Your leagues may well be a bit of fun for people to look at and that's fine If people want a true guide to players abilities then sharkscope is a fantastic site. Posted by Jac35
yes, agree there too.
sharkscope does a different thing and does that very well. my site does its own thing too and provides a service to those who play on sky poker.
Your leagues may well be a bit of fun for people to look at and that's fine If people want a true guide to players abilities then sharkscope is a fantastic site. Posted by Jac35
If you want to know if a certain player is profitable and over what sample size, use Sharkscope (unless it's locked, of course.....)
If you want to know if a certain player busts in the first quarter more often than not, use Aussiescope.
In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : If you want to know if a certain player is profitable and over what sample size, use Sharkscope (unless it's locked, of course.....) If you want to know if a certain player busts in the first quarter more often than not, use Aussiescope. Posted by hhyftrftdr
remember that there are few profitable players in poker. Posted by aussie09
This part isn't true. Well I guess it depends what you mean by very few.
I read a credible article a couple of years ago which suggested the amount of winning players was higher than most people thought. I cannot find that article but I have found a similar one written by Sharkscope who obviously have access to a lot of data.
The article suggests that there is a lot of variation between sites and games but overall it states that in 2014 22% of Tournament players were profitable. This was down from 26% in 2009.
In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : This part isn't true. Well I guess it depends what you mean by very few. I read a credible article a couple of years ago which suggested the amount of winning players was higher than most people thought. I cannot find that article but I have found a similar one written by Sharkscope who obviously have access to a lot of data. The article suggests that there is a lot of variation between sites and games but overall it states that in 2014 22% of Tournament players were profitable. This was down from 26% in 2009. For Sky the figure was 27%. Posted by markycash
I guess it depends what we deem to be "few".
If, say, the number on Sky Poker is 27%, is 27% "a lot", or, looked at Charlie Munger style, is 73% (the obverse) "not much"?
Yes the Sky figure dropped since you joined the site Marky, since you are taking everyone elses winnings Ger Posted by gerardirl
lol ger
I have managed to stay profitable yes, so I guess I am in whatever the % actually is. However the VLV finals punched a couple of holes in my sails. Will get back on the job after Vegas though and see if I can give the Holdem MTT regs a run for their money.
In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : I guess it depends what we deem to be "few". If, say, the number on Sky Poker is 27%, is 27% "a lot", or, looked at Charlie Munger style, is 73% (the obverse) "not much"? Interesting. Posted by Tikay10
To me a couple is 2 and 'a few' is 3 or more. So I had in mind that 'a few' suggested 3%+.
Obviously every rung on the ladder from 3% to 100% is 3%+ so I am not sure I am making much of a point here lol.
Heads to Google...
Edit: Regarding the bolded part. I think 27% would neither be few or many. To me the term 'few players' suggests scarcity. I don't think 27% suggests the number of profitable players are scarce.
In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : Heads to Google... Posted by markycash
Initial Googling is inconclusive.
TBH I think it is a rather subjective term so I doubt there will be a definitive quantitative and universally accepted answer out there on the interwebs.
I tracked this every day for two years the percentage of winning players in mtts is 18% Posted by aussie09
That is for MTTs only, and not all MTTs, just the one that meet the criteria for inclusion on your site?
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.
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%.
In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : yes, very true. it is just a matter of what is the best way of evaluating best. i certainly dislike the old way of assessing best by totalling returns. mine is a combination of quantity and quality. i choose the method that can be argued against less than alternatives methods. what i do is assess performance by a standard test. the mtts are the top games, no cash, no sngs, no freerolls, no this, no that. therefore the standardised "test" i use is a truer test of ability and achievement. it is more readily calibrated, interpreted and performances compared. what it gives me is the ability to know how good someone is likely to be. no matter, it all is subject to what cards are dealt. the ukops high roller question ... we will know better when it next runs. there is no allowance made for size of buy-in, nor should there be imo. the players are the same, just a reduced skill range probably. i think i would see a ok to hard game . the entrants mix will include a higher number of wealthy average players plus more good players. Posted by aussie09
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.
In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : 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. . Posted by aussie09
Rob, it may not just be wealthy as appose to those thinking this is their chance to mix it with the big boys and get the big cash that has eluded them..
Comments
sharkscope does a different thing and does that very well. my site does its own thing too and provides a service to those who play on sky poker.
lol.
ps. still no reason to argue with you harry.
I read a credible article a couple of years ago which suggested the amount of winning players was higher than most people thought. I cannot find that article but I have found a similar one written by Sharkscope who obviously have access to a lot of data.
The article suggests that there is a lot of variation between sites and games but overall it states that in 2014 22% of Tournament players were profitable. This was down from 26% in 2009.
For Sky the figure was 27%.
Also that isn't even considering rakeback.
Link to article... Profitable player %
If, say, the number on Sky Poker is 27%, is 27% "a lot", or, looked at Charlie Munger style, is 73% (the obverse) "not much"?
Interesting.
I have managed to stay profitable yes, so I guess I am in whatever the % actually is. However the VLV finals punched a couple of holes in my sails. Will get back on the job after Vegas though and see if I can give the Holdem MTT regs a run for their money.
Obviously every rung on the ladder from 3% to 100% is 3%+ so I am not sure I am making much of a point here lol.
Heads to Google...
Edit: Regarding the bolded part. I think 27% would neither be few or many. To me the term 'few players' suggests scarcity. I don't think 27% suggests the number of profitable players are scarce.
TBH I think it is a rather subjective term so I doubt there will be a definitive quantitative and universally accepted answer out there on the interwebs.
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.
.