(OT) What does the Party Leader Board really mean?

[Eevee]

So i was just browsing the the leaderboard for this week and month and I saw a couple names that really surprised me. These were players that I had played against in the 109s (small sample) and 33s. Without naming names, I have seen these players make some atrocious plays IMO. Most likely, they are probly winning players, but i suspect that by barely. So what percent of players on the leaderboard do you think are actually "good" players as opposed to players that just put in ALOT of hours?

-EV

Current Music: Christmas Carols

[The4Aces]

They play alot

[ZBTHorton]

You are not penalized for finishing OTM a whole bunch, but you are given points for finishing 1st and 2nd, so obviously they play alot.

But, on the other hand, almost every person I've played against in the top100, I consider to be very above average.

[handsome]

[ QUOTE ]

But, on the other hand, almost every person I've played against in the top100, I consider to be very above average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh, that's not saying much.

Eevee, you obviously don't come here much.. there have been a couple of threads re: Party's TLB in recent weeks. The general consensus is that they play a shitload.

[ZBTHorton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But, on the other hand, almost every person I've played against in the top100, I consider to be very above average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh, that's not saying much.

Eevee, you obviously don't come here much.. there have been a couple of threads re: Party's TLB in recent weeks. The general consensus is that they play a shitload.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that not saying much? I sit down at a 55 and see Tabias and fischenstein. I consider them well above average players, and will play accordingly.

[LesJ]

I had a pop-up tell me last weekend that I had cracked the Top 400, so the criterea must not be that stringent. I have been playing alot, however (mostly lower limits).
Les

[handsome]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But, on the other hand, almost every person I've played against in the top100, I consider to be very above average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh, that's not saying much.

Eevee, you obviously don't come here much.. there have been a couple of threads re: Party's TLB in recent weeks. The general consensus is that they play a shitload.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that not saying much? I sit down at a 55 and see Tabias and fischenstein. I consider them well above average players, and will play accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I meant was that saying certain players are above average does not say much about their skill, since the "average" player is a pretty bad player, and also a losing player. Didn't mean to offend you. If you need further explanation PM me.

[ZBTHorton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But, on the other hand, almost every person I've played against in the top100, I consider to be very above average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh, that's not saying much.

Eevee, you obviously don't come here much.. there have been a couple of threads re: Party's TLB in recent weeks. The general consensus is that they play a shitload.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that not saying much? I sit down at a 55 and see Tabias and fischenstein. I consider them well above average players, and will play accordingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I meant was that saying certain players are above average does not say much about their skill, since the "average" player is a pretty bad player, and also a losing player. Didn't mean to offend you. If you need further explanation PM me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha..no biggie. I just read it different. Merry Christmas bro.

[EasilyFound]

For a long time, I've been stuck at 7002. I just can't crack into 6k.

[good2cu]

Well I'm #18 on the party leaderboard and have played about 500 55s and 500 100s for a 5% ROI. And 30 200s for 30%. Sad that i made as much money in 1000 tourneys as i did in 30 =/. So basically party leaderboard = 8 tabling 5 hours a day.

[z32fanatic]

I think you'll find most of the top players in the top 100. Looking at it DYSW, fischenstein, tabias, dddatl, etc. are all on there. It would be pretty hard for someone who isn't good to get on there I think. You have to play so many tourneys to get on there, a bad player would probably go broke. Someone could be on there for a month, but anyone who's on there all the time is probably solid.

[ QUOTE ]
Well I'm #18 on the party leaderboard and have played about 500 55s and 500 100s for a 5% ROI. And 30 200s for 30%. Sad that i made as much money in 1000 tourneys as i did in 30 =/. So basically party leaderboard = 8 tabling 5 hours a day.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are DoYouSeeWhy?

[Mr_J]

It doesn't take much play to get on the leaderboard. I think nothing unless they score very highly on it, then I assume they are a decent player who multitables heavily and puts in alot of hours.

[microbet]

If by "top players" you mean "best players", I don't think it's close to true that the most of the top players are in the top 100. Some of them are, to be sure, and probably most of the leaderboard players are winners, but not necessarily big winners.

I don't see Newt or Curtains up there and they kick ass.

[z32fanatic]

Right, there are many top players that aren't on there, bad_egg being another example. I usually can find tables where there arent any good players at all (good meaning winning consistently). I doubt there are many winning players at all on party. If most of the leaderboard players are winning players, they are the best on party. Most tables I play at the 50s and the 100s, there aren't many winning players at all I think, or at least I would be amazed if they were winning players.
I agree that there are many good players who aren't on the leaderboard who are good, but I generally avoid players on the leaderboard because there are so many bad/losing players out there.

If you are on the LB I think you are almost certainly a winning player, and likely by a fairly significant margin. The only way to make the party LB is to play A LOT of games, and what losing player is going to 6-10 table?

I just don't think it would cross the mind of losing or even marginally winning players to play a lot of SNG's at the same time.

[ebaudry]

I played about 500 $33 STT each of November and December (as of today). Both months my ROI was about equal at 13%. I don't really play any MTT or STTs of other levels. I 4-table in sets for what works out to be around 100 hours per month.

Each month i have been floating between 150th-250th on the leaderboard.

I think another 25% more points would get to me about #100.

So it would seem that Leaderboarders might:

Play more than 20 tournes per day.
Make more than 13% ROI @ around 40% ITM.

Neither of these is an indicator of a great player, but they must be decent if they aren't losing a lot of money playing that many games, especially multi-tabling. The FAQ says 16% indicates someone as being "very good at what they do" while 4-tabling the $33s, so we could consistently say that top 100 Leaderboarders are "very good".

Also, given variance and such, it would be safe to say that anyone on the leaderboard for more than 2 months in a row should be biased towards the high side of very good.

I offer the following info as a "data point" for anyone starting out wondering about getting to the leaderboard. I think there are many, many players much, much better than me.

To get to my quasi-accomplishment of ~200th, i played 100 hours a month for the last 6 months. Played about 2,500 STT. Studied TOP, SSHE, TPFAP, HOH1+2 reading each 2-3 times each till i "got it", and these forums. @ 17 i was 4th in the U.S. for minor blitz chess players. I also have a finance degree, and never tilt /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I am assuming that if i don't want to play more hours in the day, i will have to 8-table @ about the same ROI to make it to the top 50 on the leaderboard.

Hope this is useful to someone, i would have loved more "bios" when i was starting out.

[Eevee]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are on the LB I think you are almost certainly a winning player, and likely by a fairly significant margin. The only way to make the party LB is to play A LOT of games, and what losing player is going to 6-10 table?

I just don't think it would cross the mind of losing or even marginally winning players to play a lot of SNG's at the same time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sometimes when i see what these players do, I suspect they are 2+2ers who dont really understand proper bubble strategy fully, but are at least break even, so they continue to 4+ table the 109s. But w/e good replies i guess. Look for me at the leaderboard in Feb.(kinda busy in Jan) I'll give my sn when i make it /images/graemlins/grin.gif

-EV

[tom441lbk]

look for me in january

[microbet]

I'll probably never make it.

I worked it out more precisely earlier, but cannot be arsed to post it all up. To top the leaderboard you need to be playing around 3000 33s or 55s a month, obviously slightly less the higher the buyin. However, double the buyin does not mean double the points for those who don't know that.

[DMACM]

It doesnt tell you much. I am in the top 500 this month mostly doing 11s and 22s. It would be hard to play such a high quanity as a losing player though unless u wanted to throw a lot of money away.

[ebaudry]

"It doesnt tell you much. I am in the top 500 this month mostly doing 11s and 22s."

Agreed about the difficulty of determining what exactly we know about top 100 players. With all due respect to the quotee here, top 500 and top 100 aren't in the same ballpark.