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
So many things in this thread are of interest. Will tackle them as I see them. I will say just about everyone agrees that a lot of work goes into correlating all the results and we all agree it takes dedication and players acknowledge your work .
1. 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.
I am sorry but I cannot fathom how seeing any of your tables would lead someone to win a main event. There is no pattern to be gleamed from your tables that can’t be seen from SS or looking at the table for 1 or 2 orbits. A losing player will be a losing player just the same as a winning player would be a winning player. Unless I have missed the table about limping, 3 betting ,button raises etc I’m not sure how you can claim that patterns can lead to a style off play.
it's not as simple as you think.
sunday's £110 major at 8pm had a strength "ok".
whereas sunday's £11 game at 8:15pm had a strength noted as "hard".
This again leads to the assumption of you saying best player from your site is linked to volume. At a quick glance in your top `100 players there are at least 3 players that are down 5 figures so how can you classify that they are in the top 100 players on Sky ?. You then go on to rank all the mtts you track based on these figures. So if your base figures are wrong every mtt strength is also wrong.
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
I totally agree with this but according to your tables this is not true.
Its all information and it is up to people to interpret. I do worry about statements like avoiding games considered tough when you look at the games that are considered tough. I doubt a number of the games would be considered tough if you asked sky MTT regs.
Again same as above.
Copied form S.S the most comprehensive tracker of all games online.
WILL IT TURN ME INTO A WINNING POKER PLAYER?
Probably not
This is not a personal attack in any way but if we are making claims make sure to back the up.
pat,
results from 30,000 games are collated with 100,000 players over 8 years
every method to determine best player is flawed. 43 different leagues are produced every day with the latest data. each league is only meaningful if you find it so. discard those are not. if you have a personal 44th league use that instead.
you might have seen your Hero Card at some stage on my site. i have produced them for 5 years. they are a place to see all results, stats, charts, ranking, past years performance, ratings etc for one player.
that's it for the site. beyond this, interpretation is off line and not on the site.
over the past five years, i have looked at the "pattern of results" on a Hero Card and have learned how to read them. the Hero Card is where I first see a pattern. that is, how certain figures relate to other figures for any one particular player and, thereafter, how a player's pattern of figures compare to other player patterns. i can form an opinion of strengths and weaknesses, even style and i can take a view on someone's play.
occasionally, i have been asked for my opinion. whether here on the forum, off line, social media, face-to-face, i am happy to look at a particular Hero card and share my view on what it means to me. i have only done this for my virtual friends when they have asked. there are a number of threads on this forum where you will see this.
i am delighted when any comment i make is taken on board. i am delighted when any player goes on to do something noticeable soon after. of course, their success is all to do with their own skill. my part, is only to suggest a tweak or two.
there are two things. the 43 best player leagues on my website and my interpretation of patterns on Hero cards. best player leagues will not help a player win any tournament, interpretation of patterns probably won't either.
You posted
"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."
You don't recall very well. Please don't make up stuff. Made even worse by you telling Markycash to be "careful" about taking things out of context shortly after.
Here's my post from April 2016
It's rather different to how you describe it.
Oh, and please don't read my threads
You're simply not welcome
"People are Strange (good Doors song )
Just driving on a very quite street. Needed to turn around and so reversed into a side street. Didn't notice car behind me. He may have just got there or been there when I reversed. My fault. Didn't hit him but was maybe close
He pulled in his drive so I turned back round and went to his door and apologised
Not a word, totally blank look, he shut the door in my face.
I'd find it so hard to do that. Entirely blank someone. I do the thing that I think most people do. Someone I don't like is walking towards each and I think to myself "I'll blank them"
Then when we pass each other I either give a small nod or go "hi mate"
"Confront" is just the same as "apologise" eh Aussie?
Your recollections are about as accurate as your stupid tables
Various posters on this thread seem to be below their usual standard...
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.