Major MTT Strength

aussie09

there was a psychologist who wanted to compare the young of humans and chimpanzees.

he presented his findings at a conference and declared, "there, this shows that human babies are more intelligent than chimazee babies."

at which point someone in the audience stood as responded, "that all very well, but wait until the monkey sets the test."


my stuff looks only at mtt play in major mtts.  i am not looking at cash play, i am not interested in sng results, i am not troubled by sats for cash.  i look only at sky poker.  i look only at 6 handed.  all i do is seek to understand who is doing well amongst all other chimpanzees.


 
 

aussie09

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : This would increase the percentage slightly then.
Posted by HAYSIE

probably reduce it.  as i reckon that there is a lower percentage of profitable players in the non-major tournament playing pool.

also, there are not that many mtt players who have never played a major tournament.



 

hhyftrftdr

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : You are showing how many regular players on sky play tournaments, not how hard the games are. I think the flaw is you link players being in the top 100 players in your table to being good players. I said about the HR as it would show this. I would of thought there are a large number of profitable players in the HR but they dont play many games. To some extent the same will be true of the Sunday Major.
Posted by MattBates

All of this but particularly the BIB.

When you see Aussie proclaiming player X (insert woeful/losing alias) as the best on Sky, I think most people know to take that with a bag of salt.

hhyftrftdr

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

It is in the very nature of statistics that they start with criteria which make them self-limiting. The "100 top players" show who has the most points in MTTs that are almost always £5-55 (1 daily £3, 2 weekly £109). Volume is more important than profitability. So-in £5-55, the smaller the field, the more will be in the core group. In £109's you have moved outside the key group-it is double the top end of the Regs MTTs. some players will only play £109's plus. some sat in via the 6:30 freerolls. £530's are outside the bankroll of the majority of the "sky reg" criteria you have set. Many of the players may well have a £1million-plus badge on pocket 5's but may only play 2 or 3 MTTs a year on Sky. To give an extreme example, Chris Moorman played his first MTT on sky in a previous series-by your criteria, he would have been classed as a "weak" player-good luck with that! Your stats are excellent, but (like all stats) limited. For £5-55 your "hot-o-meter" is accurate, at £109 dubious, and at £530 (with respect) to be ignored
Posted by Essexphil

This is also good.

SR23

Ah, the hot-o-meter. My game has gone steadily downhill ever since Sky got rid of that. 

aussie09

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : All of this but particularly the BIB. When you see Aussie proclaiming player X (insert woeful/losing alias) as the best on Sky, I think most people know to take that with a bag of salt.
Posted by hhyftrftdr

hidden agenda, harry.  still no need to argue with you. 



 

hhyftrftdr

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : hidden agenda, harry.  still no need to argue with you.   
Posted by aussie09

Hidden agenda?

Nothing hidden about it whatsoever.

jordz16

Best way to find out how tough a tournament is, is to ask the people who play them. I would say if you asked the 50 most regular Mtt players on the site their top 5 toughest Mtt's each week i would say their answers would be very similar

markycash

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

gosh marky, that's a lot of typing.
Posted by aussie09

Yes, agreed. Sorry it has taken me a while to get back to you on these points. Have been tied up all day at a 'How to make a point in less than 1,000,000 words' seminar. I guess it is obvious why Twitter is not my preferred social media platform

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

 also note that this thread is about strength in mtts.  it has been taken a bit off track to talk of assessing profitable player in poker in general.
Posted by aussie09

Noted and agreed. To be fair though, you did say that "there are few profitable players in poker". If the statement had been "there are few profitable players in the specific tourneys measured on your site" then I wouldn't have said anything. I only commented and took it wider as you said "there are few profitable players in poker", which obviously includes SNGs, cash games and all MTTs.

I have no desire to derail the thread, although I have found the debate to be interesting. I will come back at the points made while I was out and if you would prefer I drop the wider debate after that then I will obviously respect this.

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

 my purpose has been to have reliable stats to compare player performances.  if you include sng you move away from a measure that is meaningful.  including cash is not practical, neither my site or sharkscopetake cash into account.
Posted by aussie09

Completely understand this. I only commented as you were generalising to all poker players when you said "remember there are few profitable players in poker".

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

 it remains that only 1 in 6 make a profit in mtts.  i think many would be suprised that it was so few. i was.
Posted by aussie09

I read a lot of forum posts from elsewhere on the subject when we started talking about this and also remember reading about this topic a while back. The majority of posters thought it was less than 18%, nevermind anything higher. The most popular answers were in the 5-10% range. 

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

 i disagree that a player who win one tournament should be called a winning player when they may have lost numerous others.
Posted by aussie09

Completely agree, I was only highlighting that different approaches to measuring profitability will yield completely different results, even from the same data set. Therefore the approach used to measure such things is obviously very important.

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

 the factors i measure do provide a robust method from which results can be used with a high degree of confidence to assess performance.
Posted by aussie09

Whether the method you use provide a robust method for assessing performance or not is open to debate. It only took me 3 of my Sharkscope searches to spot a 'top 100' player who was a losing player. You stated that "i am 99.9% certain that all top 100 best players are profitable". Finding one who isn't so quickly leaves me a little sceptical. However I was talking about whether the methodology used is robust enough to make statements about 'all poker players' and the rate of profitability. I would say with a lot of confidence that it isn't, I don't think anyone has come up with a robust enough framework to measure this yet.

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

 i make no generalisation regarding what % of poker players are actually in profit from major mtts.  they are facts.
Posted by aussie09

If you mean the specific stats you quoted for the precise MTTs you include on the site... I haven't disputed these at all. 

I have only debated the point when generalisations are made to all poker players. I have no doubt and never have had any doubt that you can crunch the numbers you record accurately. It is just whether these numbers can be used to make generalisations that "there are few profitable players in poker". As poker includes all variants, game types, sites etc, it obviously seems questionable that 1 specific measure of a category of MTTs on 1 site can be used to draw such conclusions. To do so is to venture towards the human baby/monkey baby analogy you made a few posts on IMO.

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

 i discount SNGs which are a completely different dynamic with good reason.  sngs, freerolls etc distort the numbers and the interpretation of figures becomes unreliable and less meaningful.
Posted by aussie09

For the purposes of what you are doing with the new site additions I completely see the point.

For the purposes of assessing what % of poker players as a whole are profitable they are definitely relevant.

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

 rakeback is almost insignificant when assesing the percentage of profitable players.  i would guess that it would add less than 1% to the percentage of winning players.
Posted by aussie09

Again you use the term "profitable players" as if this refers to all profitable players. If you mean in the specific tourneys you measure then maybe. If you mean as assessing all profitable poker players then I severely doubt and would be completely astonished if under 1% of regular poker players are rakeback grinders.

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

 i think your methodology is not the best.  you really need to be more qualitative andquantitive.  you use polarised definitions of a winning and a losing player.  it is more than someone who has won one tournament, or someone who has lost every tournament.  there is a big, measureable and meaningful grey area in between these groups.
Posted by aussie09

I have lost a few of the hairs I had remaining on my head reading this part lol 

Firstly I mentioned a couple of different methodologies simply to show that different methodological approaches will often yield completely different results even from the same data sets. I never proposed a methodology of my own. I even made a point of saying the the data I linked to will miss a lot of factors and that to get an accurate picture of the 'true' percentage of poker players making a profit would mean undertaking a major research project.

I also didn't define what a winning or losing player would be. I gave hypothetical examples which I thought were overtly absurd simply to make an analogy.

As for the quantitative/qualitative mix. I made this point to a professor in research psychology. I am acutely aware of the need for a balanced approach that uses different methodological approaches to help attain stronger results. Further than simply including quantitative and qualitative data I prefer to triangulate data and if possible consider meta-analysis when undertaking research. I would however question the value of qualitative data when trying to attain firm quantitative results.

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

 finally, i have long known the percentage of players who make a profit in mtts.  as i said, i tracked this for 2 years and it has remained constant.  i have never posted about this and have only mentioned, "few" until it was questioned here in earlier posts.
Posted by aussie09

Again this depends if you mean solely in the MTT's that meet your tracking criteria.

None of this is a pop at you Aussie. I know you work hard on your site and it is there for people to use or not use; nobody is forced to use it. I also wish you every success with this. I am only debating the wider 'what percentage of poker players are profitable' point.

aussie09

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

In Response to  Re: Major MTT Strength : Yes, agreed. Sorry it has taken me a while to get back to you on these points. Have been tied up all day at a ' How to make a point in less than 1,000,000 words ' seminar. I guess it is obvious why Twitter is not my preferred social media platform In Response to  Re: Major MTT Strength : Noted and agreed. To be fair though, you did say that "there are few profitable players in poker". If the statement had been "there are few profitable players in the specific tourneys measured on your site" then I wouldn't have said anything. I only commented and took it wider as you said "there are few profitable players in poker", which obviously includes SNGs, cash games and all MTTs. I have no desire to derail the thread, although I have found the debate to be interesting. I will come back at the points made while I was out and if you would prefer I drop the wider debate after that then I will obviously respect this. In Response to  Re: Major MTT Strength : Completely understand this. I only commented as you were generalising to all poker players when you said "remember there are few profitable players in poker". In Response to  Re: Major MTT Strength : I read a lot of forum posts from elsewhere on the subject when we started talking about this and also remember reading about this topic a while back. The majority of posters thought it was less than 18%, nevermind anything higher. The most popular answers were in the 5-10% range.  In Response to  Re: Major MTT Strength : Completely agree, I was only highlighting that different approaches to measuring profitability will yield completely different results, even from the same data set. Therefore the approach used to measure such things is obviously very important. In Response to  Re: Major MTT Strength : Whether the method you use provide a robust method for assessing performance or not is open to debate. It only took me 3 of my Sharkscope searches to spot a 'top 100' player who was a losing player. You stated that " i am 99.9% certain that  all  top 100 best players are profitable ". Finding one who isn't so quickly leaves me a little sceptical. However I was talking about whether the methodology used is robust enough to make statements about 'all poker players' and the rate of profitability. I would say with a lot of confidence that it isn't, I don't think anyone has come up with a robust enough framework to measure this yet. In Response to  Re: Major MTT Strength : If you mean the specific stats you quoted for the precise MTTs you include on the site... I haven't disputed these at all.  I have only debated the point when generalisations are made to all poker players. I have no doubt and never have had any doubt that you can crunch the numbers you record accurately. It is just whether these numbers can be used to make generalisations that "there are few profitable players  in poker ". As poker includes all variants, game types, sites etc, it obviously seems questionable that 1 specific measure of a category of MTTs on 1 site can be used to draw such conclusions. To do so is to venture towards the human baby/monkey baby analogy you made a few posts on IMO. In Response to  Re: Major MTT Strength : For the purposes of what you are doing with the new site additions I completely see the point. For the purposes of assessing what % of poker players as a whole are profitable they are definitely relevant. In Response to  Re: Major MTT Strength : Again you use the term "profitable players" as if this refers to all profitable players. If you mean in the specific tourneys you measure then maybe. If you mean as assessing all profitable poker players then I severely doubt and would be completely astonished if under 1% of regular poker players are rakeback grinders. In Response to  Re: Major MTT Strength : I have lost a few of the hairs I had remaining on my head reading this part lol  Firstly I mentioned a couple of different methodologies simply to show that different methodological approaches  will often yield completely different results even from the same data sets. I never proposed a methodology of my own. I even made a point of saying the the data I linked to will miss a lot of factors and that to get an accurate picture of the 'true' percentage of poker players making a profit would mean undertaking a major research project. I also didn't define what a winning or losing player would be. I gave hypothetical examples which I thought were overtly absurd simply to make an analogy. As for the quantitative/qualitative mix. I made this point to a professor in research psychology. I am acutely aware of the need for a balanced approach that uses different methodological approaches to help attain stronger results. Further than simply including quantitative and qualitative data I prefer to triangulate data and if possible consider meta-analysis when undertaking research. I would however question the value of qualitative data when trying to attain firm quantitative results. In Response to  Re: Major MTT Strength : Again this depends if you mean solely in the MTT's that meet your tracking criteria. None of this is a pop at you Aussie. I know you work hard on your site and it is there for people to use or not use; nobody is forced to use it. I also wish you every success with this. I am only debating the wider 'what percentage of poker players are profitable' point.
Posted by markycash

oh no.  how many words is that? 

give me a minute marky.

markycash

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : Are you trying to make the stats fit what you would like them to be?
Posted by HAYSIE

Lol Haysie, I have no idea "what I would like them to be". I would be pretty disappointed in myself if I thought the figures were one way and tried to argue the opposite.

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : I dont see the relevance of rakeback in this argument. Someone who is profitable due to rakeback isnt going to make a tournament harder.
Posted by MattBates

Don't think I said it would Matt?

I only spoke about rakeback having an influence on whether some players are profitable or not.

Granted the discussion I have been having with Aussie has veered away from the OP content. It seemed interesting to me but as mentioned in my previous post, if Aussie wants me to stop debating this point I will gladly do so after I reply to any comments towards myself from when I was out. 

@Weecheez - lol and thanks Harry

markycash

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : oh no.  how many words is that?  give me a minute marky.
Posted by aussie09

Yeah the seminar I attended on "How to make a point in under 1,000,000 words" was obviously a complete waste of money

aussie09

 

Rob:  gosh marky, that's a lot of typing.
Mark:  Yes, agreed. Sorry it has taken me a while to get back to you on these points. Have been tied up all day at a 'How to make a point in less than 1,000,000 words' seminar. I guess it is obvious why Twitter is not my preferred social media platform

Rob:  OMG another 1,000 word post

 

 

 

Rob:  also note that this thread is about strength in mtts.  it has been taken a bit off track to talk of assessing profitable player in poker in general.
Mark:  Noted and agreed. To be fair though, you did say that "there are few profitable players in poker". If the statement had been "there are few profitable players in the specific tourneys measured on your site" then I wouldn't have said anything. I only commented and took it wider as you said "there are few profitable players in poker", which obviously includes SNGs, cash games and all MTTs.  I have no desire to derail the thread, although I have found the debate to be interesting. I will come back at the points made while I was out and if you would prefer I drop the wider debate after that then I will obviously respect this.

Rob:  We agree.  What I posted was accurate.  For our purposes…. there are few profitable players in poker, there are even fewer profitable MTT poker players

 

 

 

Rob:  my purpose has been to have reliable stats to compare player performances.  if you include sng you move away from a measure that is meaningful.  including cash is not practical, neither my site or sharkscope take cash into account.
Mark:  Completely understand this. I only commented as you were generalising to all poker players when you said "remember there are few profitable players in poker".

Rob:  We agree.

 

 

 

Rob:  it remains that only 1 in 6 make a profit in mtts.  i think many would be surprised that it was so few. i was.
Mark:  I read a lot of forum posts from elsewhere on the subject when we started talking about this and also remember reading about this topic a while back. The majority of posters thought it was less than 18%, nevermind anything higher. The most popular answers were in the 5-10% range. 

Rob:  Yes, it is few.  We saw earlier that people’s guesses were generally too high.

 

 

 

Rob:  i disagree that a player who win one tournament should be called a winning player when they may have lost numerous others.
Mark:  Completely agree, I was only highlighting that different approaches to measuring profitability will yield completely different results, even from the same data set. Therefore the approach used to measure such things is obviously very important.

Rob:  We agree.

 

 

 

Rob: the factors i measure do provide a robust method from which results can be used with a high degree of confidence to assess performance.
Mark:  Whether the method you use provide a robust method for assessing performance or not is open to debate. It only took me 3 of my Sharkscope searches to spot a 'top 100' player who was a losing player. You stated that "i am 99.9% certain that all top 100 best players are profitable". Finding one who isn't so quickly leaves me a little sceptical. However I was talking about whether the methodology used is robust enough to make statements about 'all poker players' and the rate of profitability. I would say with a lot of confidence that it isn't, I don't think anyone has come up with a robust enough framework to measure this yet.

Rob:  My Best Player top 100s are over 7 days and 31 days.  Normally the 100^th place position in the 7 day league has 12 points (equivalent 4 Final Tables) from 20 games, the 100^th place person in the 31 day league has 36 points (equivalent to 9 Final Tables) from 66 games.  I trust that when you did your validation via Sharkscope you used the same periods to assess profitability. 

 

 

 

Rob: i make no generalisation regarding what % of poker players are actually in profit from major mtts.  they are facts.
Mark:  If you mean the specific stats you quoted for the precise MTTs you include on the site... I haven't disputed these at all. 
Rob:  We agree

 

 

 

Rob: i discount SNGs which are a completely different dynamic with good reason.  sngs, freerolls etc distort the numbers and the interpretation of figures becomes unreliable and less meaningful.
Mark:  For the purposes of what you are doing with the new site additions I completely see the point.  For the purposes of assessing what % of poker players as a whole are profitable they are definitely relevant.

Rob:  We agree.  The scope of my activity is defined and hasn’t widened.

 

 

 

Rob:  rakeback is almost insignificant when assessing the percentage of profitable players.  i would guess that it would add less than 1% to the percentage of winning players.
Mark:  Again you use the term "profitable players" as if this refers to all profitable players. If you mean in the specific tourneys you measure then maybe. If you mean as assessing all profitable poker players then I severely doubt and would be completely astonished if under 1% of regular poker players are rakeback grinders.

Rob:  the point is only about if you include rakeback into the calculations how many players would be reclassified as profitable rather than losing.  I contend that rakeback would add less than 1% of the player base to the “profitable” pool.  Nothing about who is a grinder.

 

 

 

Rob:  i think your methodology is not the best.  you really need to be more qualitative and quantitive.  you use polarised definitions of a winning and a losing player.  it is more than someone who has won one tournament, or someone who has lost every tournament.  there is a big, measureable and meaningful grey area in between these groups.
Mark:  I have lost a few of the hairs I had remaining on my head reading this part lol   Firstly I mentioned a couple of different methodologies simply to show that different methodological approaches will often yield completely different results even from the same data sets. I never proposed a methodology of my own. I even made a point of saying the the data I linked to will miss a lot of factors and that to get an accurate picture of the 'true' percentage of poker players making a profit would mean undertaking a major research project.

I also didn't define what a winning or losing player would be. I gave hypothetical examples which I thought were overtly absurd simply to make an analogy.

As for the quantitative/qualitative mix. I made this point to a professor in research psychology. I am acutely aware of the need for a balanced approach that uses different methodological approaches to help attain stronger results. Further than simply including quantitative and qualitative data I prefer to triangulate data and if possible consider meta-analysis when undertaking research. I would however question the value of qualitative data when trying to attain firm quantitative results.

Rob:  We agree.

 

 

 

Rob: finally, i have long known the percentage of players who make a profit in mtts.  as i said, i tracked this for 2 years and it has remained constant.  i have never posted about this and have only mentioned, "few" until it was questioned here in earlier posts.
Mark:  Again this depends if you mean solely in the MTT's that meet your tracking criteria.
Rob:  We agree.

 

 

 

Mark:  None of this is a pop at you Aussie. I know you work hard on your site and it is there for people to use or not use; nobody is forced to use it. I also wish you every success with this. I am only debating the wider 'what percentage of poker players are profitable' point.

Rob:  I know.  It’s been fun.

 

 

 

Best regards,

Rob.

 

 

 

markycash

A couple of points I disagree with Rob but we can agree to disagree and hopefully it will keep the thread more on topic.

Why do I get the blue font? pfft!

All the best

Marky

P.S. That ^^^ is a bit more succinct although becoming less succinct by typing this... 

Tikay10

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

A couple of points I disagree with Rob but we can agree to disagree and hopefully it will keep the thread more on topic. Why do I get the blue font? pfft! All the best Marky P.S. That ^^^ is a bit more succinct although becoming less succinct by typing this... 
Posted by markycash

 

aussie09

thanks marky.

thanks also for keeping it brief this time.

i did some more on who is profitable.  you were right that there are losing players in the top 100 best player leagues.  i have full knowledge of who is and who isn't and have never sought to publish any figures that would hurt anyone.  you will not see biggest losing player for example.  i am also protecting those who are in the top 100 best player leagues.  i can add a fact... those in the top 100 best players are almost 5 times more likely of being a profitable MTT player than any random player on sky poker.

good debate.  but i am glad that i am not your course tutor.

Jac35

Apologies if you have answered this before Aussie

You choose to block your own stats but share everyone else's.*

Does this seem ok to you?

*except the people that you have decided to block.

markycash

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength :  
Posted by Tikay10

Fair enough Mr T. Nice brag about being able to post pictures...

I was thinking more of the conservative v labour dynamic given the latest current affairs over here in the rainy UK, so wasn't too at happy being pegged as blue I can live with it reflecting my Scottishness though.

aussie09

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

Apologies if you have answered this before Aussie You choose to block your own stats but share everyone else's.* Does this seem ok to you? *except the people that you have decided to block.
Posted by Jac35

the answer is simple jac35.  i am sure that you know this already

i haven't blocked my figures.

there are a handful of players that are blocked.  this was either by their choice or by mine.

you are one of the handful of people, from tens of thousands of visitors, who are blocked.

it is no great surprise to see that three of the handful of people blocked have posted together once again on this thread.  the three of you did the same a year ago, remember?

you will remain blocked.

you knew this already, surely.

markycash

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

thanks marky. thanks also for keeping it brief this time. i did some more on who is profitable.  you were right that there are losing players in the top 100 best player leagues.  i have full knowledge of who is and who isn't and have never sought to publish any figures that would hurt anyone.  you will not see biggest losing player for example.  i am also protecting those who are in the top 100 best player leagues.  i can add a fact... those in the top 100 best players are almost 5 times more likely of being a profitable MTT player than any random player on sky poker. good debate.  but i am glad that i am not your course tutor.
Posted by aussie09

Ha yes, I have left a few course tutors ready to bang their head off the wall. 

One in particular learned very quickly to put a word limit on anything she gave us after she asked me to write a community profile and I handed her a 57 page booklet with appendices on top.

I do enjoy a good debate although I consciously try not to be a pedantic P**** as I fully realise that not everyone feels the same lol

Jac35

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : the answer is simple jac35.  i am sure that you know this already i haven't blocked my figures. there are a handful of players that are blocked.  this was either by their choice or by mine. you are one of the handful of people, from tens of thousands of visitors, who are blocked. it is no great surprise to see that three of the handful of people blocked have posted together once again on this thread.  the three of you did the same a year ago, remember? you will remain blocked. you knew this already, surely.
Posted by aussie09

I was referring to sharkscope. I have no idea if you allow people to see  your own stats on your site.

I promise you

I wasn't angling to have you unblock me

GREGSTER

Interesting debate. Maybe I am looking at this too simplisticly, but the rolling week and monthly ones that Aussie does are a good form guide, so at some stage anyone can go on a heater and it's nice to see yourself at or near the top of a league table. However, the profit and longer term best player stats are where the true best / most profitable players will be surely? (Although I suppose a losing player that plays almost all tournaments could feature in best player top 100 all the time due to them getting more points, but it is due to the amount of games they play).

aussie09

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : I was referring to sharkscope. I have no idea if you allow people to see  your own stats on your site. I promise you I wasn't angling to have you unblock me
Posted by Jac35

come off it, jac35.

when you write, "you choose to block your own stats but share everyone else's" you can only be referring to me and my site.

aussie09

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : Ha yes, I have left a few course tutors ready to bang their head off the wall.  One in particular learned very quickly to put a word limit on anything she gave us after she asked me to write a community profile and I handed her a 57 page booklet with appendices on top. I do enjoy a good debate although I consciously try not to be a pedantic P**** as I fully realise that not everyone feels the same lol
Posted by markycash

excellent 10/10

Jac35

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : come off it, jac35. when you write, "you choose to block your own stats but share everyone else's" you can only be referring to me and my site.
Posted by aussie09

What on earth are you talking about Aussie09? I really don't see how you can be so confused.

I'll try again for you Aussie09

I was referring to sharkscope. If I enter your name on there it tells me that you have locked your stats.

You however share (mostly) everyone's stats on your little site

Clearer?

aussie09

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

Interesting debate. Maybe I am looking at this too simplisticly, but the rolling week and monthly ones that Aussie does are a good form guide, so at some stage anyone can go on a heater and it's nice to see yourself at or near the top of a league table. However, the profit and longer term best player stats are where the true best / most profitable players will be surely? (Although I suppose a losing player that plays almost all tournaments could feature in best player top 100 all the time due to them getting more points, but it is due to the amount of games they play).
Posted by GREGSTER

yes, i think you've got it. 

there are so many ways to assess best player.  people have their own best way, however, this changes quite a bit. 

there are 20 different ways on my site that could be taken as best player.  the one that i don't use is highest returns.  i think that it is a nonsense, but that is only my belief.  i like the idea of being able to judge best player using a number of different dimensions.

not one can prove unequivocally that so and so is the best.  but having this information gives you a big insight into how you are doing in relation to someone else.

aussie09

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength:

In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength : What on earth are you talking about Aussie09? I really don't see how you can be so confused. I'll try again for you Aussie09 I was referring to sharkscope. If I enter your name on there it tells me that you have locked your stats. You however share (mostly) everyone's stats on your little site Clearer?
Posted by Jac35

i refer you to my previous responses.

hhyftrftdr

How big a donation do I need to do to get unblocked?

For the avoidance of doubt, tongue is firmly in cheek.

aussie09

ROLL OF HONOUR

There are many ways to determine who is best player on sky poker, Here are just 11. You choose which one reflects your thoughts. Each is a league of the top 100 Best Players.

Every league is updated and refreshed every day in the morning.

 

 

 

GFKIJKLL is Best Player at Sky Poker over the rolling week
www.PokerSuperHero.com/best7

 

GFKIJKLL is Best Player over the rolling month
www.PokerSuperHero.com/best31

 

xcv is day best
www.PokerSuperHero.com/daybest

 

MattBates is week best
www.PokerSuperHero.com/weekbest

 

GFKIJKLL is month best
www.PokerSuperHero.com/monthbest

 

loololollo is year best
www.PokerSuperHero.com/yearbest

 

JR12Booom is best newbie
www.PokerSuperHero.com/newbies

 

JCordy day profit
www.PokerSuperHero.com/dayprofit

 

JCordy week profit
www.PokerSuperHero.com/weekprofit

 

jordz16 month profit
www.PokerSuperHero.com/monthprofit

 

jordz16 year profit
www.PokerSuperHero.com/yearprofit

 

 

 

 

FIND

See where you feature in 60 leagues
www.PokerSuperHero.com/find

 

 

RESULTS

1,415 players in 20 major tournaments
www.PokerSuperHero.com/results

 

 

 

Follow on Twitter @PokerSuperHero

 

 

.

aussie09

There is a 12th league that collates the number of times that a player is deemed best player over the rolling week. 

 

Best of the Best is ash066pts

www.PokerSuperHero.com/bestbest

 

 

there are three more specialist leagues of best players

 

DTD on Mondays throughout 2017, best player is Jeffter

www.PokerSuperHero.com/dtd

 

Hitsquad throughout 2017, best player is Wacko90

www.PokerSuperHero.com/hitsquad

 

Tournament Wins Charity Shield 2017, best player is jordz16

www.PokerSuperHero.com/charity

 

 

 

that's a total of 15 different leagues of best players. 

 

add to this UKOPS (4 leagues) analysis (15 leagues) archives (8) and Main and Mini best player, there are 43 best player leagues in total.

 

i might add one more for highest returns for the year.