Just realised the total winnings table for 2014 must be wrong too. If Bates has outlayed 56k and won 78k, then that's 22k profit (give or take), but Divs is showing as 38k outlay with 66k winnings so 28k profit (give or take), yet he's behind Matt. Posted by Lambert180
it is correct, it is sorted by winnings
i could easily produce a different league of profit
In Response to Re: * * * £1,000+ guarantee leagues * * * : might be worth checking your code, unless it's meant to have an anti TommyD function. also are your stats inclusive or exclusive? ie when you say FT is that all FT's or just those where it wasn't a win. 3 SoLack 1,151 3,258 16 91 194 17 4 TommyD 1,123 3,215 27 86 196 18 Posted by GELDY
the numbers are fine. it is very close for those two. solack gets to FT slightly more and also doesn't get knocked out early quite so often.
if you win you also FT and also cash, obv. i choose this way of reporting as it makes more sense.
In Response to Re: * * * £1,000+ guarantee leagues * * * : Table is ordered in winnings ie returns, irrespective of buy-ins. So I don't think it is "wrong" just would be ordered differently if it was profit - I believe divs has been more profitable in MTTs on sky this year than Mr Bates. As for the points - Aussie hasn't stated what the formula is Is it weighted towards the bigger events? Are there graded points for 2-6th? But without seeing the formual cant really say. Posted by Phantom66
Last time I checked Bates was number 1 on SS leaderboard for the year. Think Divs had the number 1 spot for quite a while after FTing the roller like every single week for the first 2-3 months of the year but think Bates is back on top now, dunno if Divs has binked something recently to change that.
But yeah if it's winnings, then that makes sense, it's correct for what it is.
Nice stats. Bit of spare time on your hands Aussie? Not to bang this drum again, but I think some of the above backs up why your points system perhaps isn't optimal. If we look at the points totals for the whole of 2014.... It's clear to see imo that it's not 'right' that TommyD is 4th behind Solack. Tommy has more cashes (albeit only by 2), he's 5 behind Solly in terms of number of FTs but is an absolute mile ahead in terms of MTT wins which is obviously the hardest thing to do. Maybe it's an error in the formulae somewhere cos I can't even figure out what the points distribution must be for those figures to work out that way... even if it was a case of 'quantity over quality' i.e. you didn't want to weight it too heavily in favour of wins over FTing, TommyD still has more FTs and wins combined than Solly does (and more cashes) but finishes lower. It's less clear cut but I also think looking at those stats it's pretty clear that Tommy should be ranked higher than DivsDreams too. Ok Tommy is 13 FTs behind Divs, but then he is 12 wins ahead of him, and surely no one can possibly dispute that 12 outright wins is WAYYYYY more impressive than 13 FTs? I didn't comment on the whole UKOPS player of the series cos I just think it's so hard to come up with a system everyone will be happy with, and I didn't have any better ideas than what had already been suggested, but just thought I'd point out that above are two pretty big flaws imo. For instance, if the table above was the actual figures for UKOPS, and we assume MattBates doesn't exist, if I was TommyD and I saw that table published, with those stats, and I didn't win player of the series, I'd think it was pretty outrageous. Posted by Lambert180
2
DivsDreams
1,192
3,325
15
99
196
25
3
SoLack
1,151
3,258
16
91
194
17
4
TommyD
1,123
3,215
27
86
196
18
the figures are correct. you see the FTs that each gets to. put aside the games that each wins, it reveals that divs has reached 84 FTs, solly 75 FTs and tommy 59 FTs. that's why the three are so close
In Response to Re: * * * £1,000+ guarantee leagues * * * : the numbers are fine. it is very close for those two. solack gets to FT slightly more and also doesn't get knocked out early quite so often. if you win you also FT and also cash, obv. i choose this way of reporting as it makes more sense. Posted by aussie09
I think IMO winning 11 more times having reached the FT is better than reaching the FT 5 more times. After all to reach the FT with a good chance of winning it sometimes you have to take risks before the FT. Did you weight different or same values for coming 2nd or 6th? If so maybe that would explain why Solack is higher (if his FT positions other than wins were higher)
Getting knocked out early is also IMO completely irrelevant to include - you mention you awarded points for finishing top half but I just don't see the value in awarding points like this. To win tournaments sometimes you need to take risks early doors and there's no shame in going out early doors half of the time if the other half you build up an early chip lead.
In Response to Re: * * * £1,000+ guarantee leagues * * * : I think IMO winning 11 more times having reached the FT is better than reaching the FT 5 more times. After all to reach the FT with a good chance of winning it sometimes you have to take risks before the FT. Did you weight different or same values for coming 2nd or 6th? If so maybe that would explain why Solack is higher (if his FT positions other than wins were higher) Getting knocked out early is also IMO completely irrelevant to include - you mention you awarded points for finishing top half but I just don't see the value in awarding points like this. To win tournaments sometimes you need to take risks early doors and there's no shame in going out early doors half of the time if the other half you build up an early chip lead. Posted by F_Ivanovic
remember the tables show volumes not averages. tommy has done slightly better on average. but there again probably 500 have a better average than tommy.
however i really do not like the points system you've used.
another example below P2Q has destroyed ttm in wins and non-win FTs. but more games and more cashes favours ttm too much. so i tried to do a regression to derive approximate weights used in the system and it is virtually impossible to deduce any weight for the wins. it is totally drowned out by the noise from playing and cashing. as even the best are not winning more than 3% of their games played the wins have become statistically irrelevant.
you need to give more weight to the up-top performances to make them statistically relevant. an extra 20 FTW and 5 for the FT (as you've defined) makes the table look below. not only does this seem more natural, but the wins now appear more appropriately in a regression.
i'm not saying that's how it should be done, it's just by way of example as to the scale of tweaking needed.
first can i say this is a great initiative. however i really do not like the points system you've used. another example below P2Q has destroyed ttm in wins and non-win FTs. but more games and more cashes favours ttm too much. so i tried to do a regression to derive approximate weights used in the system and it is virtually impossible to deduce any weight for the wins. it is totally drowned out by the noise from playing and cashing. as even the best are not winning more than 3% of their games played the wins have become statistically irrelevant. Points played score win FT cash bubble 5 terrytwomore 1,284 3,192 14 73 205 5 6 PhilAny2_Q 1,086 3,036 24 86 170 8 Posted by GELDY
hi gelds,
thank you first off.
there are now 6 different tables and points applies only to one table. the points system is designed to compare players for different purposes. it is also changeable. i regularly change the points to look at different rankings of performance.
i will tweak the points again soon, no doubt. having three players so close on points after a year is fine, but undesirable. i want to be able to discriminate between them.
Comments
it is correct, it is sorted by winnings
i could easily produce a different league of profit
the numbers are fine. it is very close for those two. solack gets to FT slightly more and also doesn't get knocked out early quite so often.
if you win you also FT and also cash, obv. i choose this way of reporting as it makes more sense.
But yeah if it's winnings, then that makes sense, it's correct for what it is.
Getting knocked out early is also IMO completely irrelevant to include - you mention you awarded points for finishing top half but I just don't see the value in awarding points like this. To win tournaments sometimes you need to take risks early doors and there's no shame in going out early doors half of the time if the other half you build up an early chip lead.
....that Moorman Geezer, must be a rite lucki part timer, only playing in 4!!!
remember the tables show volumes not averages. tommy has done slightly better on average. but there again probably 500 have a better average than tommy.
thanks tom
stats for the £2 deep stack should only be done by someone who isn't scared of playing in it.
rob
hi gelds,
thank you first off.
there are now 6 different tables and points applies only to one table. the points system is designed to compare players for different purposes. it is also changeable. i regularly change the points to look at different rankings of performance.
i will tweak the points again soon, no doubt. having three players so close on points after a year is fine, but undesirable. i want to be able to discriminate between them.