The website later changed its opinion due to the uproar it generated among readers.
The statistics made by PTR were sent out to all registered members and were made with the help of their huge hand history database. The survey included NL50, NL100 and NL200 stats, and provided the following data:
From this, PTR drew the conclusion that 6-max was not only the most popular, but also the easiest NLHE table type. What surprised players, however, was that the winning rate exceeded 40% in all three cases. This made them consider whether a lower winrate actually means that the game is easier.
'Csnmf', a forum member challenged the statistics with the following comments:
"Less winning players makes it the softest? That’s interesting logic, I look at it the exact opposite, less winning players means it’s harder to win as less people can do it. Also might mean the skill level in players is more tightly distributed so less people beat the rake.
I don’t NECESSARILY see it as oh there’s less winning players therefore there are less good players I need to beat.
But basically I think those stats are nonsense in determining which are softest. Those figures are "misleading" (for lack of a better word) and I think are a result of simply the effect of rake considering that most people think that only 5-10% of people are winning poker players which I am inclined to agree with, although I can’t explain it.
Although I remember seeing similar figures in my database when i used PT2.
Pretty much I think we can draw very little from these stats."
'Csnmf' could have a point there, and there are a few other things that need to be thought of when viewing the stats:
The survey only took into consideration the results of one week. A huge part of the winning players were regulars, and most of the losing ones were newbies. These newly registered players will not be playing throughout the whole year, and will eventually end up losing their whole bankroll. This means, that while the winning players will probably remain the same during the year, the field of beginners changes constantly. This is why csnmf’s estimated 5-10% seems much more relevant.
Because of the ongoing debates, PTR issued a second statement, containing the following revisions:
'Two weeks ago, we showed you some data about how 6 max has a smaller percentage of winning players than heads up / full ring.
We suggested that 6 max games were the softest, but several newsletter readers called us out and said "No way!". The data could be interpreted two ways:
• 6 max games have room for more winners, therefore, they're easier.
• 6 max is so tough that only a small percentage of people are able to beat it
I gotta admit, they made a good point. So, to shed more light on the situation, we broke down the winrate of $50NL, $100NL and $200NL players that played over 1,000 hands in 2010.’
'The graph above won't settle the debate - it could still be interpreted several ways. But now, I'm leaning towards what our readers were saying: 6 max games are hard to beat!’ – said PTR.
The statistics made by PTR were sent out to all registered members and were made with the help of their huge hand history database. The survey included NL50, NL100 and NL200 stats, and provided the following data:
From this, PTR drew the conclusion that 6-max was not only the most popular, but also the easiest NLHE table type. What surprised players, however, was that the winning rate exceeded 40% in all three cases. This made them consider whether a lower winrate actually means that the game is easier.
'Csnmf', a forum member challenged the statistics with the following comments:
"Less winning players makes it the softest? That’s interesting logic, I look at it the exact opposite, less winning players means it’s harder to win as less people can do it. Also might mean the skill level in players is more tightly distributed so less people beat the rake.
I don’t NECESSARILY see it as oh there’s less winning players therefore there are less good players I need to beat.
But basically I think those stats are nonsense in determining which are softest. Those figures are "misleading" (for lack of a better word) and I think are a result of simply the effect of rake considering that most people think that only 5-10% of people are winning poker players which I am inclined to agree with, although I can’t explain it.
Although I remember seeing similar figures in my database when i used PT2.
Pretty much I think we can draw very little from these stats."
'Csnmf' could have a point there, and there are a few other things that need to be thought of when viewing the stats:
The survey only took into consideration the results of one week. A huge part of the winning players were regulars, and most of the losing ones were newbies. These newly registered players will not be playing throughout the whole year, and will eventually end up losing their whole bankroll. This means, that while the winning players will probably remain the same during the year, the field of beginners changes constantly. This is why csnmf’s estimated 5-10% seems much more relevant.
Because of the ongoing debates, PTR issued a second statement, containing the following revisions:
'Two weeks ago, we showed you some data about how 6 max has a smaller percentage of winning players than heads up / full ring.
We suggested that 6 max games were the softest, but several newsletter readers called us out and said "No way!". The data could be interpreted two ways:
• 6 max games have room for more winners, therefore, they're easier.
• 6 max is so tough that only a small percentage of people are able to beat it
I gotta admit, they made a good point. So, to shed more light on the situation, we broke down the winrate of $50NL, $100NL and $200NL players that played over 1,000 hands in 2010.’
'The graph above won't settle the debate - it could still be interpreted several ways. But now, I'm leaning towards what our readers were saying: 6 max games are hard to beat!’ – said PTR.
0 comments