* * * skypoker best player * * *

aussie09

<td class="xl65" style="border:medium none;ba

skypoker best players
4 Weeks to 28 April 2015
12,374 players in 682 tournaments
Charts for past 28 days with change since last report
points per game; 1st=10, 2nd=7, 3rd=5, FT=3, cash=1 point.
			Points	played	score	1st	2nd	3rd	FT	cash
1	up	1	kc8	345	220	8	7	5	36	54
2	new		Wacko90	233	155	3	7	3	24	52
3			chicknMelt	165	142	7	4	2	22	29
4			GSmith13	250	140	4	5	4	18	48
5	up	8	StayOrGo	196	132	7	2	2	20	31
6	down	1	MattBates	230	106	2	4	3	18	34
7	up	22	rspca12	149	105	4	6	1	14	23
8	down	2	SoLack	224	104	3	2	2	18	35
9	down	2	BigAz1	131	100		5	6	19	30
10	new		metapro	196	92	3	2	3	14	29
11	down	10	nslater112	209	90	2	3	4	16	24
12	up	9	LmfaoAllin	187	87	3	2	2	14	26
13	up	203	Trample	105	84	5	1	1	13	17
14	down	2	jawzindawz	213	84	2	1	2	12	38
15	up	240	cjy	43	83	6	1	2	11	11
16	up	95	_DAC_	188	82	4		3	12	24
17	up	37	bearlyther	142	81	4	1	3	10	23
18	down	7	ozzieowen	120	80	3	3	1	11	23
19	up	13	wi03	147	79	2	3	3	10	27
20	up	164	Summerjade	88	77	2	1	3	13	27
21	new		mystyle03	108	72	3	1	1	13	19
22	up	58	ctbn	112	68	2	4	1	10	16
23	up	22	philrafs	107	65	1		2	14	26
24	down	6	nnm83	163	62	3	1	3	9	13
25	new		Kerrnal	138	61		4	2	11	19
26	up	5	waller03	136	61		4		12	21
27	up	28	petrocelli	148	60	2	2	1	9	18
28	up	36	rabbit11	133	58	2	1	3	8	18
29	up	172	heellloooo	59	57	3	2	1	7	12
30	up	161	kapax	39	57	1	4	1	10	12
31	down	6	Lambert180	129	57	1	2		10	22
32	new		Jew1993	63	56	3	3		7	9
33	up	83	Aek101	42	56	3	2	1	7	11
34	up	12	BrayCorp83	91	56	2	2	1	9	14
35	up	13	TEXANT	69	56	1	2	2	11	15
36	new		GREGHOGG	110	56	1	1	5	10	15
37	up	228	MilitantG	78	55	3	2		7	12
38	new		Rumpy	73	55	2	2	1	8	15
39	up	119	Limp2Lose	103	55	1	1	5	9	16
40	down	16	Claytov	49	54	2	2	2	8

aussie09

this is intended to be something like the world ranking for tennis players or golfers.  very much like the pop charts that used to come out on radio one sunday evening (tuesday lunchtime for older people)

it cant be a look at daily performance as the results are too volatile.

i am deciding whether to include results from the past week, 4 weeks, month or year.

then decide how frequently to produce the charts; daily, weekly or monthly.

aussie09

the first column is position, clearly. 

the second and third columns show movement since last published.

67Bhoys

Hi Rob,

I have to say I admire the time and effort that you put in on this.  Being a microstakes player, I am never in your charts, but I enjoy reading who is doing what.

I'm sure the players who are playing at these levels find the information invaluable.

I will buy you a well deserved drink the next time we meet, and am sure I'll not be the only one.

aussie09

thanks craig.




ps. are you not supposed to be on a beach somewhere?

shakinaces

Does this not hide the quality of player beneath the volume of games played.

Just taking the top 3, is chicknmelt's 0.86pts / game arguably more impressive than kc8's 0.64pts/game?

It seems a bit odd that the 'best' player is likely to only be achieved by playing significantly more games than anyone else (possibly including a far greater proportion of the lower BI games that some of the others eschew in favour of playing higher BI games across multiple sites?)

Taking the comparison with tennis players, would this effectively be akin to awarding equal points to an unknown young up-and-comer that is playing every day they possibly can and ranking them higher than, say, Roger Federer who is more selective with his tournament selection but gets his results in 'higher BI games' against more challenging opponents.

Interesting stuff though... this must take you hours to do!!  Would love it if one day some sort of equivalent ranking could be applied to cash games (although accept the main barriers to this ever being possible!)

aussie09

In Response to Re: * * * skypoker best player * * *:

Does this not hide the quality of player beneath the volume of games played. Just taking the top 3, is chicknmelt's 0.86pts / game arguably more impressive than kc8's 0.64pts/game? It seems a bit odd that the 'best' player is likely to only be achieved by playing significantly more games than anyone else (possibly including a far greater proportion of the lower BI games that some of the others eschew in favour of playing higher BI games across multiple sites?) Taking the comparison with tennis players, would this effectively be akin to awarding equal points to an unknown young up-and-comer that is playing every day they possibly can and ranking them higher than, say, Roger Federer who is more selective with his tournament selection but gets his results in 'higher BI games' against more challenging opponents. Interesting stuff though... this must take you hours to do!!  Would love it if one day some sort of equivalent ranking could be applied to cash games (although accept the main barriers to this ever being possible!)
Posted by shakinaces

hi shaky,

volume versus quality is always an issue.  i knew someone who claimed they were the best tennis player in the world but had never played.  i understood what he was saying but disagreed.  mind you the last game of golf i played was 15 years ago and i was 2 over par going down the 18th.  it went a bit wrong on that hole.  nevertheless, i still claim to be a good golfer and have no need to sit a test to prove it. 

so volume does come into it.  if roger federer decides not to play any ranking tournament over the next year i think that it is fair and right that he doesn't stay at the top of the rankings.  if a young pro enters a hundred tournaments i think he should get ranking points for whatever he achieves.

so i don't disagree with you.  we think the same.  its just that we should embrace these factors.  if you want to be seen as the best player how would you go about it.  i am happy no longer playing golf, but it hasnt put any  trophies on the mantelpiece in over a decade.

aussie09

shaky,

you might know that i produce another table that shows ranking for points per gsme.

April 2015
12,374 players in 682 tournaments
1,244 have played a minimum of 20 tournaments
points per game; 1st=10, 2nd=7, 3rd=5, FT=3, cash=1 point.
	Points	played	score	rate
1	cjy	43	83	1.9
2	Ricovan	20	33	1.7
3	kapax	39	57	1.5
4	deawatts14	26	36	1.4
5	Aek101	42	56	1.3
6	gogsw	20	26	1.3
7	GREENIENO_	32	39	1.2
8	cheesem318	21	24	1.1
9	Granite89	21	24	1.1
10	JOZY72	21	24	1.1
11	Bluffy666	46	51	1.1
12	Claytov	49	54	1.1
13	barber180	20	22	1.1
14	RATTY21	23	25	1.1
15	tallboy	23	24	1.0
16	jonnyrkd	47	49	1.0
17	Andyba	38	39	1.0
18	Lil_me	21	21	1.0
19	Zeedot	30	29	1.0
20	heellloooo	59	57	1.0

aussie09

and shaky,

you talk about lower stakes.  are the best players solely playing low stakes?  no.  furthermore, these results are from tournaments not including the smaller games

you talk about other sites.  this is not about best player in the world, or in pub leagues, or cash, this is about those who play significant size mtts on our site, who perform the best here.





 

rancid

Wow great work but.........

It doesn't represent the whole story

You just can not compare a player who plays 20 mtt a day to someone who may only play 2 per day

Just saying

The results are very skewed

aussie09

In Response to Re: * * * skypoker best player * * *:

Wow great work but......... It doesn't represent the whole story You just can not compare a player who plays 20 mtt a day to someone who may only play 2 per day Just saying The results are very skewed
Posted by rancid

thanks rancid.

you're right.  there are several other tables for you to choose from.  e.g most wins etc.  mind you, you could argue against that one quite easily.  there's also profit, but you could argue against that too.  there's winning (returns) then there are the qualitative ones that look at strike rates.  all could be argued for and against.

that's why tables exist.  the premier league is a good example.

 

 

FCHD

In Response to Re: * * * skypoker best player * * *:

and shaky, you talk about lower stakes.  are the best players soley playing low stakes?  no.

No, but even the lowest professional tennis tournaments give some points and a way into the rankings for lower players.

What is the cutoff point anyway?

(regardless of the above, it is a fantastic piece of work)

aussie09

In Response to Re: * * * skypoker best player * * *:

In Response to Re: * * * skypoker best player * * * : No, but even the lowest professional tennis tournaments give some points and a way into the rankings for lower players. What is the cutoff point anyway? (regardless of the above, it is a fantastic piece of work)
Posted by FCHD

thanks fchd

the figures come from 20-30 mtts each day that have a guarantee of £500 and more.  these figures are for 12,374 players in 682 tournaments.  quite a good sample.

rancid

In Response to Re: * * * skypoker best player * * *:

In Response to Re: * * * skypoker best player * * * : thanks rancid. you're right.  there are several other tables for you to choose from.  e.g most wins etc.  mind you, you could argue against that one quite easily.  there's also profit, but you could argue against that too.  there's winning (returns) then there are the qualitative ones that look at strike rates.  all could be argued for and against. that's why tables exist.  the premier league is a good example.    
Posted by aussie09

You could argue against anything 

Like why we're Chelsea celebrating a draw at Arsenal............pathetic

aussie09

In Response to Re: * * * skypoker best player * * *:

In Response to Re: * * * skypoker best player * * * : You could argue against anything  Like why we're Chelsea celebrating a draw at Arsenal............pathetic
Posted by rancid

totally agree.


 

BigBluster

The contribution you make to this site and this forum are commendable.

No matter how you tweak these tables, they'll never be quite right to everyone. In my opinion, they are a little too weighted towards finishing 1st.

To take an example from the points table above:

Matt Bates made 18 final tables, won 2, had 4 seconds and 3 thirds. So he finished in the top half of the FT exactly 9 times out of 18. I guess his spread was roughly 3 fourth places, 3 fifth places and 3 sixth places as well!

All of these finishes were probably as meritorous as each other as stacks are usually very shallow at the business end of a MTT; it would be hard to argue that Matt played better when he won than when he finished 3rd.

aussie09

the significance of this table is that it is rolling.

elsewhere i have produced daily, monthly and yearly leagues.  now, for the first time i have something that shows form.  no longer a table of results from the first day of the month.  the benefit is that it shows a standard time frame, 4 weeks.  players will rise and fall as the days go by.  the table will show the best current player.

i like it because it can be news every day.



 

Benchmark

Maybe just add the points per game value as an extra column.....

aussie09

In Response to Re: * * * skypoker best player * * *:

The contribution you make to this site and this forum are commendable. No matter how you tweak these tables, they'll never be quite right to everyone. In my opinion, they are a little too weighted towards finishing 1st. To take an example from the points table above: Matt Bates made 18 final tables, won 2, had 4 seconds and 3 thirds. So he finished in the top half of the FT exactly 9 times out of 18. I guess his spread was roughly 3 fourth places, 3 fifth places and 3 sixth places as well! All of these finishes were probably as meritorous as each other as stacks are usually very shallow at the business end of a MTT; it would be hard to argue that Matt played better when he won than when he finished 3rd.
Posted by BigBluster

thanks BB.

i like what you say.  the spread of points is the key to this.  endlessly debated too.  the 10, 7, 5, 3, 1 range is the best, imo and that's the scale that i use.  and as you infer, winning shouldn't skew the figures too much, equally, it shouldn't skew the figures too little.

jimmy hill was given a hard time with his idea of three points for a win.  i think rugby should change their points to 3 points for a try, 1 for a conversion and 1 for a kick through the posts.  there are many reasons for this.  the main thing is that the game is shaped by the points awarded.  rugby would become a more entertaining game.  just like football.

the game is decided first, the measurement system decided next to determine who is best.  once this is done, everyone gets on with playing the game. 

aussie09

In Response to Re: * * * skypoker best player * * *:

Maybe just add the points per game value as an extra column.....
Posted by Benchmark

hi bench,

the priority is ranking by points.  adding a column of analysis doesn't really help, and knowing that there is a limit of width on screen, the columns of data there already are preferred.

thanks for the suggestion. 

i refer the honourable gentleman to the alternative table i gave earlier.


 


 

jordz16

I enjoy reading all these tables, i think absorbing this kind of information can improve your game greatly overtime, i think eventually someone will come up with an exact formula which works for everyone but without trial and error that would never happen... i dont think a single table will ever truly show the "best player" purely because of variance i can look at that table and see there are players above me who i feel i have a big edge over, but i can also see people below me who would crush me in the long term, but in terms of recent form and hot streaks then its a great barometer of who is currently "in the zone" pokerwise....

Another thing which would come into things and probably wont ever be able to be factored in is, if someone multi-tables 16 mtts in one night and manages 2 wins and 4 cashes then that would be far better than someone who plays 1 mtt a night for 16 consecutive days and manages 2 wins and 4 cashes also.

good work Aussie