Is it accurate that 96% of players lose money?

[Ricardo_lhp]

I believe that this number is based on the number of professionals who play part, since the overwhelming majority of poker rooms play for the love of the sport or are recreational, so considering that the majority do not study and do not live from the game then this 96% they lose money for that small portion that is professional and lives off the game.

 

[pjokay]

I would have thought it is pretty accurate. If you think most players even pros will only cash in 10-20% of tournaments but if you only merely cash your only making a slight profit the times you do cash and then losing money the other 80 or more % of times. It is only a tiny percent of players that regularly hit final tables where you really make the profit. Online a lot of people play quite large fields and these much harder to final table.

 

[MikeCarasone]

Play freerolls and you won’t lose.

This is my game plan and theory as well.. I have run up several decent amounts / withdrawals primarily from free roll winnings. Obv I use my free roll winnings to buy in to bigger buy ins and have Had a few decent results. I am still missing that huge score although I have put myself in solid position deep I have managed to get unlucky. I have to believe that variance will be in my favor soon enough. I want to lose my min cash / low cash streak.

 

[nyeesssss]

it's probobaly close to true that 95% of players lose money but most of those players are recreational players and some of them upload money maybe just once , get in some tournaments bang boom and its over. It is a completely different story if u play all the time and you study and you have good bankroll management. Poker is a longterm game with swings and badruns but if you play well you will make money in the end.

 

[77ecos]

I consider that this percentage is very high, I do not think it is so, I am reading everyone's answer and it is very interesting the different points of view, they are things that I did not know several points of view, very good topic:fight::fight::fight::fight:

 

[zokiusa]

poker

96%? I am not pretty sure bcuz it depends from control.If u are little bit angry or drunk u will go all in with every cards.There are many people who earn money without deposit starting from freerolls then they play tournaments and cash out solid money.For me i can say I have never deposited on acr but i cashout more than 5000usd for less than one year. Including freerolls,tournaments and sports betting.

 

[niphon56]

A tourment has about 10% ~ 15% ITM, 85%~90% lose.


If one can't win cash in 5 tourments, what he lose over 90%.

 

[Fatman0912]

Interesting statistic! I am not sure where I would be. For March I am in the losing 90-95%. But overall I am the winning section. Although my profit is not big, because I only play low buy in tournaments, but I try to build from there.

 

[zinzir]

I agree with you which is why I asked at the outset, what study or sample is this 96% figure based on. Because it seems to me the only reliable data set from which we could draw these conclusions would come from Pokerstars or another major provider, and I also don't see them making this data publicly available (perhaps there was a compelled disclosure?)

Because of how efficient rake is in removing money from the table, the vast majority of players are losing money in poker.


Example: If 9 people sit and play at the same poker table, each of them starts with $100 and nobody re-buys, considering a 10% rake and a $10 average pot, after only 800 hands the last man standing aka the winner of the table will take home the great prize of $100. The rest of $800 would be pocketed by the poker room through the rake, so none of the players actually makes any profit. In real life we don't really notice the money vanishing from the table because of people constantly changing and re-buying.

96% is in my opinion a made up number since actual studies looking into the percentage of losing players do not exist. The reason is simple: rigorous studies are expensive and need funding to take place, and in the gambling world the money stays with the casinos. Why would a casino fund a study to prove that people are guaranteed losers? It would be like tobacco companies funding studies proving smoking causes lung cancer.
On the other hand, nonprofit organizations like "gamblers anonymous" simply don't have enough money to spend on scientific studies like that.

 

[roger perkins]

I think the 96% figure is pretty close to accurate. However if you ask everyone 80% will tell you the break even and the other 20% will lie and say they are winners. So in a unscientific survey you will find no one is a loser. Me I win at poker then give it all back on the blackjack tables because Im a DUMBASS.

 

[rj_montana]

It seems the vast majority are in agreement that the figure is close to accurate. Does it discourage you from playing if you are competing to be amongst just 4% of players? That's nearly like trying to hit a one-outer

 

[zinzir]

I think the 96% figure is pretty close to accurate. However if you ask everyone 80% will tell you the break even and the other 20% will lie and say they are winners. So in a unscientific survey you will find no one is a loser. Me I win at poker then give it all back on the blackjack tables because Im a DUMBASS.

So you belong to the 20% then

 

[Nathan Williams]

I don't think it is that high.

I believe about 30% either breakeven or profit. But I do believe that perhaps only as little as 5% actually profit big, as in make "go pro" or "significant side income" type of money.

I wrote an entire article about all this on my website recently.

70% of poker players lose. Here's how to not be one of them.

 

[DS3]

Well I would have no idea, but this thread did prompt me to go to The Hendon Mob to look at some stats. Obviously their stats do not account for cash games but nonetheless...

2,049 players have made over a million according to tournament results.

A total of 4,315 have made over half a million. Some 14,724 have made $150,000.

Coming in 514, 282 is a Russian who has made $1 (one dollar).

Now, I know this is not super accurate because my name is not on the list and I have made more than one dollar. However...

These figures sound vaguely impressive until you take into account the total number of players around the world. But I have no idea how anyone could even get a decent 'ballpark' number of that player total (let alone estimate those who play cash primarily).

I wonder how many in the Cards Chat Free Roll Club are in profit?

 

[neptun1914]

First of all hendon mob covers relatively small percent of poker players in the world and is mainly focused on live events. Even there they account only the winnings but not the buyins and other expenses that players have. For example you see that player won 150K $ and you say - wow that is impressive. But if this player paid 100K for buyin he is really only 50K ahead and he also paid for the airplane tickets and hotels and so on while he play. Also it is not mentioned how many times he play but did not cash. In fact only the top players themselves can say how much money they are ahead or behind from their game but they are also interested to not reveal such information and keep the image of the game as glamorous as possible so that new players are attracted.

 

[Katie Dozier]

I’m not familiar with the study you’re referring to OP, and question how such a figure could possibly be assembled given that the honest truth seems to be that very few poker players seem to be capable of an honest appraisal of their own stats when it comes to profitability

In the very least, I do think that the vast majority of players are losing in a financial sense. I think it’s important though to remember that most common hobbies have basically no shot of winning money—paying to go to sports games or concerts, racing go karts or enjoying going out on a boat. My point is that just because you can make money playing poker doesn’t mean it is a pointless pursuit if you’re actually losing money (so long as it doesn’t cross the line into being an addictive problem). Of course, no one likes to think they’re losing money where they could (at least in theory) be making it.

A few years ago, I heard a bunch of regs outside the Rio before the start of the wsop Main Event. They were talking about how soft the tables were going to be in a mean-spirited way, using terms I hate like “fish.” The thing I realized more so than ever in that moment is how impressive the recreational players must be to be able to spend 10k on a tournament for their own enjoyment; how interesting these people must be to be able to afford that—how successful must they be in their time away from their poker hobby? odds are they were radically more successful and interesting than the mean-spirited “professionals” badmouthing them outside.

People play poker for many reasons, and though I think most people would answer “to make money” that’s rarely the real reason behind it.

 

[elJenio8]

I dont really thing 96% is an accurate number..

If you hit a big tournament, i dont see you losing a lot, unless you are crazy

 

[pawelmad9]

Yep I belong to this 95%

 

[praevus]

I believe it is probably higher. Most of players are recreational and play for hobby.

 

[Shrops]

No

No, I don't agree with that figure. It has to be much lower than that.

 

[vittopio]

I think a lot depends on the limits (the lower the more recreational players) and the variance of the results trims! But on average, I think the players minus no more than 65-70% otherwise who would play? But 96% thought up to raise the self-esteem !!

 

[Alberto Martinez]

No. Statistics can and will be wrong. For example, a quarterback throws 10 passes bu

96% is a high percentage given the ommission of circumstance. That is why many betters placing money on underdogs many times earn up to or beyond 50 times their wager. The circumstance that caused a person or team to be considered an underdog isn't always based on accurate performance. Keep the 96% on a weight to go fishing. GOD bless you.

 

[Alberto Martinez]

Agree to disagree.

Is it accurate that 96% of online poker players lose money? I have seen several users on this forum in several threads throwing this statistic around. I would like to know if there is any basis for it; what study or source is this 96% figure based on?

And if you do not agree, what do you figure the statistical breakdown is amongst winners, break even players and losers? Thanks! :five:

If players set out believing that a battle does not exist, the odds are fruitless frustrations. Knowing the existence of war and ommitting fear and applying cautious aggression and a kids bucket full of anticipated fun then and only then kick statistical breakdowns to the curb. GOD bless you.

 

[jumaischi]

we all lose money����or most of us)play freeroll and will not lose money:icon_comp...but that money you invest in your hobby so it's worth it

 

[BillyR23]

Most people see poker as a hobby and play without proper bankroll management and don't really care about table selection etc... so, IMO the statistics that say that over 90% of the people playing poker are actually losing money is true. I don't judge as some people prefer to spend their money on trips, concerts, fancy stuff, different online games(this are really 'black holes' as some of my friends spent over $10.000 different games just to get some extra stuff faster). We all need something extra in our life to relax and/ or blow some steam off and if poker works well for you and you can afford losing a few bucks then good for you, hopefully you'll have a fun experience at the tables
But let's not forget that the recreational players got a lot better over the years and we might see many pros in that 'losing section' instead...