Interesting discussion in Poker Theory about tournament profitability
 

This thread is only partly on point but has some interesting conclusions: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...14&fpart=1

To summarize, Jackpot Jay once quoted Lee Jones as saying that only 7%-8% of online poker players end their year in the black. In most PT databases, however, around 40% of ring game players are winners (this number apparently holds up over time.) Therefore, the number of overall losers must be greatly inflated by otherwise breakeven or winning ring game players playing a losing tournament game. In fact, 'greatly' may be an understatement, because from 40% to 8% is a huge jump. [Edit: I should mention that the fact that 40% of the players are winners in PT means that the actual number is smaller, due to statistical sample size issues. Nonetheless, it is clear that the number of tournament winners is much smaller than the number of ring game winners.]

I suspect this is true mostly due to MTT's rather than SNG's (where the 109 and 215 regulars are numerous enough, and the play at the 11's is soft enough, that the 8% number probably cannot be right). A good example of why this is so is the Empire Happy Hour, which is a slightly +$EV tournament (the occasional overlays more than make up for the times they actually collect the $1) that's got more than its share of 2+2'ers. I haven't played nearly enough of them to get an accurate ROI, of course, but I have a large enough sample to know I'm a big winner in that tourney, along with 4-6 other 2+2'ers and a couple of good regulars. The other 90%+ of the field on a day to day basis, however, are clear net losers, and this is in a tournament that averages a slight overlay.

I will go on to speculate that in a normal tournament field, with 8-10% rake, less than 5% of the field are long term winners.

Discuss.

Re: Interesting discussion in Poker Theory about tournament profitability
 

Everything you say sounds plausible, but

I would argue that there is a big difference between saying

a. 5% of anyone who has ever played a given buyin MTT at a given site are winners

and

b. 5% of a given field are winners

I agree with a. but not b. because the winners play more often, a fact which skews this statistic (% of players who are winning) in general, but probably even more so with respect to tournaments.

I am willing to bet that a lot of bad players who just want to gamble it up every once in a while without much real risk play tournaments way more than they play ring games.

I also speculate that poker tracker databases miss a lot of one deposit and done ring game players, inflating the 40% figure more than you think.

In general, I think looking at Joe 30 hours a week Multitabler and tallying one in the winner column and then looking at a ten guys who put $20 in for the hell of it, lose a couple tourneys, never play again and tallying ten in the loss column, then saying 1 in 11 win, is a bit misleading.

In general, there are way more losers than winners in part because there are way more small losers than small winners, which is even more true in multi table tournaments than ring games or sng's.

Re: Interesting discussion in Poker Theory about tournament profitability
 

I think that it's mostly explained by the payout. A lot of MTTers will lose a little, and a few will win a ton. A MTT is populated by players with a -20% ROI and players with a +200% ROI. With the top players taking so much more than the others, it doesn't leave much money to create a decent percentage of winners.

What exactly did you want to discuss?

Everett

Re: Interesting discussion in Poker Theory about tournament profitability
 

Thats why I am prety much exclusively playing MTT these days. As I explained to a friend, I think at least 1/2 of the people playing have no chance of ever making the $$...

Re: Interesting discussion in Poker Theory about tournament profitabil
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think at least 1/2 of the people playing have no chance of ever making the $$...

[/ QUOTE ]There's an over-statement for you.

Re: Interesting discussion in Poker Theory about tournament profitabil
 

Have you ever played the $1 and $5 MTT?

Re: Interesting discussion in Poker Theory about tournament profitabil
 

Yes. All the time. To say that 50% of the field has a 0% chance of ever finishing in the money is an absolutely ridiculous claim.

Re: Interesting discussion in Poker Theory about tournament profitabil
 

Most of the points that you make are due to the High variance involved with tournament poker. If we were talking about theoretical winners I'm sure the number would be much higher.

Re: Interesting discussion in Poker Theory about tournament profitabil
 

Sorry I meant the money as in a payday worth playing for, not a 2% return on you buyin. Although since in $1 tournaments 2/3's the field is out by the end of the first hour it may come close.