You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
and for the year to date.
a total of 36,815 players in 3,014 games
Ta Rob,
funny.
your figures are good too. as underplaying it really as i was unsure whether you wanted me to post the accurate numbers.
clubs
The ones at the top of the page (up to and including last night's £1k+ events for Dec).... StayorGo is TOP of the leaderboard for winners with a very very impressive 4 wins, 10 FTs and 14 cashes, yet doesn't even make the top 10 table for points.
As Ivan said, the best players often take risks pre-bubble to get a stack and give themselves the best chance of FT/winning, that's why wins/FTs have to outweigh just cashing a fair bit.
3rd place in the points table has 0 wins, 1 FT and 22 cashes and yet StayorGo can't even make the top 10 with 4 wins an 10 FTs! It's clear to see surely that the latter is far more impressive. Same goes for PhilAny2Q, he has the joint most FTs and twice as many wins as anyone else (4x as many as most) and still a decent number of cashes... I don't get how he isn't higher.
hi paul,
it's good that you're not moaning.
these figures are fine. it is a judgement issue on one aspect alone, which is points. it doesn't matter whether your judgement is different. these are the figures.
these are £1k+ games with a average field of 300/400, consider how much better someone is coming first is compared to FT and cashing.
if you want a table that gives you a picture of what you want simply make one up.
rob
RE: the bolded bit... if they're doing it consistently then the person winning them is usually gonna be signifiacntly better. The best MTT players tend to have fairly low ITM %s because mincashing isn't how you make money, it's all about top 3 finishes and that involves sacrificing some mincashes and even some FTs to give yourself the best chance of winning. Mincashing isn't really that hard, about 10% of people do it every comp and if someone has an 'i wanna mincash at any cost' mentality then it's easy to get ITM probably 25%+ but they'll very rarely ever win one.
hi paul. it is easy to pick one comparison with minimal info and conclude this or that. i havent time now but will demonstrate tomorrow the sense. whatever your formula is it will appear flawed when using anecodotal evidence. but as i said ,it doesnt matter, its just a judgement call.
if you wish to identify your "best player" the considerations are really straightforward. if you want to find out who the player who wins the most tournaments then refer to the "winners" table. likewise, the one who wins the most money see the "returns" table, and the players who make the biggest profit, take the most bounties or bubble the most they each have a table. my personal choice of these is either profit or winnings.
however, the quest to identify the best player is complicated when you poll several games with different field sizes and buy-ins. this is the only time when a points system is of any value.
the choice of points is the key. the scoring system i use for field sizes averaging over 100 players and with a number of events over 100.
the scale of points is important. for my league, i consider that someone finishing in the top quarter is the starting unit to measure. thereafter, cashing is three times as good as a top quarter finish. a final table finish is twice as good as cashing. in an average 100+ runner game, the difference between FT and winning is fine too.
i am readily able to debate the points. the funny thing is that it doesn't matter as it is only your judgement call versus mine and neither will be proved right or wrong.
for me, this points scale remains the best scale to determine the best player in a mixed buy-in, mixed field size, multiple event race.
regards
rob
ps on a different thread for ukops, i suggested a different points range as there are fewer games (33) and in response to the brief that it should motivate volume play throughout. 1st 10 points, 2nd 8 points, 3rd 6 points, 4th 5 points, 5th 4 points, 6th 3 points, 7th - 10th 2 points and cash 1 point. fewer games means that more elements are measured to discriminate between performances to determine the "best" player.
Personally I don't see how FT can be deemed only twice as good as cashing. I think FT should warrant at least 4 (and maybe up to 6x) as much as cashing and I imagine most people would agree (although field size is OFC a factor. Less than 100 runners and it seems fair to award cashing 3 and FT 6 but more than 200 runners which a lot of main and mini events are then a FT should definitely be 4x more than a cash. Also, no distinction for FT finishing place either.
I don't think a larger sample size cancels out these factors either - sure, the better players are at the top anyway but that's mostly cause they've played a lot of games and all have plenty of FT's wins - but you can't really distinguish between them well since cashing is scored too highly and thus amount of games is a large factor!
I get that you want it simple although confused how working out the top quarter in each game for 1 pt could be simple?! :P
Personally (trying to still keep it still fairly simple) I'd go something like: (assuming 100+ runner fields)
1st = 12 pts
I think in terms of spread it works out better. FT is 6x better than a min-cash -reasonable. But only 3x better than a 10th-20th and slightly less than 2x better than 7th-10th.
The honour surely must go to the player with this screen-name......
zzzzzzzzzz
i acknowledge that yours is a fine scale. mine is too.
there are 300 games a month and 3,000 a year. the average field size is 200. 11% of the field cash, 2.7% final table. as a mathematician you will know that yours, although fine, is unnecessarily complex and when applied is simply over-engineered for this purpose.
there are a number of scales more complex than ours too. for this particular quest they all do the same job and identify the same best player.
cheers man.
no, that's fine, pad. that's probably a variant of scrabble. omahabble.
hi sikas, will do sometime soon.
5 year leagues.
there have been 10,750 games played, there were 93,914 different players
note that 5 years ago there were some games that i didnt look at, although i do now.
it's good to see some great players listed, especially tallytink and andrew1947
StayOrGo is having a superb month (4 wins) yet overshadowed by PhilAny2_Q with 6.
funnily enough, i thought about these things at the outset, in 2010 as there was no way i was going to spend 25 hours a day looking at everything.
i decided that i would look at £1k gtd games. i now have a good idea of 90,000 players at all buy-ins from £2.20 to £530.
it would be interesting to look solely at <£11 buy-ins but not certain it would add much additional information really. conversely, i know performances in the />£50 buy-in games and this provides useful information for other more specific reasons.
i do know my next step when i choose to develop this further. a good return to effort would be to add into the calculations the £500-£1k guarantee games. i might do this in 2015.
analysis of the leagues gives four tables showing rates.
this is those who have played at least 100 games this year.
1,382 players of 37,594 players this year so far. these are the top 10 in each category.
DECEMBER
12,146 players in 429 games
my plan for january is to analyse results from 600 tournaments. these will be those with a guarantee of £500 and above.
for the whole year 2015, i plan to analyse 7,200 tournaments
2014
38,383 players in 3,240 games