Think i should be close to making the top 20 but when I Sharkscope myself it says I haven't played a single game with a guarentee over £1000 which is a lie! Just wondering if you could look into it and see what my actualy stats are...
Loving the work Aussie. Nice speedy updates. Think i should be close to making the top 20 but when I Sharkscope myself it says I haven't played a single game with a guarentee over £1000 which is a lie! Just wondering if you could look into it and see what my actualy stats are... Cheers Posted by FlashFlush
thanks flashy.
i will have a look at your figures...
you have played 21 games of the 99 so far this year that have a guarantee over £500. contrary to sharkscope, all your 21 games are in tournaments with a guarantee of £1,000+.
as far as winning you have 1 third place, 2 final tables and have cashed 3 times. this ranks you at 190th out of 5,516 unique players. points-wise you are ranked 74th.
money-wise you have buy-ins of £418 and returns of £914 (rank 31st) making a profit of £496 (rank 41st) from 21 games. this is an ROI of 119%.
you have cashed in 3 games (rank 132nd) which is 15% (rank 125th) of your games played, taken 22 heads (rank 93rd) and not bubbled.
Hi Aussie. Firstly, great work with the stats. Reading the tables it's really giving me the urge to play more. Secondly, looking at the points table I have a couple of questions. What is the Q1 stat? I'm assuming it means you finished deep in the tournament but failed to cash, is that right? If so, I'm wondering what value it has being there as you may Aswell finish last as deep without a cash ft or win. If not, ignore question 2. Posted by cowhead
hi cowhead (good name)
thanks
the Q1 stat is a count of finishes in the top quarter, the top 25%. when seen alongside the cashes, the top 12%, it helps to quantify how good a player really is. it gives a fuller picture, even to indicate who will play a tight game early on in an mtt. it also becomes useful when considering strike rates. the points table is really a view of ability, whereas achievement is illustrated better in other tables.
as the number of tournaments played reaches a fair size it become possible to look at a qualitative table, average points per game. it is still early days nevertheless this table shows those showing consistent good ability.
Points
played
no
rate
1
heddoh18
13
26
2.0
2
Gambelo
12
23
1.9
3
chicknMelt
10
19
1.9
4
ChirpyChip
10
19
1.9
5
cowhead
14
26
1.9
6
brinna12
10
18
1.8
7
RandomLone
10
18
1.8
8
Savvy_79
14
25
1.8
9
cjy
18
32
1.8
10
PhilAny2_Q
17
30
1.8
11
bearlyther
27
47
1.7
12
TommyD
19
33
1.7
13
mak68
10
17
1.7
14
mwstachio
10
17
1.7
15
RUNITSRANN
10
17
1.7
16
rabbit11
31
51
1.6
17
supakings
10
16
1.6
18
BO
12
19
1.6
19
natry20111
21
33
1.6
20
axle262
11
17
1.5
21
Bowlwinner
11
17
1.5
22
mickjenn1
11
17
1.5
23
telstar1
12
18
1.5
24
bishspur
10
15
1.5
25
baddunn
23
34
1.5
points per game; 1st=10 pts, 2nd=8pts, 3rd=6pts, FT=4pts, cash=2pts, Q1=1pt. played a minimum of 10 tournaments
Looking at your qualitative table, those are some pretty impressive rates there.
When the volume reaches say a minimum of 200 games, it would appear that a rate of +1.0 would be outstanding.
Do you have a benchmark rate or 'rate range' that would suggest a player is at the point of break even to profit?
Of course there will be exceptions to the rule(s), but using your points system, I was wondering if over time you know what sort of rate equates to winning players on the site?
Early days as you say. Looking at your qualitative table, those are some pretty impressive rates there. When the volume reaches say a minimum of 200 games, it would appear that a rate of +1.0 would be outstanding. Do you have a benchmark rate or 'rate range' that would suggest a player is at the point of break even to profit? Of course there will be exceptions to the rule(s), but using your points system, I was wondering if over time you know what sort of rate equates to winning players on the site? Posted by TheDart
yes, over 1.0 would be outstanding and more than likely profitable.
the points system is used to try and give some sense to compare players in games with a number of variables field size, buy-ins, quality of opponent etc. and eliminate some of the luck element.
last year, i looked solely at £1k+ gtd games with average field size over 200 players. this year, i am including £500+ gtd mtts meaning that the average field size is lower, probably 150 players. a field size of 150 will distribute 80 points (equating to 0.6) and with skypoker's rake, say 10% (0.1), the breakeven is around 0.7.
profitable players will have scores starting around 0.8.
In Response to Re: * * * MTT leagues * * * : yes, over 1.0 would be outstanding and more than likely profitable. the points system is used to try and give some sense to compare players in games with a number of variables field size, buy-ins, quality of opponent etc. and eliminate some of the luck element. last year, i looked solely at £1k+ gtd games with average field size over 200 players. this year, i am including £500+ gtd mtts meaning that the average field size is lower, probably 150 players. a field size of 150 will distribute 80 points (equating to 0.6) and with skypoker's rake, say 10% (0.1), the breakeven is around 0.7. profitable players will have scores starting around 0.8. Posted by aussie09
Thanks for the quality answer.
So, I'll add that to my targets for 2015.....points rate 0.8
this table shows those who are more fearless than most.
it is a comparision of percentage rates (which is very poor mathematically) between heads and points. what's more, the interpretation of which does not withstand much argument.
i don't know whether to call it "fearless" or "aggro" or "wild" or "dangerous"
Comments
JANUARY
5,024 players in 80 tournaments
JANUARY
5,516 players in 99 tournaments
thanks flashy.
i will have a look at your figures...
you have played 21 games of the 99 so far this year that have a guarantee over £500. contrary to sharkscope, all your 21 games are in tournaments with a guarantee of £1,000+.
as far as winning you have 1 third place, 2 final tables and have cashed 3 times. this ranks you at 190th out of 5,516 unique players. points-wise you are ranked 74th.
money-wise you have buy-ins of £418 and returns of £914 (rank 31st) making a profit of £496 (rank 41st) from 21 games. this is an ROI of 119%.
you have cashed in 3 games (rank 132nd) which is 15% (rank 125th) of your games played, taken 22 heads (rank 93rd) and not bubbled.
i guess.
funny.
mbn .... top 4%
hi cowhead (good name)
thanks
the Q1 stat is a count of finishes in the top quarter, the top 25%. when seen alongside the cashes, the top 12%, it helps to quantify how good a player really is. it gives a fuller picture, even to indicate who will play a tight game early on in an mtt. it also becomes useful when considering strike rates. the points table is really a view of ability, whereas achievement is illustrated better in other tables.
cheers
JANUARY
6,082 players in 119 tournaments
as the number of tournaments played reaches a fair size it become possible to look at a qualitative table, average points per game. it is still early days nevertheless this table shows those showing consistent good ability.
played a minimum of 10 tournaments
Loving your work here, Rob, well done & thank you.
thanks tikay.
you and i still do not feature in any of these tables. one day, one day.
Looking at your qualitative table, those are some pretty impressive rates there.
When the volume reaches say a minimum of 200 games, it would appear that a rate of +1.0 would be outstanding.
Do you have a benchmark rate or 'rate range' that would suggest a player is at the point of break even to profit?
Of course there will be exceptions to the rule(s), but using your points system, I was wondering if over time you know what sort of rate equates to winning players on the site?
yes, over 1.0 would be outstanding and more than likely profitable.
the points system is used to try and give some sense to compare players in games with a number of variables field size, buy-ins, quality of opponent etc. and eliminate some of the luck element.
last year, i looked solely at £1k+ gtd games with average field size over 200 players. this year, i am including £500+ gtd mtts meaning that the average field size is lower, probably 150 players. a field size of 150 will distribute 80 points (equating to 0.6) and with skypoker's rake, say 10% (0.1), the breakeven is around 0.7.
profitable players will have scores starting around 0.8.
So, I'll add that to my targets for 2015.....points rate 0.8
thank you james
JANUARY
6,638 players in 146 tournaments
points per game; 1st=10 pts, 2nd=8pts, 3rd=6pts, FT=4pts, cash=2pts, Q1=1pt.
this table shows those who are more fearless than most.
it is a comparision of percentage rates (which is very poor mathematically) between heads and points. what's more, the interpretation of which does not withstand much argument.
i don't know whether to call it "fearless" or "aggro" or "wild" or "dangerous"
JANUARY
2014