause im running good. Final tabled all my tournies which CLEARLY tells everybody Im running good"

Strype 2016-08-29 00:00:48

I call shenanigans. Your AAAA never lost to a royal. Bad example.

Strype 2016-08-28 23:45:21

They call that a "language barrier," moron.

rmx01indiana . 2016-07-28 10:34:57

Online poker is a joke anymore. Total bingo fest

Ara Gum 2016-05-27 17:25:54

They never Los A money ? Moron

Samael 2016-03-06 19:16:11

i am dominating live 1/2 2/4 Texas and my average is 120 and 200 per hour, the article is a crap i am playing as a semi pro after work, for 4 hours 3 to 4 days per week and i am making great money ... i am doing this the last 3 years and i am thinking to turn to pro ...i participated in 5 tournaments live all five made it to final table 1 won the rest got money from second to fifth...and i don't even like tournaments i am a cash player...and yes i played 10/20 couple of times and again i made money but i am sticking to 2/4 cause a lot of fish are playing and it's easy to make money...

Selina Bond 2016-02-19 01:39:15

For winning the online poker game player must follow the rules and strategy of the online dealer and daily practice of poker game is also required before gamble a money at online poker. If the players play poker game in proper way, then they never lose a money.

Anton 2015-08-05 06:45:30

I see people talk about 100s or 500 hours. that is 13k hands or so.
While it might feel like an impressive amount of poker, thats a very sad sample size and your results over such sample mean nothing.

1 2 3 4

Best Poker Sites - Editor`s Pick