Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

Article: How Many Winners?

Reply to Thread
  1. grapsfan grapsfan is offline Head Curmudgeon

    Rosemount, MN
    United States

    Posts: 7,980
    Joined: Jun 05

    Dec 28th, 2009 (12/28/2009 8:27pm)

     
  2. Gregrrr Gregrrr is offline

    Racine, WI
    United States

    Posts: 223
    Joined: Apr 06

    Dec 30th, 2009 (12/30/2009 2:26am) in reply to grapsfan

    <p>I don't think your study considers the possibility that alot of players will profit at lower buy-ins and "lose-it-up" to the higher levels.  If you take bankroll mismanagement into account, your 30-39% winners are probably reduced to the 10% you were looking for.  Just a hunch. </p>
  3. nicelybaked nicelybaked is offline

    Argentina

    Posts: 400
    Joined: Oct 06

    Dec 30th, 2009 (12/30/2009 6:52am) in reply to grapsfan

    <p>most tournaments played by someone with worse than a -30% ROI = 8,968 (honestly, when you’ve lost $50k with an $18 average buy-in, wouldn’t you figure out you needed lessons at some point?)</p>
    <p>HOLY CRAP!!!.Am i really that bad?  I'm looking for a staker if anybody interested:)</p>
  4. racer racer is offline

    Gananoque
    Canada

    Posts: 994
    Joined: Oct 08

    Dec 30th, 2009 (12/30/2009 8:37am) in reply to grapsfan

    <p>good work graps, love the number crunching!</p>
  5. greenman21 greenman21 is offline

    Winston Salem, NC
    United States

    Posts: 6
    Joined: Sep 07

    Dec 30th, 2009 (12/30/2009 8:58am) in reply to grapsfan

    <p>graps - what exactly do you consider profitable?  A lot of these people might win "big" at a lower buyin and continue to lose it at a large buyin - likely in one shot.  They may be extremely "profitable" at the low buyins.  That would keep the average buyins low and make the winnings look bad. So is profitable the overall profit or just at the lower buyins you studied?  </p>
  6. grapsfan grapsfan is offline Head Curmudgeon

    Rosemount, MN
    United States

    Posts: 7,980
    Joined: Jun 05

    Dec 30th, 2009 (12/30/2009 9:55am) in reply to grapsfan

    <p>Greg & greenman - if they showed up as +$ in OPR, I called them profitable.  If they showed up as -$, I said they weren't.  I didn't try to judge based on buy-in level, for the same reason you pointed out.  What's important is overall profit, not whether or not you can compete in one game and get thrashed in another.</p>
    <p>If someone wins $900 playing a bunch of 4+.40 180-mans, then loses $1075 taking five shots in the Sunday Million...I think they're a losing player overall, as would you, as would OPR.</p>
     
    Thread Starter
  7. Spaceh0g Spaceh0g is offline

    United States

    Posts: 348
    Joined: Feb 07

    Dec 30th, 2009 (12/30/2009 10:32am) in reply to grapsfan

    <p>I'd say you need to come up with a $ or roi cutoff that defines a winning player.  For exampe, if i make $20 over 1,000 games, i wouldn't really consider myself a winning player, i just have a cheap hobby...</p>
  8. snaggs snaggs is offline

    Lancaster, PA
    United States

    Posts: 3,708
    Joined: Dec 06

    Dec 30th, 2009 (12/30/2009 11:46am) in reply to grapsfan

    <p>hey graps,</p>
    <p>Just thinking, while it's a start, sample size is still awfully small, and not really random as you have targeted a very specific subset of tournament poker players.</p>
    <p>Sure you included all the given players results, but the 180 man players tend to focus pretty heavily.</p>
    <p>What about doing the same study across 3 micro MTT's ($3.30 and under) 3 minis ($11) 3 Mids ($26- $55) and three highs?  Combine that with your previous results and while your sample size is probably a little small still to be perfectly statistically relevant, your range of player should have improved greatly.</p>
    <p>Of course this is easy for me to say lol, as it would be a buttload of work.</p>
     
  9. grapsfan grapsfan is offline Head Curmudgeon

    Rosemount, MN
    United States

    Posts: 7,980
    Joined: Jun 05

    Dec 30th, 2009 (12/30/2009 12:10pm) in reply to grapsfan

    <p>spaceh0g, you're right that my definition of "winner" v. "loser" was quite literal.  But since I'm defining the term, I think my choice is as good as anyone else's.  What do you think is a good ROI for a "winning" player, if not just > 0?</p>
    <p>snaggs, I thought about doing something similar to what you came up with.  But entering data for about 1000 players took me about 6 hours of repetitive cut-and-paste.  If I took the tournaments you suggest, we're talking about 15-20x the number of players.  I'm just not up for it.  I'm not even sure I would have tackled this if I knew ahead of time how much it was going to take.</p>
    <p>I'd be more than happy to talk to you about what I did, and send you the spreadsheet template, if you'd like (I think I know what you're going to say...lol).</p>
    <p>Thanks for reading, everyone.</p>
     
    Thread Starter
  10. Iplaythabored Iplaythabored is offline ghost writer

    NY
    United States

    Posts: 1,921
    Joined: Jan 08

    Dec 30th, 2009 (12/30/2009 1:23pm) in reply to grapsfan

    <p>pretty interesting</p>
     
  11. jw jw is offline

    Croton On Hudson, NY
    United States

    Posts: 197
    Joined: Mar 05

    Dec 30th, 2009 (12/30/2009 1:42pm) in reply to grapsfan

    <p>One of the factors that I think you have to look at as well are RB, bonuses and VIP perks...a casual player can be breakeven or slightly profitable/loser and still be profitable overall after grinding out a few thousand per year from RB, bonuses, etc.</p>
  12. truczat truczat is offline

    Posts: 2
    Joined: Nov 07

    Dec 31st, 2009 (12/31/2009 4:32am) in reply to grapsfan

    <p>There is a simple filter on OPR-All Poker Rankings.</p>
    <p>The ZERO profit point in pokerstars:</p>
    <p>300.000</p>
    <p>(1.000.000 active players in 2009, small SNG's cash excluded)</p>
    <p>We can suppose, that players won in MTTS will loose mostly all their bankroll in not catalogized games:cash,sng</p>
  13. truczat truczat is offline

    Posts: 2
    Joined: Nov 07

    Dec 31st, 2009 (12/31/2009 4:34am) in reply to grapsfan

    <p>My previous statemnet based upon cashflow upward directions.</p>
    <p>Most of the sick run MTT winner will loose when play in higher limits, which not their level of thinking.</p>
  14. Landsbanki Landsbanki is offline

    Alva
    United Kingdom

    Posts: 18
    Joined: Jan 10

    Jan 16th, 2010 (1/16/2010 10:44am) in reply to grapsfan

    <p>Here's the proportion of profitable players on each network curtesy of sharkscope. Only includes players who've played >100 SNGs</p>
    <p>Network % Profitable Players </p>
    <p>Merge 44% </p>
    <p>Cereus 39% </p>
    <p>B2B 33% </p>
    <p>Cake 32% </p>
    <p>party 32% </p>
    <p>Ongame.it 31% </p>
    <p>everest 31% </p>
    <p>Sky 31% </p>
    <p>pkr 30% </p>
    <p>pokerstars.it 29% </p>
    <p>IPN 28% </p>
    <p>SvenskaSpel 27% </p>
    <p>PokerStars 27% </p>
    <p>Pacific 27% </p>
    <p>PokerClub 26% </p>
    <p>betfair 25% </p>
    <p>Ongame 25% </p>
    <p>FullTilt 25% </p>
    <p>iPoker 24% </p>
    <p>CryptoLogic 23% </p>
    <p>Peoples 22% </p>
    <p>iPoker.it 20% </p>
    <p>GiocoDigitale 17% </p>
Reply to Thread