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.
Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!
Major MTT Strength
So the shock news is that the higher buy in games appear to be tougher than the low buy in games?
This is very useful stuff to know
Comments
STRENGTH
sunday's £110 major at 8pm had a strength "ok".
whereas sunday's £11 game at 8:15pm had a strength noted as "hard".
www.PokerSuperHero.com/latest
yes, that is true matt.
a handful of players will not distort the strength assessment
any player who has played so few games that they have not ever made it to the top 100 players at any time in the past 6 months will not influence the strength assessment.
there are 8,000 players who have appeared in the best player leagues. quantity wise, the number of these playing is taken into account. quality wise, how high in the best player leagues is a second factor.
i was interested to see where the value might be. there is nothing that has done this before, apart from the "avoid mattbates" app.
the 9pm has been rated "hard" 4 times in the last 7 days and rated "OMG" three times.
i didn't realise it was so tough. mind you, i thought the 8pm main on sunday was a no go mtt. but it isn't.
i've just edited that sentence. all best player leagues are the 100 best players.
any idea why?
thanks. i would use it the same way. avoid some, target others.
mine is a combination of quantity and quality. i choose the method that can be argued against less than alternatives methods. what i do is assess performance by a standard test. the mtts are the top games, no cash, no sngs, no freerolls, no this, no that. therefore the standardised "test" i use is a truer test of ability and achievement. it is more readily calibrated, interpreted and performances compared.
what it gives me is the ability to know how good someone is likely to be. no matter, it all is subject to what cards are dealt.
the ukops high roller question ... we will know better when it next runs. there is no allowance made for size of buy-in, nor should there be imo. the players are the same, just a reduced skill range probably. i think i would see a ok to hard game . the entrants mix will include a higher number of wealthy average players plus more good players.
remember that there are few profitable players in poker.
those in all my best player tables will almost without fail be profitable players. i identify the top 100 from 5,000 unique players a week, 10,000 unique players a month, 50,000 unique players a year. i am 99.9% certain that all top 100 best players are profitable. confident because 100 from 50k (or 5k for that matter) is such a small proportion.
sharkscope does a different thing and does that very well. my site does its own thing too and provides a service to those who play on sky poker.
lol.
ps. still no reason to argue with you harry.
I read a credible article a couple of years ago which suggested the amount of winning players was higher than most people thought. I cannot find that article but I have found a similar one written by Sharkscope who obviously have access to a lot of data.
The article suggests that there is a lot of variation between sites and games but overall it states that in 2014 22% of Tournament players were profitable. This was down from 26% in 2009.
For Sky the figure was 27%.
Also that isn't even considering rakeback.
Link to article... Profitable player %
If, say, the number on Sky Poker is 27%, is 27% "a lot", or, looked at Charlie Munger style, is 73% (the obverse) "not much"?
Interesting.
I have managed to stay profitable yes, so I guess I am in whatever the % actually is. However the VLV finals punched a couple of holes in my sails. Will get back on the job after Vegas though and see if I can give the Holdem MTT regs a run for their money.
Obviously every rung on the ladder from 3% to 100% is 3%+ so I am not sure I am making much of a point here lol.
Heads to Google...
Edit: Regarding the bolded part. I think 27% would neither be few or many. To me the term 'few players' suggests scarcity. I don't think 27% suggests the number of profitable players are scarce.
TBH I think it is a rather subjective term so I doubt there will be a definitive quantitative and universally accepted answer out there on the interwebs.