2005 PokerStars MTTs: An Overview

[N 82 50 24]

Just in case anyone is curious, I've put together some stats on PokerStars tournaments in 2005. This won't included the last week or so of play, as it is cut off at 12/23 (the last time I updated my stats). Rebuys and freezeouts are treated the same, although the prizepool figures are obviously affected.

Total MTTs: 18313
Total Prizepool: $192,273,554
Total Entrants (not unique players): 8,976,951
Total Rake: $12,278,750

Average Buyin (Sum buyins/MTTs): $28.37
Average Prizepool (Sum PP/MTTs): $10,498.72
Average Players (Sum Players/MTTs): 490.2
Average Rake/tourney (Rake/MTTs): $670.46
Average Rake/player/tourney: $1.37

Breakdown by buyin:

2500: 1
1000: 3
500: 15
300: 33
200: 244
150: 151
100: 1574
50: 1977
40: 51
30: 998
20: 4215
10: 3941
5: 1321
3: 1101
2: 734
1: 1954

By month:

Jan: 1147
Feb: 1138
Mar: 1323
Apr: 1282
May: 1517
Jun: 1553
Jul: 1602
Aug: 1633
Sep: 1591
Oct: 1815
Nov: 2108
Dec (cut short): 1604

That's it for now, I'll probably do some more later. If you want to know anything else about Stars MTTs, post in this thread and I'll do my best to track it down.

[gr8vertical]

Total Rake: $12,278,750


Damn.

That was the number that I thought was surprising out of all of it. I would figure it would be much higher.

Well, that and the avg. rake/player/tournament.

I mean, I know I have paid several hundered in tournament rake all by my self and dont play that much really.

I guess this just shows the relative number of micro tournaments to the $2+ fee tournaments(20+2+).


This is all assuming that the fee is what is considered the rake here.

i can almost guarantee 1/3 of that rake was mine

[TomHimself]

I think it would be interesting to see how much stars has pulled in from their micors since adding a 10c,20c, and 30c rake to them.

Very interesting btw

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
Total Rake: $12,278,750


Damn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually lower than expected, considering that there were 8,976,951 entries, the avg rake per entry was less than $2.

One factor is that micro buy-ins (3$ and lower) weren't raked until around October.
Does the data include freerolls?

Anyone know how much stars makes from cash games?

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, that and the avg. rake/player/tournament.

I mean, I know I have paid several hundered in tournament rake all by my self and dont play that much really.

I guess this just shows the relative number of micro tournaments to the $2+ fee tournaments(20+2+).

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember, that's the avg rake/player/tournament. Not the avg rake/player.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
Does the data include freerolls?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Is there a way of seeing the avg. rake/player/tourn before the 180 20+2's started going off, as opposed to after?

I also assume that these are shown in your data mining, esp. since recently once they are a go they come up in the main tournament lobby.

[TomHimself]

I dont think the 180 sngs are dataminded FWIW

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it would be interesting to see how much stars has pulled in from their micros since adding a 10c,20c, and 30c rake to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

$1: 41,325
$2: 42,957
$3: 142,571

TOTAL: $226,853

The rake was added in the middle of October, so Stars should expect at least $1 million in rake from these tournies in 2006 with even a little bit of growth.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, that and the avg. rake/player/tournament.

I mean, I know I have paid several hundered in tournament rake all by my self and dont play that much really.

I guess this just shows the relative number of micro tournaments to the $2+ fee tournaments(20+2+).

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember, that's the avg rake/player/tournament. Not the avg rake/player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, I was implying that a larger number of entrants and available tournaments with a low buy in bring this number down. Id think that even with one weekly $15 tournament rake tournament with usually over 3k entrants it would bring this up to at least $2. I guess the fact that even the 45k is only $1 per entrant and everything below brings this down also.

Its just really surprising to me that they run so many tournaments, have so many entrants and only pulled 12 mill in tournament fees. Hell, operating costs must take a good bit of that up, and then any overlays and added on prize pools also hit this up.

So I guess what I am slowly getting at is that in relation to the rake gathered in cash games, why would they even worry about us tournament players? Clearly they get a much lower rake from us.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think the 180 sngs are dataminded FWIW

[/ QUOTE ]

True. I don't mine those.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
Its just really surprising to me that they run so many tournaments, have so many entrants and only pulled 12 mill in tournament fees. Hell, operating costs must take a good bit of that up, and then any overlays and added on prize pools also hit this up.

So I guess what I am slowly getting at is that in relation to the rake gathered in cash games, why would they even worry about us tournament players? Clearly they get a much lower rake from us.

[/ QUOTE ]

$12 million is quite a bit compared to operating costs (I'd guess, anyway). Also, don't forget satellites, STTs, etc. I'd guess that total tournament fees are much much higher than what we're seeing from just MTTs. Cash games, however, are certainly a huge cash stream for any online poker site.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think the 180 sngs are dataminded FWIW

[/ QUOTE ]

True. I don't mine those.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I guess I had a wrong idea as to the method you used to datamine.

nevermind with that idea.

[gumpzilla]

Are you set up to determine what fraction of players you've tracked are winning players based on the data you have? While it would be far from conclusive, obviously, I think it would be an interesting statistic all the same.

[ansky451]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you set up to determine what fraction of players you've tracked are winning players based on the data you have? While it would be far from conclusive, obviously, I think it would be an interesting statistic all the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

[N 82 50 24]

Yes, we are set up to do that. We may release that info at some point, just not yet.