You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
If SNGs and MTTs and considered collectively... Sharkscope had displayed in their FAQ section for several years that 1/3 of the screennames on their database were in profit; 2/3 were not.
If only MTT's are considered then the figure is around 18% but this counts players who may have never played poker before who open up 1 or 2 games, decide they hate it and leave. If you make the threshold a minimum of 100 games played then the figure is 40% according to someone who ran their entire players database from Stars.
Linky
for interest, i looked at the latest figures for this.
in 2017, there have been 27,034 unique players in 3,561 major tournaments.
the number of players in profit is 4,489 which is 16.6%.
i also looked at how these players have faired over the past 4 years (1 Jan 2014 to date). given the same 27,034 unique players in 22,282 major tournaments, the number of players in profit is 5,521 which is 19.3%.
2017
27,034 unique players in 3,561 major tournaments.
the number of players in profit is 4,489 which is 16.6%.
2016
43,128 unique players in 7,725 major tournaments.
the number of players in profit is 6,995 which is 16.2%.
2015
46,514 unique players in 7,756 major tournaments.
the number of players in profit is 7,120 which is 15.3%.
2014
38,383 unique players in 3,240 major tournaments.
the number of players in profit is 5,797 which is 15.2%.
hi matt,
prompted by your post, i looked at the games played on the last day of UKOPS, including the high roller. the strength of each mtt is as follows
5pm £11 - best player proportion of field 88% - factor 7 - hard
7pm £22 - best player proportion of field 85% - factor 7 - hard
8pm £110 - best player proportion of field 91% - factor 8 - hard
8:30pm £5.50 - best player proportion of field 74% - factor 5 - soft
9pm £22 - best player proportion of field 89% - factor 7 - hard
10pm £55 - best player proportion of field 95% - factor 9 - OMG
and the high roller...
7:30pm £530 - best player proportion of field 80% - factor 6 - ok
counter-intuitive. you'd think that the high roller would be OMG level. it is simply OK. my thinking is that there was a high number of wealthy average players.
.
yes, that's probably it.
The main point I was contending is that "very few players are profitable". I know there are difficulties in quantifying that statement but to me, "few players" may fall in the ballpark of the figures we are citing but, to me at least, "very few players" suggests that hardly anyone would be in profit. I personally don't think 15-33% (whatever the precise figure may be) would count as "very few" but rather 'some players' or even a 'minorty of players'.
Trying to figure out exactly what % of players are profitable is no mean feat. The answer anyone comes up with is going to be so methodologically dependent. If we count a player who had ever lost a single game as a 'losing player' (as they had actually lost a game) and players who had ever won a game as a 'winning player' then we would get precise figures that would show similar values over any sample size. This methodology would of course not provide figures that are either useful or that drive at the essence of the question at hand.
The methodology you are using is far more useful than the approach I have just mentioned. However if we are compiling stats and making general inferences from them, as to 'how many players are profitable', then we really need to be able to spot the limitations of the methodology we are using if we are going to make inferences from them with any real degree of confidence.
In that light... I do not doubt for a second that your figures are accurate for what you are measuring. This and any post I have made are also not intended to be a pop at yourself in any shape or form; they are simply an attempt to get towards a more accurate figure for the topic at hand. The factors you are measuring however do not necessarily provide a robust method from which results can be used with a high degree of confidence to make generalisations regarding what % of poker players overall are actually in profit.
The approach you are using discounts SNGs which are a completely different dynamic and make up the majority of tournament games played on most sites. You are measuring 3000-8000 tourneys per year, there are probably that amount of SNGs played on the site in a day. The tourneys you are getting results from are also 'only certain tourneys' which meet the criteria for inclusion on your site.
Obviously for efficiency and logistical reasons you are also not able to account for freerolls and rakeback which have a significant influence on whether someone is profitable or not. There are a quite a lot of players who are around break even or marginal losers who after rakeback make a steady profit. I would question any approach that classed these players (players who were regularly cashing out) as players who lost money at poker.
Now do the methods I have mentioned provide us with empirical answers we can place loads of confidence in and make generalisations from? I would say no, absolutely not! I would say however that they are more inclusive than the method you are using. The Sharkscope method for example is simply counting how many usernames on their database are in profit. This method has used much less filtering and therefore is considering many more factors so I would say we can use it to identify trends at least. The general pattern when including more factors seems to indicate that more players than what we might think seem to be making a profit.
There are even problems agreeing on what a 'poker player' is. If I mow my front lawn it doesn't make me a gardener? So does playing 1 or 2 poker games make you a 'poker player'? I mean I messed around on a surf board once in LA, does that make me a surfer? If we discount people who have played an odd game in their life then profitability results are drastically altered.
On top of that we haven't even given a thought to another massive dynamic which probably accounts for the bulk of online poker play... cash games.
As mentioned at the start of this overly long ramble... To take on the question that is "What percentage of poker players are profitable", is to take on a huge question. To get any results that actually come close to being empirical would require conducting a major research project. I don't pretend to have all the answers for a second. I would just suggest that the figure looks, to me at least, to be more than "very few players".
P.S. The main reason I wrote that long ramble is that I personally feel this is an important question. If the general public (potential future poker players) feel that a higher percentage of players lose money that what is actually the case... It will put a lot of people off of playing poker before they have ever even considered picking up a virtual chip.
just to mention one or two things... i talked only of "few" players, which i think holds true with fewer than 18% make a profit in mtts.
also note that this thread is about strength in mtts. it has been taken a bit off track to talk of assessing profitable player in poker in general.
my purpose has been to have reliable stats to compare player performances. if you include sng you move away from a measure that is meaningful. including cash is not practical, neither my site or sharkscope take cash into account.
it remains that only 1 in 6 make a profit in mtts. i think many would be suprised that it was so few. i was.
i disagree that a player who win one tournament should be called a winning player when they may have lost numerous others.
for me, a winning player is one who makes a profit.
the factors i measure do provide a robust method from which results can be used with a high degree of confidence to assess performance.
i make no generalisation regarding what % of poker players are actually in profit from major mtts. they are facts.
i discount SNGs which are a completely different dynamic with good reason. sngs, freeroles etc distort the numbers and the interpretation of figures becomes unreliable and less meaningful.
rakeback is almost insignificant when assesing the percentage of profitable players. i would guess that it would add less than 1% to the percentage of winning players.
i think your methodology is not the best. you really need to be more qualitative and quantitive. you use polarised definitions of a winning and a losing player. it is more than someone who has won one tournament, or someone who has lost every tournament. there is a big, measureable and meaningful grey area in between these groups.
finally, i have long known the perentage of players who make a profit in mtts. as i said, i tracked this for 2 years and it has remained constant. i have never posted about this and have only mentioned, "few" until it was questioned here in earlier posts.
incidentally, if we wanted to assess players by sngs dyms we would see a percentage of profitable players nearing 40%. rake takes a percentage and skill skews the results a little afterwards.
yes. true and brilliant.
i considered several ways to assess game strength. this method is good but isn't perfect. it is worthwhile noting that other methods withstand scrutiny less well.
there is never going to be a perfect method until a time machine is invented. until then, i am running with this as a good way of seeing where the value might be. the output is already meaningful.
The "100 top players" show who has the most points in MTTs that are almost always £5-55 (1 daily £3, 2 weekly £109). Volume is more important than profitability.
So-in £5-55, the smaller the field, the more will be in the core group.
In £109's you have moved outside the key group-it is double the top end of the Regs MTTs. some players will only play £109's plus. some sat in via the 6:30 freerolls.
£530's are outside the bankroll of the majority of the "sky reg" criteria you have set. Many of the players may well have a £1million-plus badge on pocket 5's but may only play 2 or 3 MTTs a year on Sky. To give an extreme example, Chris Moorman played his first MTT on sky in a previous series-by your criteria, he would have been classed as a "weak" player-good luck with that!
Your stats are excellent, but (like all stats) limited. For £5-55 your "hot-o-meter" is accurate, at £109 dubious, and at £530 (with respect) to be ignored
the same for those given, or winning, a seat in a promotion for example.
ps. i think sharkscope counts satellites. i think that it is a distortion. unnecessary too.
It all comes back to what starting criteria are used. a lot of the very biggest MTTs on Sky ARE sats-Vegas, Punta Cana, and the 3/6 pms for starters.
chris moorman is quite good. from my records, he played 4 major tournaments on sky poker, winning only 1 plus a 3rd place and two other nowheres. all games were £50 plus buy-in. a total buy-in of £860 and profit over £13,538.