What level in percentage is considered good to very good in online tournament play?

If there are 8K players in an online freeroll tournament (satellite to a money tournament) and a particular player finishes in the top < 1% about 15 to 20% of the time, (winning an advance ticket) and placing in the top 2-3% another 15% of the time, what level of quality is that play compared to money only players?

I do understand that if they were money tables, it is simply a matter of counting entry fee against earnings to get an idea, but in both cases, I am asking a percentile type question. How many poker players finish consistently in the top 2% about 1/3 of the time? And is that low good, medium good or very good play as measured against all players that average 'in the money'?

Thanks for your feedback

Thanks, I appreciate the response.

I have a question about the quality or level of skill in freeroll satellites that have a ticket to a money tournament for the top 1%, like PokerStars' Freerolls that have am entry ticket to a weekend $2K Round 2, or a Daily $90K. The Daily $90K has a limit of 40K players, and the Round 2 have approx 9K depending on the game. The fact that many of the players have 1-5 stars, meaning they are very high ranked leaderboard players, would seem to suggest that these tournaments have a fair level of good players competing to get into the money games.

I understand these tournaments are filled with lots of green and non pros, but wouldn't you think that the level or quality of players in say the top 30% is more fierce than an average low entry sit and go or small money tournament? I don't know, as I have nothing to compare it to. It just seems to make sense that this is the only window, for really good (no bankroll access) players from around the world to compete to get into money tournaments.

Pokerstars satellite tournaments to money, have at most, a 3 minute sign up window for HE. They get swamped quick.

I understand there is little or no value in measuring straight free roll tournys, and they were not part of the original question, though I didn't qualify that nearly well enough.

The money satellites seem to have a specific rhythm, the first 1/3 are very loose with lots of whale-maniac style play (and where the chip stack gets built) the mid level, up to about 75% is medium to tight chopping up the few whales left, and the last 25% or less seem to be real quality players, and at the bubble, play is so tight it can take 10-15 minutes for the last 2-3 places to get resolved. (because at that point there are very few low stack players. So, no one is blinding out.

Aren't these players much better than straight no money free roll players?

What I am trying to gauge here, is at what point is the play good enough to compete on straight money buy ins. Say $20 to $40K tournys with a $10 -$20 buyin.

I played very successfully about 45 years ago in live ring games, and decided a couple years ago, post retirement to play online, and to learn again at the satellite tables. I have been playing steady for about a year with the agenda of not buying into tournys until I was good enough to win consistently. I'm just trying to gauge when that point is.

I have made it into the the top 2% in the $2K tournys satellites about 1/3 of the time consistently now, but the $90K is a different breed of cat, and I have not finished above 50% in it, yet.

Is it a good yardstick to say that when I get to better than top 10% on the $90K satellite (against 40K players) on a consistent (15% of the time) basis, then I could legitimately think about competing on serious money tables?

One last question.......... If it has taken me a full year of steady play, and studying along with it, to get to this level, do you think it will take another year of steady play and studying full time to get to the level described in the above paragraph? (All things being equal)

Thanks again for your input, it is very helpful.