I PROPOSE A NEW FORUM: WINNING SNG PLAYERS

[GauchoFish]

It seems that this forum is nothing more than a cyber country club for a tight-knit group of losing players with <10% of membership actually having anything worthwhile or substantial (read: correct) to say about how to actually beat SNG's.

I propose that that <10% group get their own forum where poker knowledge, skills and experience will override familiarity, seniority and likability.

I propose that the first and only requirement for membership be to run members party handle through Prophecy, other players PT statistics or another reliable source and comeup with a skill rating for this player that is based upon FACT and ACTUAL RESULTS other than this de-facto pecking order that has been established in this forum.

A serious amount of improvement and poker education could be going on, but it is being lost on all this emotional static.



WD

[iMsoLucky0]

Interesting.

[Mr_J]

"It seems that this forum is nothing more than a cyber country club for a tight-knit group of losing players"

Weird since all the regulars I see posting here seem to be winning players.

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]
I propose that that <10% group get their own forum where poker knowledge, skills and experience will override familiarity, seniority and likability.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Can a group of less than 10% ROI..... I was gonna say something about knowledge, skill and experience co-existing, but that would just be, well, ....do I have to say it?

[Raiser]

Why don't the good players just point out when the bad players post bad advice? I thought that was what this forum was for?

[splashpot]

If we were all expert players, there would be no need for a forum in the first place. You're suggesting that only the "good" players debate with each other to improve. How do you define "good"? It can't be defined as winning players because marginally winning players are far from perfect and still make plenty of errors.

By your logic, you have no use for players who are worse than yourself. Extending that thought, players who are better than yourself have no use for you.

[mts]

The part about having your uptodate results in your signature sounds like a neat idea... that will never happen.
But it is good when someone offers their opinion on a hand even if its bad so long as someone comes around to correct them or offer their conflicting opinion. ITS THE POINT OF A FORUM.

If you're looking for a circle jerk, go somewhere else.

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]

I propose that the first and only requirement for membership be to run members party handle through Prophecy, other players PT statistics or another reliable source and comeup with a skill rating for this player that is based upon FACT and ACTUAL RESULTS other than this de-facto pecking order that has been established in this forum.


[/ QUOTE ]

If by Prophecy, what level or percentage would you think should be the cut off?

[Scuba Chuck]

Gaucho, if this is a joke post, I do find it very humorous...

[ QUOTE ]
this de-facto pecking order that has been established in this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the de-facto pecking order? How is it established? Oh, and just for shits and giggles, where do I rank (***gulp***,not very high I hope)?

[GauchoFish]

'seem to be'

indeed

i invite you to pick five regulars (i like to call them 'lifers') and run their PP handles through Prophecy. See what you get. I'm not going to name any specific players, I'll let you decide which ones to test.

They say Prophecy is inaccurate, but anybody who has taken even the most elimentary statistics class knows that, so long as the sample is a random one, it can be used to generalize to the greater whole with a large enough percentage being sampled.


Neilsen for example samples less than 1% of US households and is able to generalize to the whole US within a couple of % points.

As an added note, my Prophecy stats are right on the money, as are two close friends'. The only thing off by any significant amount is the total tourneys played. They seem to miss 10-20%.


WD

[GauchoFish]

because the bad players are masked here as good players.

that is the problem.

the majority of people here that are 'respected' are quite bad poker players in practice.

people who live on this forum and post everr day and all day, are the ones who seem to get the most respect.

the real players are at the tables, making money off of these guys when they do decide to sit down.


WD

[Unarmed]

Those with the highest ROI aren't always the best teachers.
The best teachers don't always have the highest ROI.

[GauchoFish]

Yes i realized this after I posted it.

I think that players who ar less than expert status should be able to participate but should be noted as such.

what the problem is in this forum is all of the people who people turn to for advice are less than winning players.

watch, i predict that there will be a few VERY LOUD and outspoken voices in this thread who rip my idea to shreds and call me all sorts of names, insult my character and all manner of other things.

i'd be willing to bet $100 that each of them is a losing player. this bet would have about a $75-$90 EV.


WD

[GauchoFish]

those with the highest ROI aren't always the best at teaching things in a nice, respectful, slow and patient way...but they are ultimately the people who know what to do in certain situations.

those who do things in a nice, respectful, slow and patient way aren't always the ones who know what to do in certain situations.


just like when i was in college:

the professors i preferred and loved where the ones who had the most detached view of the 'real world. there lessons have helped me only in that they have made me realize that idealism is a joke in a practical sense.


WD

[GauchoFish]

the opinions that are looked at as the right ones aren't usually that.

the people that present themselves as experts are largely not that in practice.

WD

[GauchoFish]

i'd say they should be put in one of four categories.

A. Losing player
B. Break even/slight losing/slight winning player
C. Winning player
D. Dominates the game


Prophecy only breaks it down by ITM% so this would probably look like:

A: <28%ITM
B: 30%-35% ITM
C: 36%-39% ITM
D: 40%+ ITM



WD

[Hood]

It already exists. You just weren't invited.

[GauchoFish]

i don't want to make it personal. it will detract from the point.

those who are not in the pecking-order and should be know exactly what i mean.

those who are in the pecking-order and should not be are going to have a defensive reaction.

those who are not in the pecking order and should not be will either not care or will agree.

those who are in the pecking order and should be probably agree but would never admit it publicly.


WD

[wuwei]

[ QUOTE ]
It already exists. You just weren't invited.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find that hard to believe with all the winning content he posts here...

oh wait, nevermind.

[GauchoFish]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


PLEASE...INVITE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO JOIN?????????????????



WD

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
watch, i predict that there will be a few VERY LOUD and outspoken voices in this thread who rip my idea to shreds and call me all sorts of names, insult my character and all manner of other things.

i'd be willing to bet $100 that each of them is a losing player. this bet would have about a $75-$90 EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I could rip your idea to shreads AND win $100 if I'm a winning player on pokerprophecy? That's a very tempting offer.

[Hood]

Don't worry, must have been clerical error. Just checked your PP info and it says you're a professional. how odd (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1897520&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&fpart=1&vc=1).

[ QUOTE ]
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


PLEASE...INVITE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO JOIN?????????????????



WD

[/ QUOTE ]

[GauchoFish]

the principle was that if you did this, and you were a winning player...you would be a rare expception to the rule.


WD

[GauchoFish]

it does say that i am a professional.

that is also my thread.




that is exactly my point. that thread is the most beautiful description of what i'm talking about it is laughable. i'm not sure if you put that link there to stengthen my point or to weaken it...

WD

[jcm4ccc]

I'll bet my ITM beats Daliman and Gigabet. So I would recommend that people start listening to me more than to them.

[Irieguy]

Ok, I'll bite. Let's everybody whip out their Johnsons and wave them around.

I don't play under Irieguy much because I don't have rakeback. Here are my rakeback accounts:



Player stfu_donny
Games played 121
Wins 51 (42.15%)
Losses 70 (57.85%)
Average Buy-In $30
Players with better winning percentage 44673
Players with worse winning percentage 201576
$30 Table: 51 wins / 70 losses / 42.15% wins


Player Iriechicken
Games played 57
Wins 23 (40.35%)
Losses 34 (59.65%)
Average Buy-In $95.09
Players with better winning percentage 54207
Players with worse winning percentage 192042
$30 Table: 1 wins / 3 losses / 25% wins
$100 Table: 22 wins / 31 losses / 41.51% wins


I feel so good about myself now. I get to join a club started by a petty, dishonorable, tiny little man. I can't wait to start contributing.

Irieguy

[revots33]

I read ALL the advice on the One-table tournament thread. I don't care where a person is in your imaginary "pecking order".

If it's good advice I try it out and see if it helps my game. If it's bad advice I ignore it.

Much of the advice has helped me and I don't need to see a person's Poker Prophecy whatever to tell me whether I can consider a person's input to be valid.

I don't care about my own or anyone else's popularity ranking on 2+2. I care about winning money at poker.

[Mr_J]

"The only thing off by any significant amount is the total tourneys played"

They have 60% of mine. I ran gauchofish through (you?), nice record at the $33s. Blindthief (you right?) didn't do so well at higher levels /images/graemlins/wink.gif
You're not gauchoholic are something are you? Seen that one at the $33s and $55s, ran out of trial searches though.

"i invite you to pick five regulars (i like to call them 'lifers') and run their PP handles through Prophecy."

I'm outa trials for the moment. I checked a few previously and only one had an unimpressive record. This poster is easily one of the most knowledgable guys here, and it only caught half of his games anyway (basically only caught a 'bad run').

Why don't you point out 5 regulars you think are losers?

[citanul]

Here's the stats from my citanul account, the one I feel like sharing the name of, and also one that I haven't exactly played a ton of games on.

Player citanul
Games played 48
Wins 25 (52.08%)
Losses 23 (47.92%)
Average Buy-In $162.5
Players with better winning percentage 19471
Players with worse winning percentage 226778
$200 Table: 5 wins / 10 losses / 33.33% wins
$50 Table: 7 wins / 7 losses / 50% wins
$100 Table: 10 wins / 6 losses / 62.5% wins
$1000 Table: 2 wins / 0 losses / 100% wins
$500 Table: 1 wins / 0 losses / 100% wins

man i like small sample sizes. and man, did i stink it up at 200s in there. fortunately, i got a lot of 1sts in that set. also note: i've never bought in directly to a step 5. so to play a 1000, i'd have to have played a 500. so #100s played > #500s played is a bit uh, wrong.

to gaucho: i'll take your bet because really, i don't think that anyone is going to care enough to make "lots of responses" to your thread. then again, you'd probably just bump your thread every day for the rest of time and make several new accounts in order to satisfy your theory, so whatever, i don't care.

fwiw, i'm a winning player, i just don't think i've seen you add anything of value to this forum.

citanul

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm outa trials for the moment. I checked a few previously and only one had an unimpressive record. This poster is easily one of the most knowledgable guys here, and it only caught half of his games anyway (basically only caught a 'bad run').

Why don't you point out 5 regulars you think are losers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, the damn thing really doesn't catch close to all of the games. Sucks (or does it?) for the poster who had a bad run.

I'd be intrigued by Gaucho's choices of 5 "regulars" who are very vocal advice givers that are losing players.

citanul

[GauchoFish]

awesome...i'm glad somebody voluntarily put their stats up:

ok so mixed in with your Irieguy account...the three you've told us about total to:

262 tourneys and 92 ITM's...35% ITM

Not bad. You just meet the cutoff for 'winning player'...though lose a couple tourneys and you'll be down in 'break-even, slightly winning/slightly losing player'...though you will be on the upside of the group.



WD

[GauchoFish]

if i point them out...this will thread will get out of control. i'm not looking to make personal attacks, i'm making a critique of the culture.

no i'm not gauchoholic...though i'm sure we share the same university hehe

i don't use GauchoFish much anymore, but i had a nice run while i played on it.


I WOULD HIGHLY RECCOMEND FORKING OVER THE $30 FOR PROPHECY...if it grabs 60% thats a ton, so long as they are random...just seeing that a guy has 300 tourneys in that thing is enough to avoid crucial early tourney all-in calls.
it also has paid for itself, in my case, many times over for this very reason.



WD

[Mr_J]

"Not bad. You just meet the cutoff for 'winning player'"

Anyone else find this pretty funny?

[Unarmed]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm not looking to make personal attacks

[/ QUOTE ]

L
O
L

[GauchoFish]

there could be a shared database of poster's PT logs then. Or some other way. surely there is a talented coder among us who could easily coordinate PT accounts.

the thing is, people who are losing players know they are such if they keep logs. just having that requirement, some form of verification, would keep the losers from even applying.


WD

[pooh74]

FWIW, I for one am not really here to impress anyone or make friends etc...I have all of that in my real life. But...I do appreciate all of the advice given, even what I feel to be, "bad advice" sometimes (whatever that means)....If a disagree with the line someone is taking, it gives me a chance to rebut and explain WHY I think theyre wrong, and WHAT I feel is the better way to play that hand...If I am able to articulate my own thought processes, it helps me just as much if not more than the person to whom I am replying. If everyone was right or "good" on this forum, there would be a lot less learning IMO...I like when people ask stupid questions and I like when people take (what I feel) to be the worst line in a hand...w/o that, there's no chance for discussion...we would just be a bunch of bobble heads.

I dont care about someone's credentials to benefit from what they say...I have enough confidence in my own poker mind to be able to think for myself.

This is a dumb thread...and this is from someone who kept an open mind to you during your other debacle...

[Mr_J]

"just seeing that a guy has 300 tourneys in that thing is enough to avoid crucial early tourney all-in calls."

This is the only stat that I'd think is useful. #sngs played shows indicates their experience level. 5 sngs played??? Very inexperienced and probally a fish. A few hundred?? A serious player who is probally pretty decent.

I wouldn't trust the ITM stats though.

[Irieguy]

[ QUOTE ]


...though lose a couple tourneys and you'll be down in 'break-even, slightly winning/slightly losing player

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish the IRS would tax me as though I was only a slightly winning player.

Even with write-offs for backees, they sure want a lot of money.

Irieguy

[GauchoFish]

thanks for the input

well stated


WD

[GauchoFish]

why would u not trust the ITM stats???

if its a large enough sample it will even out. when you see somebody with 300 tourneys on there, i think, you can have a pretty good idea of how accurate that is.


WD

[GauchoFish]

words

words

words


got any proof of this stuff?

i didn't want to make this personal, but as it stands...you are precisely one of the players i was talking about.


WD

[GauchoFish]

you don't think it would be nice to see the ITM% and ROI of those who give you advice? of those who reply to your posts? of those who others consider to be experts?

WD

[wuwei]

[ QUOTE ]
words

words

words


got any proof of this stuff?

i didn't want to make this personal, but as it stands...you are precisely one of the players i was talking about.


WD

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, how about you post some of your "winning" sng analysis instead of threads where you piss and moan about Irieguy and/or everyone else you think is against you?

Your ideas in this thread suck.

Feel free to look me up on prophecy (account wuuwei). I'm not a member and my free searches are done.

Post the results, and assuming they haven't mucked up my stats too much, you can just send the $100 from your wager above to the account with the same name.

Thanks,

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone should try it - it makes threads look better.

[citanul]

i wouldn't share my database except for with a select few players. i don't think that those players would give me even a chunk of their databases in return.

citanul

[Mr_J]

"when you see somebody with 300 tourneys on there, i think, you can have a pretty good idea of how accurate that is."

I don't think so. I think the variance is too great. However, anyone who's played 300 sngs in the last 2 months I'd grade as a serious player, and assume them to be at least breakeven (esp if they're nearly all at one level). They've probally played at least 450, and they might have more than one account.

[Voltron87]

Having everyone's name run through PP would not help, we don't need a pecking order, it would not help anything. If you think bad advice is being given, offer a counterpoint. And if you can't see why you might not be getting a fair treatment after you ripped off a forum regular... well, I can't help you if you don't.

Also... a big ROFLMAO to whoever said it's been started already... zing!

[Unarmed]

[ QUOTE ]
ok so mixed in with your Irieguy account...the three you've told us about total to:

262 tourneys and 92 ITM's...35% ITM

Not bad. You just meet the cutoff for 'winning player'...though lose a couple tourneys and you'll be down in 'break-even, slightly winning/slightly losing player'...though you will be on the upside of the group.


[/ QUOTE ]

So over 88 SNGs Irie has a 25% ITM and you conclude he sucks. Over the next 174 he has a 40%+ ROI so you add them together and conclude he's ok. See anything wrong here?

BTW didn't you blow a whole bankroll? I conclude you suck.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
you don't think it would be nice to see the ITM% and ROI of those who give you advice? of those who reply to your posts? of those who others consider to be experts?

WD

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly dont care about that...i only care about my own %s...my own bottom line. I only come here for the stimulation.

For example...I dont care if you consider Irieguy a good player or not...I saw a post of his yesterday that I thought was spot on...its not going to affect my game directly bc of something he said or didnt say...but it got me thinking more succinctly about a certain phenomenon re: psychology of the game...it was well written, and FWIW, the LAST thing on my mind was "is this guy a winner?"...i could friggin care less. It has ZERO effect on what I gained from reading it.

[John Hurst]

This is the most thinly disguised attempt to criticize an individual(s) I have ever seen. Truely classless.

[codewarrior]

Looks like I have to leave and never come back!

Player codewarrior
Games played 3
Wins 0 (0%)
Losses 3 (100%)
Average Buy-In $5
Players with better winning percentage 179128
Players with worse winning percentage 0
$5 Table: 0 wins / 3 losses / 0% wins

Player:



For best results, a Player should have 20 or more games played to get an idea of their skill level. If so, here is how we suggest you analyze the data:
Players Win Percentage 40% or higher Player is a Pro
Players Win Percentage 35 to 40% Player is Very Good
Players Win Percentage 30 to 35% Player is Slightly Above Average
Players Win Percentage 25 to 30% Player is Slightly Below Average
Players Win Percentage 20 to 25% Player is Below Average
Players Win Percentage 10 to 20% Player is Way Below Average
Players Win Percentage 0 to 10% Player is a Fish
To qualify for a win, a Player must finish in the money, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd.
Data retrieved in 0.46594786643982 seconds.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems that this forum is nothing more than a cyber country club for a tight-knit group of losing players with <10% of membership actually having anything worthwhile or substantial (read: correct) to say about how to actually beat SNG's.

I propose that that <10% group get their own forum where poker knowledge, skills and experience will override familiarity, seniority and likability.

I propose that the first and only requirement for membership be to run members party handle through Prophecy, other players PT statistics or another reliable source and comeup with a skill rating for this player that is based upon FACT and ACTUAL RESULTS other than this de-facto pecking order that has been established in this forum.

A serious amount of improvement and poker education could be going on, but it is being lost on all this emotional static.

WD

[/ QUOTE ]

*Yawn*

Yugoslav

[john_]

Winning SNG Players? Isn't that what this forum is? This forum has help me plug many small leaks in my game. I tend to just read a lot of it and don't reply much.

PokerProphecy is not always accurate. Even if the ITM was accurate that doesn't mean skilled or not skilled. Think about this, who would have a higher ITM:

player a - a decent player playing one table at the 10's
player b - a great player playing 4 tables at a higher level(200's, 1000's)

Stretching this a little further, which person's advice would you take? Ok, now say you were starting out and playing 10's, which person's advice would you take?

You see how everything is dependent on a lot of things. Just because you see a lot of threads that aren't useful to you doesn't mean they aren't useful to anyone else.

BTW my ITM was over 40 percent multi-tabling before I started posting or reading on here. However, I'd say this is one of the most useful places to enhance my game.

[codewarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
I WOULD HIGHLY RECCOMEND FORKING OVER THE $30 FOR PROPHECY...

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this, perhaps, the greatest veiled shill thread of all time?

[Voltron87]

Anyone want to plug in Voltron87 through PP? I don't have it. You might be surprised at the results. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[GauchoFish]

not at all

i actually tried approaching the owner awhile back offering to sell it for him in a private label site but he declined. we're working on one of our own right now (my company).


i have no financial stake in whether or not you buy it. but can you think of a greater tool for a multi-tabler? it may not be perfect but it's better than trying to decide based upon how many chips they have, what sex they are or what SN they chose...


WD

[GauchoFish]

Player wuuwei
Games played 123
Wins 55 (44.72%)
Losses 68 (55.28%)
Average Buy-In $20
Players with better winning percentage 37866
Players with worse winning percentage 208383
$20 Table: 52 wins / 61 losses / 46.02% wins
$30 Table: 3 wins / 2 losses / 60% wins
$10 Table: 0 wins / 5 losses / 0% wins


nice job, i'd reccomend moving up to the 33's...not much difference besides the 50% more money you win.


WD

[lorinda]

but can you think of a greater tool

Oddly, I can.

Lori

[GauchoFish]

....????

do tell


WD

[GauchoFish]

Player Voltron87
Games played 13
Wins 6 (46.15%)
Losses 7 (53.85%)
Average Buy-In $8.08
Players with better winning percentage 37866
Players with worse winning percentage 208383
$10 Table: 2 wins / 6 losses / 25% wins
$5 Table: 4 wins / 1 losses / 80% wins

[stupidsucker]

I dont care if this does have troll written all over it. I want to bite too.

Count me OUT of the club, cause my prophecy stats suck enough. (I think) I cant even get the website to work right now.

If you think that even a random 1k sample is big enough to let all the cream rise to the top then let me be one of the first LOUD people to laugh at you.I can take 2 random 1k samples of my own tournaments and be over 15% roi off between the two.

You are nothing more then a child(age doesnt matter) that got his feelings hurt when you screwed over someone that has a good reputation at this forum. Your intent here is obvious.

You are a smart kid IMO, and probably a decent poker player. I doubt Irie would have backed you unless he thought so too.

You have a lot to learn, and I for one hope you learn it. One of the things to learn as a poker player is how to deal with a bad streak. We all know how you handled it.

Oh and for the record... PoPro is missing over 50% of my 20+2 tournies that I just started playing less then a week ago. Hmmmmmmmmm! They only have 36 of the 78 that I have played. The data is off by 7% ITM as well(I am really 48.68% ITM for my 20s) For the 30s.... lol I have over 1200 games in since Jan 1st on a horrible run of only 36.37% ITM ... When you learn more about SnGs you will find out that it happens. popro is mising about 45%plus of my 30s as well.

You have nothing but popro to base your "club" on... Not many here give it any credit except for you... I am sure that we are ALLLL WRONG, and you are right because your stats magicaly match up. Think about that for a few moments.

And I would officially take your $100 bet, but rumor has it that you dont pay up what you owe so its a -EV bet for me even though I would win.

[GauchoFish]

great point...maybe you're right

WD

[stupidsucker]

[ QUOTE ]
Player wuuwei
Games played 123
Wins 55 (44.72%)
Losses 68 (55.28%)
Average Buy-In $20
Players with better winning percentage 37866
Players with worse winning percentage 208383
$20 Table: 52 wins / 61 losses / 46.02% wins
$30 Table: 3 wins / 2 losses / 60% wins
$10 Table: 0 wins / 5 losses / 0% wins


nice job, i'd reccomend moving up to the 33's...not much difference besides the 50% more money you win.


WD

[/ QUOTE ]

You just suggested that someone move up to the 33s on a 123 game sample size with no knowledge of their bankroll....

You have my vote as forum guru.

[rohjoh]

Player Voltron87
Games played 13
Wins 6 (46.15%)
Losses 7 (53.85%)
Average Buy-In $8.08
Players with better winning percentage 37866
Players with worse winning percentage 208383
$10 Table: 2 wins / 6 losses / 25% wins
$5 Table: 4 wins / 1 losses / 80% wins

Looks like you can be in the "club". Can I get in the Gouchofish club too....

Player ROHJOH
Games played 16
Wins 9 (56.25%)
Losses 7 (43.75%)
Average Buy-In $61.25
Players with better winning percentage 18331
Players with worse winning percentage 227918
$50 Table: 6 wins / 5 losses / 54.55% wins
$30 Table: 0 wins / 1 losses / 0% wins
$100 Table: 3 wins / 1 losses / 75% wins

Those darn $33's are tough

[Voltron87]

So I have a 46% ITM (on my non rakeback account). I'm apparently qualified to be one of the big swinging dicks on the closed forum. I'm a pro!

[GauchoFish]

Ok so the i've overestimated the demand for a new forum...how about augmenting this one to include PoPro stats in profiles...

it has been said they are inaccurate...but so what? at least it is a yard stick. some basis for credibility as a poker player other than having made 15,000 posts on this forum.

WD

[jcm4ccc]

I've decided to stop posting on this forum, because I am so much better than all of you that I can't see what I can possibly learn from you guys. If you want advice, please PM me and I may answer, if I feel like it:


Player jcm4ccc
Games played 166
Wins 92 (55.42%)
Losses 74 (44.58%)
Average Buy-In $9.49
Players with better winning percentage 18747
Players with worse winning percentage 227502
$5 Table: 22 wins / 13 losses / 62.86% wins
$10 Table: 70 wins / 60 losses / 53.85% wins
$100 Table: 0 wins / 1 losses / 0% wins


Hmmm, don't remember playing that $100 SnG . . .

[RicP]

[ QUOTE ]
but can you think of a greater tool

Oddly, I can.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL... or perhaps not so oddly

[pooh74]

I dont play on party or skins...guess I'm out...

[citanul]

fwiw, if the player he recommended to move up has a bankroll for the 30s, i'd tell him to move up too. but that's because i have yet to notice any differences between the 20s and 30s that impede a decent player. as gaucho said, there's not much difference besides the 50% more money you'd be making.

citanul

[curtains]

Why do threads like this get 7 pages of responses??

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]

Why do threads like this get 7 pages of responses??

[/ QUOTE ]

[mts]

why don't you make your own website and form your own community of uber poker players. You will rule the world!

[Barcalounger]

You dislike the existing class system (the one that excludes you), and the solution is to replace it with a new class system (with results-oriented rules YOU set up so YOU can be included)? My head just exploded.

It's especially asinine considering that the forum exists to give poker advice and this percieved existing class system is based on quality and quantity of ADVICE given. I don't care what your ITM% is, if it's good advice and it helps my game then I'll take it. I'm not studying projectile physics and expecting Randy Johnson to give me the formulas.

I have a fairly good ITM over my 1000+ SNGs so far this year, but I don't expect anybody to automatically listen to anything that comes out of my pie hole about this game. I haven't earned that respect yet.

[stupidsucker]

[ QUOTE ]
it has been said they are inaccurate...but so what? at least it is a yard stick. some basis for credibility as a poker player other than having made 15,000 posts on this forum.


[/ QUOTE ]

The whole idea behind a yard stick is that every one is the same length..

Welcome to a new world where some yards are longer/shorter then others. This ought to be fun. Especially for the football fans, and not to mention carpenters.

And my point remains... The move advice was based solely on a 123 game inaccurate popro sample size. Bankroll was never mentioned, and it is more important then any stats. There is a difference between the 20s and 30s btw(IMNSHO). Its significant enough too.

[stupidsucker]

Phil H has some pretty decent stats, but his books suck.


No content, I just wanted to get a dig in on someone other then OP.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]

Why do threads like this get 7 pages of responses??

[/ QUOTE ]

3 of them by my count are ***You are ignoring this user***, but my count may be off by 50% in either direction so it's kinda worthless

2 digs in one post and one of them isn't on the OP...I think I'm gonna go off and start my own humor forum where only the top 10% of 2+2 posters can post in, cause the rest of you suck.

[barry111]

[ QUOTE ]
but can you think of a greater tool

Oddly, I can.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]
Thats great exactly what I was thinking.
Nice Job,
Handshake,
Andy

[r2p]

I also demand that you prove to me your funny before you post a joke !

[ilya]

Everything is relative, isn't it?

[valenzuela]

1) You blew a whole bankroll so you suck.
2) I have a higher ROI than Irie( well my stakes are 100 times lower).
3) I play on Ultimate Bet.

[Paul2432]

[ QUOTE ]
"when you see somebody with 300 tourneys on there, i think, you can have a pretty good idea of how accurate that is."

I don't think so. I think the variance is too great.

[/ QUOTE ]

ITM converges much faster than ROI. For instance after 300 tournaments the 95% CI for ROI is ~ +/- 20%, but for ITM the 95% CI is ~ +/- 5%.

Of course ITM is much less meaningful than ROI. You get what you pay for.

Paul

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont play on party or skins...guess I'm out...

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHAHAH UR NOT GONNA GET THE FREE HAT AND TSHIRT FOR SIGNING UP. LOLOLOL.

I think this is a real dumb idea. I'm curious if my PoPro stats say I suck at poker too.

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
i'd say they should be put in one of four categories.

A. Losing player
B. Break even/slight losing/slight winning player
C. Winning player
D. Dominates the game


Prophecy only breaks it down by ITM% so this would probably look like:

A: <28%ITM
B: 30%-35% ITM
C: 36%-39% ITM
D: 40%+ ITM



WD

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it occur to you that it's really easy to inflate your ITM percentage? You want my stats? Here goes. Over 224 tourneys at the 55s, my ITM is 35.3% and my ROI is 11.2%. If I wanted to prove you wrong though, I could probably boost my ITM up to 40% very easily. Do you know why I don't do this? ITM is an OK guideline, but it should not be the one stat that determines winning vs. losing players.

[GauchoFish]

besides a couple of supportive PM's it seems this idea is not well received from the community at large...there have also been some good points brought up that i agree with for why the current system works fine.

lets let this thread die. thanks for all the responses.

GauchoFish

[TheUsher]

[ QUOTE ]
i'd say they should be put in one of four categories.

A. Losing player
B. Break even/slight losing/slight winning player
C. Winning player
D. Dominates the game


Prophecy only breaks it down by ITM% so this would probably look like:

A: <28%ITM
B: 30%-35% ITM
C: 36%-39% ITM
D: 40%+ ITM



WD

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't read this loooonng thread but the 40+ ITM is crap since it could be skewed with 3rd place finishes. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of aggressive players here have lower ITM's than 40% but a higher ROI than *most* of those players with ITM's 3-4% higher (10%+/-).

Edit: Wow finished the thread and realized that this might just be an attempt to garner a bunch of unknown 2+2 usernames on Party. Seems like a good idea to know who to watch out for /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[SharkBait]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes i realized this after I posted it.

I think that players who ar less than expert status should be able to participate but should be noted as such.

what the problem is in this forum is all of the people who people turn to for advice are less than winning players.

watch, i predict that there will be a few VERY LOUD and outspoken voices in this thread who rip my idea to shreds and call me all sorts of names, insult my character and all manner of other things.

i'd be willing to bet $100 that each of them is a losing player. this bet would have about a $75-$90 EV.


WD

[/ QUOTE ]

Gaucho-

I'd love to insult your character, call you names and do all sorts of things...unfortunately my ITM% and ROI% are not sufficient for me to do so in a credible manner. I also don't have a gazillion posts here.

I am a loser. Please ignore my posts.

[shejk]

At first, I was puzzled, then I became angry. Now, I'm just grinning in solitude.

[Phoenix1010]

Player phoenix1010
Games played 170
Wins 70 (41.18%)
Losses 100 (58.82%)
Average Buy-In $19.06
Players with better winning percentage 46647
Players with worse winning percentage 199602
$20 Table: 62 wins / 92 losses / 40.26% wins
$10 Table: 8 wins / 8 losses / 50% wins

I'm in! Woot! I will only join if there's a secret handshake.

In all seriousness, I'm not sure how this forum was supposed to come to be, or supposed to be enforced, but it's not a good idea, for the reasons that everyone else has pointed out. However, I think you've brought up some interesting points (albeit not in the best way). I think it's clear that there is something of a "pecking order" in this forum and sometimes there is a somewhat clique-like feel among the more respected posters. I've noticed a few instances where a poster will present his opinion (often in a snide or condescending manner), provide no basis for it, and then leave the discussion without presenting any defense for his stance or response to reasonable counterpoints, aside from his reputation. I'm not saying this is the norm, but it does happen. As you've pointed out, post count is not nearly a good enough indicator that someone knows what he's talking about, or a good enough arbiter betweeen differing opinions. I would not be surprised if some vocal posters don't happen to be winning players. There is not a direct correlation between post count and skill. So why should we automatically trust a respected poster to be giving the best advice?

What you're suggesting, that we give credit to people's opinions based solely on their statistics, is equally useless. There are at least two posters who have used this method before ("oh you don't agree with me? What's your ROI?"), and it should be obvious how pointless it is. A winning player makes winning plays, but there are often multiple ways to handle a given situation. Winning players disagree all the time, often on fairly fundamental concepts. And I don't have to tell you that you can be a winning player while still being flat out wrong on some topics (I win, but I have my leaks, and I have some misconceptions, and I'm willing to admit that). That's why discussion is so important. What would be the point of a "Winning SnG Players" forum if the person with the best stats was always deferred to without anyone asking that he explain himself. Would an "Ask Gigabet" forum be nearly as helpful as the discussions that have taken place on this forum in the past few days? I personally don't think so.

There is one clearcut way to guage the strength of an argument: how well it's proponent can defend it. There are a lot of factors that go into every poker decision. There are a lot of criteria and a lot evidence that can be brought up to determine the value of a given play. Anyone who is willing to present a viewpoint on a given subject should be ready and willing to provide support for his argument, regardless of how much the other posters here like him, or how high his inflated, inaccurate, useless Pokerprophecy stats are. It's easy enough to see when someone's reasoning is completely bunk, and it's easy enough to see when someone really has a base to their thoughts. Anyone with something to say should submit their reasoning for judgement. Otherwise, how is he really helping anyone?

The discussions and arguments that take place here are where the real value lies. Any 6 year old can take a list of instructions from a top player and be a slight winner, but only someone who is really paying attention and trying to grasp the concepts being presented can reach his true potential. The real top players help the most when they provide insight into the various considerations for each hand, and the deeper concepts that dictate the best style for each situation. If you can catch the gems that come out of even one of those posts, you gain a lot more than reading 12 answers where someone from the in-crowd simply tells you he'd fold there.

Of course, this is all just my opinion. I do think that this forum runs very well, and I'm thankful mostly to the top posters for the various insights that they generously give. But, I think everyone would like to see a higher frequency of quality posts, and a lower frequency of baseless opinions, unearned cockiness, and useless bragging. I could be wrong though.

-Phoenix

[cleinen]

If you don't like the forum format on this site find another site. happy hunting

[Degen]

are there others that cater specifically to SNG's?

Degen

[GauchoFish]

wow man, amazing post

i agree with 100% of it...until i read that i was beginning to regret posting, now i'm glad i did...i hope serveral forum members read this.


GF

[Mr_J]

"ITM converges much faster than ROI"

Yes but the variance is increased by inaccurate results, incomplete sample etc.

[codewarrior]

You've got my respect, just from this post you made right here. Well played.