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
it is certainly just information that people can use or discard as they wish.
i would add that if you asked sky MTT regs you would get a range of answers about strength.
as you play high volumes you will be better informed from your own experience. for those who dont play volumes they are having to guess more. with game strength information, which is objective and updated daily using current data, i think their ability to judge where to buy-in is enhanced.
Some on the forum will take the information with a pinch of salt, others will take it as gospel and this is where I have concerns.
for strength there are two factors
the first (percentage) is the proportion of players who have appeared in the best player leagues at some time this year. so it a minimal threshold.
the second (factor) is a measure of how high as best player these players have been.
then combined to give one of only 4 banded categories; soft, ok, hard and omg.
these are just the numbers. there are what they are, no more, no less.
for many, giving people an idea of game strength is a good thing. for you, as you are are top player who plays very well and plays large volume, it is probably superfluous. you will have developed your own way.
interpretation of numbers is a different thing. i seek a pattern over a long period of time, and how the numbers relate to each other, how one player's pattern differs from another's or the norm, all to indicate a style of play that might lead to a tweak. one such tweak last week helped (in a small way) one player to win again and they did so in a main event. this has happened on many occasions where people have asked me to comment. i am delighted to see when it works for them.
RETURNS
here is a 43rd league of best player.
personally, i have always disliked that highest returns is seen as a quality way of assessing performance. traditionally this is one of the ways that poker success has been assessed.
nevertheless, some people take notice of returns and find it meaningful, or informative.
it is just one of 43 different leagues. use or discard as you wish.
www.PokerSuperHero.com/returns
As I've said before as a fun thing it's fine. (Rob: yes, it is fun and not as serious as you want to make out.)
It's when you start making claims that your site is actually so good that it helps people win the main that the problems begin. (Rob: Incorrect, I spoke only of me comparing patterns. This has helped and this does help. There are numerous examples, there are numerous testimonies from players. I don’t mind if you don’t think so.)
It's purely a subjective thing that you do and no hard facts can ever be gleaned from it. (Rob: that’s not correct, there are many hard facts, thousands.)
The flaws are clear but even when people as skilled as Bates (hate to say that) question it, you still remain steadfast in your approach. (Rob: Flaws are omnipresent. Why not reveal your methods and we’ll see whether it has more or fewer flaws.)
You can have all the data in the world but when your starting point is wrong it will never be truly reflective. (Rob: Yes, of course.)
The very moment you add in pure volume as an indicator to ability, you've lost. (Rob: Agreed. Quantitative methods alone without qualitative methods would not be helpful.)
My issue is that people are not always totally switched on to things and will take it as gospel that your site will improve them. (Rob: I am more of a mind to help those people.)
Then they will see your 'donations' bit and end up paying you for useless information. (Rob: nobody pays for anything. It is all free. If anyone is kind enough to help toward costs I am grateful. For three years, I have paid for everything myself. The pleasure for me is helping my virtual friends on Sky Poker and I will continue to bear the costs whilst it remains fun.)
You advised Haysie that he goes out in the first quarter too often. Just another example of how your interpretations are wrong. (Rob: that’s so funny and incorrect.)
Rob: I am not going to argue with you. You have your view, others have a different view. You are no more right than me. Anyway, you shouldn’t be looking, after all you were blocked over a year ago and simply not welcome.
well done on your figures this year, micky. excellent stuff.
volume is useful to improve confidence in any meaning taken from the results.
out of the 43 best leagues there are over a dozen that are skewed towards quality, for example return on investment percentage (ROI%). to be meaningful a quantity threshold needs to be included, otherwise a player winning when playing one game would be high in the league. for the year to date, i have taken 50 major games as being the threshold, above which percentages are put into order.
the choice of what the threshold should be is subjective. a higher threshold increases confidence in the results but will exclude those with better results just bubbling under.
i responded to a request to produce a high volume ROI% league and used a 500 game and 1,000 game threshold. it was fascinating to see the outcome. the same numbers, many players excluded, however, there was an increased confidence in knowing that those at the top of the league were likely to be the best.
you resort to playground-style attempts to provoke an argument. i could list them but would probably overlook many.
i recall your astonishing post elsewhere about a road rage event, where you actually followed someone to their home and you strode to his front door to confront him. you posted that the householder was rude to close the door on you and not to answer you. breathtaking. what on earth were you doing there? it was the best way to deal with you, paul.
consider the door has been closed on you once again.
I do share Matt's concerns though about volume and also regarding the quote I have highlighted.
There is no way you can know currently if looking at your data helped a player win a tourney on Sky, that is a very very bold and big claim to make. Even if the player thought it did, it could be nothing more than a placebo effect or sheer coincidence.
There are statistical tests which can be run on data like this to help indicate if such instances of players winning and crediting it to your site hold water. An ANOVA and Regression for example would help indicate if said player's win was likely down to your site or other factors and it would give significance values to indicate just how much confidence you could have in this assumption. This would involve running control groups and trying to iron out other factors which may be influencing events. If I was carrying out such research I would also try and introduce 'blind' or 'double blind' conditions. Only then IMO could you say "it has helped and it does help", until then you may be correct but you may be incorrect and it is just opinion and unfortunately not an objective statement.
hi marky, i have always held a neutral position.
if you think it helps then great, if you don't think it helps then great too.
when someone tells me it helps, that's great.
i think it helps and i know it helps me.
i am not interested in claims. if you like it, good. if you don't like it, that's good too.
i can't think of many more ways to say that i am really not fussed.
other than to say that i am now going to get one of the new double raspberry magnums from the fridge. they are the best, in my opinion, of course.
I didn't argue any of the points you just stated Rob. I was talking about the quotes I highlighted from your previous posts where you stated categorically that it had helped players win Sky tourneys?
I get the whole, like the site use it, don't like then don't use it stance. I fully understand this. I was just talking about the quotes in which you claimed the site had helped players win Sky tourneys. It may well have done but it also may well not have. Without proof it is just an opinion which may or may not be true.
I haven't tried those Magnums, I am more a roll n bacon guy
You have stated a couple of times that it does help. This doesn't seem neutral to me.
Good luck with the site. It is all only poker chat at the end of the day, there are plenty more serious things to worry about.