today's biggest buy-in (£110) major tournament is the Main Event at 8pm. it is probably nowhere near as hard as you might think. last sunday its strength was noted as "ok".
might be worth trying to satellite in and have a go.
STRENGTH today's biggest buy-in (£110) major tournament is the Main Event at 8pm. it is probably nowhere near as hard as you might think. last sunday its strength was noted as "ok". might be worth trying to satellite in and have a go. there were several "soft" games too. www.PokerSuperHero.com/strength . Posted by aussie09
After all the discussion that has been had I think it is pretty shocking that you say this
Your overlay table is fact. If you said play x game as likely to be extra value due to overlay that is fine.
Your strength one has been shown to be majorly flawed. You are using this to try and encourage people to play a high buy in game yet you seem fine with this.
All your table shows is the level of players that play a lot on sky that play different games. Just because someone plays a lot doesn't mean they make a game harder.
Your overlay table is fact. If you said play x game as likely to be extra value due to overlay that is fine. Your strength one has been shown to be majorly flawed. You are using this to try and encourage people to play a high buy in game yet you seem fine with this. All your table shows is the level of players that play a lot on sky that play different games. Just because someone plays a lot doesn't mean they make a game harder. Posted by MattBates
ah, i see. the 8pm £110 thing was a huge surprise to me. i have avoided playing it for years because i thought, subjectively, that the buy-in meant that only the best players play.
incidentally, i thought about what you were saying the other day about your view of game strength. i would certainly listen to your opinion on game strength. it would be valuable if everyone had that same knowledge built up over the years, as you have. unfortunately, everyone doesn't. so it is trying to find an objective way of replicating that.
one thing you might acknowledge is that when you play a tournament you will not see everyone who has entered. i have no figures other than a guess to say that you would probably see less than 10% of the hands played, and share a table with less than 25% of the field. whatever the true percentage, the obverse does mean that you are likely to miss 90% of the hands played and not share a table with 75% of those who entered.
now i know you will know, very well, the game of those playing. others won't. my attempt is to assess the ability of every player in the whole field, to give an indication of strength to the casual player.
i have also thought about the analysis of which tournament a player has most success. you will play x tournaments through a month , or year. you might know already which one of 20 major games each day gives you your greatest return.
i think that might be helpful. you will already have a feel.
In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : so it is trying to find an objective way of replicating that. Posted by aussie09
For me this is the problem, you are presenting your own subjective interpretation of a select group of MTT's as objective.
It isn't objective. You are choosing which tourneys to include. You are deciding what the important criteria are (despite so many people questioning certain aspects such the way ROI is considered).
Now if you want to interpret the data and present tables in exactly the way you are doing this is absolutely fine!
What shouldn't be fine is to say that... X, Y or Z IS the best player or that X, Y or Z ARE the softest tourneys or the tables HAVE helped (in some small way) players to win tourneys. Or that your tables HAVE and DO help players.
If you presented exactly the same content but changed the 'have', 'do' and 'are' to 'maybe' and 'possibly' etc with a footnote stating this is just your interpretation of the data then I doubt half the people who have a problem would be bothered.
I am sure I must be wrong or have misquoted or taken you out of context and obviously Matt will be wrong, his direct quote may be also be out of context and he won't have considered something you will subsequently post and enlighten him. I am also sure that anyone else who has posted a concern must be wrong.
Maybe one day the penny will drop for us all and we will have that eureka moment and suddenly realise how our critical thinking skills are just not quite adequate enough yet.
In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : For me this is the problem, you are presenting your own subjective interpretation of a select group of MTT's as objective. It isn't objective. You are choosing which tourneys to include. You are deciding what the important criteria are (despite so many people questioning certain aspects such the way ROI is considered). Now if you want to interpret the data and present tables in exactly the way you are doing this is absolutely fine! What shouldn't be fine is to say that... X, Y or Z IS the best player or that X, Y or Z ARE the softest tourneys or the tables HAVE helped (in some small way) players to win tourneys. Or that your tables HAVE and DO help players. If you presented exactly the same content but changed the 'have', 'do' and 'are' to 'maybe' and 'possibly' etc with a footnote stating this is just your interpretation of the data then I doubt half the people who have a problem would be bothered. I am sure I must be wrong or have misquoted or taken you out of context and obviously Matt will be wrong, his direct quote may be also be out of context and he won't have considered something you will subsequently post and enlighten him. I am also sure that anyone else who has posted a concern must be wrong. Maybe one day the penny will drop for us all and we will have that eureka moment and suddenly realise how our critical thinking skills are just not quite adequate enough yet. Posted by markycash
i asked you not to attribute to me something that was said by someone else. it doesn't help.
In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : ah, i see. the 8pm £110 thing was a huge surprise to me. i have avoided playing it for years because i thought, subjectively, that the buy-in meant that only the best players play. incidentally, i thought about what you were saying the other day about your view of game strength. i would certainly listen to your opinion on game strength. it would be valuable if everyone had that same knowledge built up over the years, as you have. unfortunately, everyone doesn't. so it is trying to find an objective way of replicating that. one thing you might acknowledge is that when you play a tournament you will not see everyone who has entered. i have no figures other than a guess to say that you would probably see less than 10% of the hands played, and share a table with less than 25% of the field. whatever the true percentage, this does mean that you are likely to miss 90% of the hands played and not share a table with 75% of those who entered. now i know you will know, very well, the game of those playing. others won't. my attempt is to assess the ability of every player in the whole field, to give an indication of strength to the casual player. Posted by aussie09
There is nothing objective when you use your best player methodology to assess the strength of a tournament.
Someone could be doing well in lower buy in games and be high up on best player. Them being in a £110 game doesn't mean it is tough. Someone could be high up on best player mainly down to volume. Them being in a £110 game doesn't mean it is tough. UK regs/cash regs may only play high buy in games and therefore are unlikely to be high up on best player. Those players would appear to make the field softer.
You suggest your table is fact when its your methodology to assess tournament strength. When you post things as fun and for players to interpret its fine. This isn't what you have been doing and that is one of the big reasons why people have concerns.
In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : i asked you not to attribute to me something that was said by someone else. it doesn't help. Posted by aussie09
I will try not to get into the t1t for tat comments but you said that to me after a post in which I directly quoted you Aussie. Unless the copy/paste function on my mouse is biased in some way and trying to misquote you then I have no idea which quotes you feel were not your quotes?
I like to think I am an objective person, if you point something out I have done in error then I would hold my hands up and admit the error.
I done this when I thought you said 'very few players' but you actually said 'few players'. I said right away 'my bad' and admitted my mistake.
If I have misquoted you somewhere else please let me know, apologies in advance if this is the case.
In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : There is nothing objective when you use your best player methodology to assess the strength of a tournament. Someone could be doing well in lower buy in games and be high up on best player. Them being in a £110 game doesn't mean it is tough. Someone could be high up on best player mainly down to volume. Them being in a £110 game doesn't mean it is tough. UK regs/cash regs may only play high buy in games and therefore are unlikely to be high up on best player. Those players would appear to make the field softer. You suggest your table is fact when its your methodology to assess tournament strength. When you post things as fun and for players to interpret its fine. This isn't what you have been doing and that is one of the big reasons why people have concerns. Posted by MattBates
i agree. one player doing this or that should have no effect. it doesn't. one player's presence in a tournament should have no effect. it doesn't.
my view is that if you look at the results of every player in a tournament you can reduce or eliminate the effect of an anecdotal or a subjective feel of tournament strength.
for a normal player, will they be in position to know game strength from sharing a table with a quarter of the field? will knowing the proportion of top players who have entered, and the form of these players be helpful to assess strength? which way is most helpful?
In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : I will try not to get into the t1t for tat comments but you said that to me after a post in which I directly quoted you Aussie. Unless the copy/paste function on my mouse is biased in some way and trying to misquote you then I have no idea which quotes you feel were not your quotes? I like to think I am an objective person, if you point something out I have done in error then I would hold my hands up and admit the error. I done this when I thought you said 'very few players' but you actually said 'few players'. I said right away 'my bad' and admitted my mistake. If I have misquoted you somewhere else please let me know, apologies in advance if this is the case. Posted by markycash
oh, i forgot that one. the other was your cut and paste post.
In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : oh, i forgot that one. the other was your cut and paste post. Posted by aussie09
I made 3 quotes in that post.
One was from Matt so I assume you do not mean that as it states Matt's name directly under it. The quote from Matt was intentional and was included to contrast the 2 points. I never said that was your quote (as mentioned it has Matt's name clearly written underneath it).
It has helped and it does help. Posted by aussie09
I am genuinely curious as to which one of those two I misquoted you in?
Again apologies if this is the case, I am completely stumped though.
I wouldn't labour on the point but you have accused me posting other peoples comments and attributing them to you. Which I would feel very bad about if this was the case.
In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : I made 3 quotes in that post. One was from Matt so I assume you do not mean that as it states Matt's name directly under it. The quote from Matt was intentional and was included to contrast the 2 points. I never said that was your quote (as mentioned it has Matt's name clearly written underneath it). The other 2 were... In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : I am genuinely curious as to which one of those two I misquoted you in? Again apologies if this is the case, I am completely stumped though. I wouldn't labour on the point but you have accused me posting other peoples comments and attributing them to you. Which I would feel very bad about if this was the case. Posted by markycash
we agree, we'll let it go, marky. it's gone. no worries.
i have also thought about the analysis of which tournament a player has most success. you will play x tournaments through a month , or year. you might know already which one of 20 major games each day gives you your greatest return. i think that might be helpful. you will already have a feel. Posted by aussie09
further, i have been exploring the merits of this.
select one player, or ten players known to be good on skypoker. then see how many times they cash in each of the 20 major tournaments.
the constant is the player(s). cashing is a consistent and fair count of achievement. the number of events in a month (or year) will be sufficient to be confident in the results.
it would be possible to compare tournaments and assess which are soft, ok, hard or OMG.
In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : There is nothing objective when you use your best player methodology to assess the strength of a tournament. Someone could be doing well in lower buy in games and be high up on best player. Them being in a £110 game doesn't mean it is tough. Someone could be high up on best player mainly down to volume. Them being in a £110 game doesn't mean it is tough. UK regs/cash regs may only play high buy in games and therefore are unlikely to be high up on best player. Those players would appear to make the field softer. You suggest your table is fact when its your methodology to assess tournament strength. When you post things as fun and for players to interpret its fine. This isn't what you have been doing and that is one of the big reasons why people have concerns. Posted by MattBates
Ive had a good look at the 'pokersuperhero' site and its not possible to access whether a game is tough or soft based on the information provided. PS the site is VERY slow. PPS are sky OK with links being created to it ?
I'll start by saying I don't really want to get involved in the debate about which/how tables do or do not show what game strength is like but appreciate Aussie is just trying to come up with a way of measuring it and there's probably no perfect measure due to unknowns playing on mtts online.
I just wish Gary's results thread would come back. I know aussie's site records all these results but I resent having to login/signup.
Sharkscope and garys tables made my life complete lol
Comments
HEADLINES
mbsntb_NoEa5yCa5h. wpwp.
STRENGTH
today's biggest buy-in (£110) major tournament is the Main Event at 8pm. it is probably nowhere near as hard as you might think. last sunday its strength was noted as "ok".
might be worth trying to satellite in and have a go.
there were several "soft" games too.
www.PokerSuperHero.com/strength
.
Your strength one has been shown to be majorly flawed. You are using this to try and encourage people to play a high buy in game yet you seem fine with this.
All your table shows is the level of players that play a lot on sky that play different games. Just because someone plays a lot doesn't mean they make a game harder.
incidentally, i thought about what you were saying the other day about your view of game strength. i would certainly listen to your opinion on game strength. it would be valuable if everyone had that same knowledge built up over the years, as you have. unfortunately, everyone doesn't. so it is trying to find an objective way of replicating that.
one thing you might acknowledge is that when you play a tournament you will not see everyone who has entered. i have no figures other than a guess to say that you would probably see less than 10% of the hands played, and share a table with less than 25% of the field. whatever the true percentage, the obverse does mean that you are likely to miss 90% of the hands played and not share a table with 75% of those who entered.
now i know you will know, very well, the game of those playing. others won't. my attempt is to assess the ability of every player in the whole field, to give an indication of strength to the casual player.
i have also thought about the analysis of which tournament a player has most success. you will play x tournaments through a month , or year. you might know already which one of 20 major games each day gives you your greatest return.
i think that might be helpful. you will already have a feel.
It isn't objective. You are choosing which tourneys to include. You are deciding what the important criteria are (despite so many people questioning certain aspects such the way ROI is considered).
Now if you want to interpret the data and present tables in exactly the way you are doing this is absolutely fine!
What shouldn't be fine is to say that... X, Y or Z IS the best player or that X, Y or Z ARE the softest tourneys or the tables HAVE helped (in some small way) players to win tourneys. Or that your tables HAVE and DO help players.
If you presented exactly the same content but changed the 'have', 'do' and 'are' to 'maybe' and 'possibly' etc with a footnote stating this is just your interpretation of the data then I doubt half the people who have a problem would be bothered.
I am sure I must be wrong or have misquoted or taken you out of context and obviously Matt will be wrong, his direct quote may be also be out of context and he won't have considered something you will subsequently post and enlighten him. I am also sure that anyone else who has posted a concern must be wrong.
Maybe one day the penny will drop for us all and we will have that eureka moment and suddenly realise how our critical thinking skills are just not quite adequate enough yet.
Someone could be doing well in lower buy in games and be high up on best player. Them being in a £110 game doesn't mean it is tough.
Someone could be high up on best player mainly down to volume. Them being in a £110 game doesn't mean it is tough.
UK regs/cash regs may only play high buy in games and therefore are unlikely to be high up on best player. Those players would appear to make the field softer.
You suggest your table is fact when its your methodology to assess tournament strength. When you post things as fun and for players to interpret its fine. This isn't what you have been doing and that is one of the big reasons why people have concerns.
I like to think I am an objective person, if you point something out I have done in error then I would hold my hands up and admit the error.
I done this when I thought you said 'very few players' but you actually said 'few players'. I said right away 'my bad' and admitted my mistake.
If I have misquoted you somewhere else please let me know, apologies in advance if this is the case.
my view is that if you look at the results of every player in a tournament you can reduce or eliminate the effect of an anecdotal or a subjective feel of tournament strength.
for a normal player, will they be in position to know game strength from sharing a table with a quarter of the field? will knowing the proportion of top players who have entered, and the form of these players be helpful to assess strength? which way is most helpful?
One was from Matt so I assume you do not mean that as it states Matt's name directly under it. The quote from Matt was intentional and was included to contrast the 2 points. I never said that was your quote (as mentioned it has Matt's name clearly written underneath it).
The other 2 were...
In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength: In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength: I am genuinely curious as to which one of those two I misquoted you in?
Again apologies if this is the case, I am completely stumped though.
I wouldn't labour on the point but you have accused me posting other peoples comments and attributing them to you. Which I would feel very bad about if this was the case.
.
select one player, or ten players known to be good on skypoker. then see how many times they cash in each of the 20 major tournaments.
the constant is the player(s). cashing is a consistent and fair count of achievement. the number of events in a month (or year) will be sufficient to be confident in the results.
it would be possible to compare tournaments and assess which are soft, ok, hard or OMG.
what do you think?