How to Analyze Tournament Results

[Mark1808]

I have started to play tournaments, mostly $30 through $100 0nline and at local casinos. I keep accurate records of my play and was wondering how to properly evaluate my results. How many tournaments would constitue a significant sample? Would the total amount of money won or lost divided by tournaments played be a relevant number? Any other comments would be appreciated.

I am break even for about 30 tournaments. I have a pattern, I play tight early and usually am hanging around break even as the blinds rise. Before you know it I am approaching the bubble with an M of less than 7.5 and the blinds rising. I look for a place to move and am usually in with the best of it and lately have been getting outdrawn. I suppose that will even out, so that is why I wanted to know what a relevant sample size would be?

[etotheipi]

You can really only analyze tournament play hand-per-hand. People on this forum will tell you that you need a sample of 500 SnGs just to get a feel for your sit-n-go results, thus you would need like 10,000+ tournaments to adequately make conclusions about your overall MTT play. And undoubtedly you'd be a better player by the end of the 10k tournaments than you would be when you started. Thus it still wouldn't be accurate...

If you're getting outdrawn a lot, you're probably playing fine and are on a bad run. Consider the vital hands in the touranments that make or break you, post them, and analyze each one of them. Then you can adequately gauge whether you're playing well.

Eto...

[DarthIgnurnt]

[ QUOTE ]
People on this forum will tell you that you need a sample of 500 SnGs just to get a feel for your sit-n-go results, thus you would need like 10,000+ tournaments to adequately make conclusions about your overall MTT play.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. Statistically, you need 500,000 MTT's (minimum) to make any sort of inference on ability. Brunson, Chan, etc. aren't actually good players, they're just on the up side of variance. Over the next 60 years, they will probably even out.

Ummm ... what I mean to say is ...

I take the information I have and try to spot general trends. I'm not trying to prove mathematical theorems here, just to determine the situations in which I play well, and those in which I play poorly (site, buy-in, blind structure, starting chip count, field size).

I try to evaluate certain metrics (ITM%, Final Tables, Overall profitability/ROI, and avg. finish %). I also, as the previous poster said, take a look at good/bad decisions (crippling hands, double up hands, bust-out hands) to determine how/if I could have acted differently in that situation.

E.g. I clearly don't adjust well for re-buys. I am more profitable in $100+ buy ins. I am more profitable in live tournaments than online ones. I can't win on Poker Stars (I think it's all the avatars of people's dopey kids and dogs that throws my game off), but I can win on PP, EP, FT, and UB. I bluff away too many chips in lower buy-in tournaments. Etc ...


I keep track of all of this stuff and do my best to enter tournaments (and situations within those tournaments) to maximize my profitability.

And, until you're able to play 25 MTT's day for 40 years straight, that's the best you can do.

Oh, and don't reraise me with A8, even if it's suited.

[Mark1808]

Wow, thank you both for some very insightful information! I have been tearing key hands apart and thanks to you guys I feel that is where my efforts are best directed.

Here is another question. When my M is below 8 and I am looking to move in I find I have the best of it 90% of the time I'm looked up, but most of the time I take the blinds and limper(s), lesser hands (which are only (60 -40 dogs) bust me a fair share. This leads me to believe I am not pushing on a wide enough range of hands. By pushing more I take more blinds, and when I am looked up, maybe I can outdraw someone for a change! Thoughts?

[coyote]

[ QUOTE ]

Here is another question. When my M is below 8 and I am looking to move in I find I have the best of it 90% of the time I'm looked up, but most of the time I take the blinds and limper(s), lesser hands (which are only (60 -40 dogs) bust me a fair share. This leads me to believe I am not pushing on a wide enough range of hands. By pushing more I take more blinds, and when I am looked up, maybe I can outdraw someone for a change! Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

what more do you want then having the best hand when you get called? Why on earth would you want to be on the other side. So you can "outdraw someone for a change" ? That's losing poker, and you're being results oriented.

On the other hand, are you not stealing enough blinds? That is a completely separate question.

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
Brunson, Chan, etc. aren't actually good players, they're just on the up side of variance. Over the next 60 years, they will probably even out.

[/ QUOTE ]

ROFL. You're right. I'm actually better than them, but I'm on the downside of variance.

[Mark1808]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Here is another question. When my M is below 8 and I am looking to move in I find I have the best of it 90% of the time I'm looked up, but most of the time I take the blinds and limper(s), lesser hands (which are only (60 -40 dogs) bust me a fair share. This leads me to believe I am not pushing on a wide enough range of hands. By pushing more I take more blinds, and when I am looked up, maybe I can outdraw someone for a change! Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

what more do you want then having the best hand when you get called? Why on earth would you want to be on the other side. So you can "outdraw someone for a change" ? That's losing poker, and you're being results oriented.

On the other hand, are you not stealing enough blinds? That is a completely separate question.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I only push with premium hands I am liable to be a favorite when called but won't steal enough blinds. If I push on a wider range of hands I will steal more blinds, but will get called as the underdog more often. Since i am the favorite 90% of the time I get called I reason that I need to push with a wider range.