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
Someone could be doing well in lower buy in games and be high up on best player. Them being in a £110 game doesn't mean it is tough.
Someone could be high up on best player mainly down to volume. Them being in a £110 game doesn't mean it is tough.
UK regs/cash regs may only play high buy in games and therefore are unlikely to be high up on best player. Those players would appear to make the field softer.
You suggest your table is fact when its your methodology to assess tournament strength. When you post things as fun and for players to interpret its fine. This isn't what you have been doing and that is one of the big reasons why people have concerns.
I like to think I am an objective person, if you point something out I have done in error then I would hold my hands up and admit the error.
I done this when I thought you said 'very few players' but you actually said 'few players'. I said right away 'my bad' and admitted my mistake.
If I have misquoted you somewhere else please let me know, apologies in advance if this is the case.
my view is that if you look at the results of every player in a tournament you can reduce or eliminate the effect of an anecdotal or a subjective feel of tournament strength.
for a normal player, will they be in position to know game strength from sharing a table with a quarter of the field? will knowing the proportion of top players who have entered, and the form of these players be helpful to assess strength? which way is most helpful?
One was from Matt so I assume you do not mean that as it states Matt's name directly under it. The quote from Matt was intentional and was included to contrast the 2 points. I never said that was your quote (as mentioned it has Matt's name clearly written underneath it).
The other 2 were...
In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength: In Response to Re: Major MTT Strength: I am genuinely curious as to which one of those two I misquoted you in?
Again apologies if this is the case, I am completely stumped though.
I wouldn't labour on the point but you have accused me posting other peoples comments and attributing them to you. Which I would feel very bad about if this was the case.
.
select one player, or ten players known to be good on skypoker. then see how many times they cash in each of the 20 major tournaments.
the constant is the player(s). cashing is a consistent and fair count of achievement. the number of events in a month (or year) will be sufficient to be confident in the results.
it would be possible to compare tournaments and assess which are soft, ok, hard or OMG.
what do you think?
i looked at the play of 16 top players on sky poker in each game over the past two weeks.
here are the results.
this is only to explore the principles. it is two weeks of games only. there are some games that have few players and therefore the strength assessment is of low confidence. there are sufficient events to take some meaning. that aside, it to test the principle.
the stats will be after the game finishes. although i could do it in-play but i would need to be awake, on-line, on my own, not drinking, motivated etc.
the main info is to know that the 9pm £55 is usually hard. as we know, past performance is no assurance of future results.
i would like to get to being able to know whether i could expect a tough game or not, should i decide to buy-in. i don't want no information. i don't want to guess so often.
thanks for the note about speed.
i did upgrade the site a few months ago, spending to go to unlimited bandwidth.
i have deliberately added spare areas to each day results page, just in case there ever was a need to show results from many more games. it is unused capacity and might be slowing things, i will go and get rid of that.
thanks for the heads-up.
i think you've hit the nail on the head about there being no perfect way to measure. i have only sought a method that has fewer flaws than other methods.
thanks for all the input and debate.
the answer is to have a control group of 1,000 who are known to be good players.
for each tournament the number of cashes of the control group players will give a percentage.
the lower this percentage the stronger the game.
the results will be banded into soft, ok, hard and omg.
the only problem now is the mechanics of it. i am working on that bit.
Don't know how secure the site is etc and still resent signing up for information that previously was just a click away on the forum.
Recognise some of the very good stats and extra stats on there and appreciate the time it must take setting all of it up etc but just doesnt sit right with me. I try to be pretty careful with all my details so prob just me being me lol
I don't use any sites that force me to log in just to read content. To post, yes fair enough, but to observe, no thanks.
STRENGTH
that's it, done.
i have now completed the change to a fully objective table.
the first principle was to define those who are the control list of good players. this was prompted earlier in the thread, thank you. i have looked back over the last three and a half years and have taken every major tournament winner. there have been 22,406 major tournaments. there are 7,196 unique winners. these form the control list of names.
now, for each and every major tournament, the entrants are cross-checked to see if they feature on the control list. this gives a percentage of the field that have previously won a major game on sky poker.
the second part is how well the winners from the control group have played in a particular game. cashing is too narrow a range, so i count those who reached the top quarter in the game. this gives a second percentage.
these two percentages give a factor. this factor is banded to be either "soft", "ok", "hard" or "OMG".
i have redone the strength table, here...
www.PokerSuperHero.com/strength
thank you for all your comments. i have taken some ideas and changed the table to become objective. no longer skewed by volume play, it is much more a yardstick of tournament strength.
NEW WINNERS
two players won their first major tournament yesterday
amdycaz won the £5.50 at 22:45hrs and longdrop won the £5.50 at 22:15hrs.
well done both, especially having never won one before.
they are now added to the strength control list making a total of 7,198 unique winners of a major tournament since january 2014.
NEW WINNERS
2 more players won their first major tournament yesterday; Juniort0ng and Tweaks7
Both players are now added to the strength control group, which now lists exactly 7,200 winners of a major tournament since 1 january 2014.
The other 18 major games were won by players who were previous winners.
www.PokerSuperHero.com/strength
Can I just say THANK YOU!
Despite the site not being perfect, what poker tracking site is. I have to say that the information you provide, FOR FREE, is excellent. As you have stated it is up to the individual what they pick and choose to use the information for but for that information to be updated daily, be accurate and be free is truly remarkable.
I just hope that some of the negativity on here doesn't put you off continuing as I, along with many others I assume, appreciate the hard work and get a lot of enjoyment from your site.
THANK YOU!
i try and keep the "test" consistent. the major games are those with a guarantee of £500 and over, they need a buy-in of £3 and over (recently lowered in order to include the 9:30 rebuy) and finally should be likely to have 30 entrants or more.
the £500 guarantee bounty hunters at 12, 3 and 6pm were the three games that prompted me to add the third condition. sometimes they were getting only 20-odd entrants and cash was paid only down to 3rd place. Half the final table didn't get paid. Comparing performance requires a consistent test.
i used to include all three. i like them, they are fun games. i will include them again if they gain numbers, they are probably the next best games.
i aim to measure performance in the top games each day. generally 20 a day. capacity for 30+.