ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

There's been a lot of talk lately about ZeeJustin, MTT ROI, variance, etc. I want to present some data that I have on Justin, strictly on PokerStars. Justin agreed to let me do this.

Okay, first, a quick word about the data I have. It's PokerStars MTTs from February 9th 2004 until virtually current (early on Monday morning, 12/12). I also have what I believe to be almost all of the $215 events (I know of a few I'm missing that I'm planning to database soon). It's not complete. I know it would be better if I had Party too, but I don't. Anyway, on to the analysis.

Clearly, he's not among the most frequent MTTs on Stars, but he's still playing enough to get an idea of where he stands. I know, from a statistical perspective, he has to play a ton of MTTs for it to be "significant" that he's a winning/losing player. However, I think as someone plays more and more, you can say with more confidence whether they are or aren't beating the game. With MTTs, nothing, it seems, is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt -- so this doesn't proven Justin is a winning or losing player, it just improves our ability to guess.

One major problem with our sample is that it has a lot of big field tournaments in it. One would expect to miss the final table pretty much all of the time in these 3000+ person tournaments, but that isn't the case in the smaller 109r. Even the Stupers (the Stars Super) have a pretty decent size field. Nonetheless, I proceed.

Here is a general breakdown of Justin's stats, sorted by # played:

http://www.thepokerdb.com/images/jus...neralstats.JPG

Here is a breakdown of his biggest cashes:

http://www.thepokerdb.com/images/jus...gestcashes.JPG

Now, that's kind of a shocking image. Am I really telling you one of the supposed best NLHE players on the internet only has two cashes over $2500 this year on Stars? Yes, it's true. This is where the trolls usually come out and say: "but, if you take out those two cashes, he's a losing player" or "he just got lucky, the rest of the time shows his true skill - ie, he sucks." Well, in a sense, those trolls are correct. Here are his overall results, to my best knowledge:

http://www.thepokerdb.com/images/justin/overall.JPG

His ITM is about right... usually 10% of the field gets paid, but he doesn't play to get into the money. The FT rate and top 3 rate are hard to analyze because he plays so many big field tourneys. His avg finish is better than avg, although not by much. Across all the players I've looked at, very few are in the 30s. Most winning players hang around the 40-45 mark. However, his ROI is pretty telling. He's more than tripled his investment on Stars on avg in a tourney. A good player can probably expect to have a 2-4x the buyin expectation, so this seems just about right to me.

If you take out the two wins, he's DOWN over $20K on Stars in that time period in MTTs. That's true as far as I can tell. However, Justin clearly isn't looking for consistency with his game selection... he's looking for big scores. I don't think he'd want to slowly build up his profit $200 at a time in 5 dollar rebuy tournaments. The whole point of playing 3500 person $200 tourneys is to bust out 50 times, win once and be ahead $100K at the end of the day. Justin knows that and he expects, over the long term, to lose most of the time (although he obviously hopes any given week is an exception). The point is you can't say "but if you take away that one win" without saying "but if you take away all those losses" as well.

Another point trolls might make is that he just got lucky yesterday. True, he did. But, like I've mentioned, the big field tourneys are about just hitting it over and over until you break through. Sunday was Justin's day. He's put himself in position to win the Sunday tournament a number of times. I recall one Big Sunday tourney on Stars where Justin had a very healthy stack deep (less than 100 people left), poised to roll over the final table. He got in pre flop with AA v AQ against another healthy stack -- and the board comes with two queens. A great opportunity lost. But that's poker... keep putting yourself in a good spot, things will eventually work out. Just because he won some key races and didn't get unlucky doesn't just make him a bad player.

Anyway, congrats to Justin on his performance on Sunday. It was clearly deserved and was the culmination of years of effort looking for a huge cash on Stars.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

Wow, this is embarrassing. Ok, a few points in my defense.
1) A lot of those tourneys shouldn't count. Most of the $1-$3 tourneys I just went all-in every hand, and about half of the $30 and below tourneys were probably other people on my account.
2) Sats aren't on here. I've won like 7 or 8 seats to main events that would boost all my stats.
3) I've had MUCH more success on Party than Stars, and I play there far more often.
4) My best success at Stars has been in SNGs, but this doesn't have those stats.
5) What about live poker Stars tournaments like Deavuille or last years PCA. Those don't count either?!?

This is some extremely selective data.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, this is embarrassing. Ok, a few points in my defense.
1) A lot of those tourneys shouldn't count. Most of the $1-$3 tourneys I just went all-in every hand, and about half of the $30 and below tourneys were probably other people on my account.
2) Sats aren't on here. I've won like 7 or 8 seats to main events that would boost all my stats.
3) I've had MUCH more success on Party than Stars, and I play there far more often.
4) My best success at Stars has been in SNGs, but this doesn't have those stats.
5) What about live poker Stars tournaments like Deavuille or last years PCA. Those don't count either?!?

This is some extremely selective data.

[/ QUOTE ]

To reply...

1) Those tourneys really aren't affecting the numbers we're looking at here. Granted they make for a lot of red in the top graphic, but that's not really the point of this

2) Satellites aren't MTTs. They're a different breed of tournament poker. Just like STTs aren't in here, HU STTs aren't in here and cash games aren't included either.

3) I said I don't have Party... it's unfortunate, I agree.

4) Like I said, this is just a look at MTTs... a high variance form of poker for sure. It's characterized by long periods of failure and a few moments of success, hopefully resulting in a long term profit of some kind.

5) No, I guess that's what the Hendon Mob is for, although they don't include non-cashes. If there was a way to get non-cashing info for live MTTs, I would start to include those as well.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

Don't sweat it bro, you're still my hero (after Phil Ivey of course).

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

nice post. especially nicec because i like to be reminded how crazy mtt's are, while i'm in the middle of a downswing.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

If you only took my PS stats you would say I am losing player. If you only took my Party stats you would think I had won much more than I had.

Considering how many sites offer lucrative MTTs, I have a major problem analyzing data from just one site to paint the picture of ROI.

It would be like me only looking at my BB/100 in cash games for even days or something.

I think the data is interesting, but should be taken with a grain of salt.

-Scott

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

How is it selective data? it's just a small sample size.
And your conerns about the smaller tournaments affecting your stats.. you barely played any of them, and they are such a tiny fraction of your average buyin. they're not going to skew your stats much at all.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

Sobering data to be sure, although as far as im concerned not all that surprising. Whats surprising to me is that Justin thinks there's anything to be embarassed about. These are great stats really. Oh, and anybody who would make the comment "he would be a losing player without his top two cashes" is missing the point of MTTs entirely.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sobering data to be sure, although as far as im concerned not all that surprising. Whats surprising to me is that Justin thinks there's anything to be embarassed about. These are great stats really. Oh, and anybody who would make the comment "he would be a losing player without his top two cashes" is missing the point of MTTs entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]

the guy that is still massively +ev after taking out his top 2 cashes either
A) never goes really deep
B) rhymes with colson

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the data is interesting, but should be taken with a grain of salt.

-Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I set out most of those points in the beginning of my post.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
Whats surprising to me is that Justin thinks there's anything to be embarassed about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously.

If nothing else, this data could be a great point of reference for an essay explaining what it means to play MTTs and the differences between massive field MTTs and every other form of poker so far as money, winning and results are concerned.

So... who's gonna write it? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

i think he is saying it is misleading the ITM stats. he didnt care about those tournamnets but they hurt his ITM stats.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

Stars is not the MTT universe. Basing one's skill based on his results on one site is retarded. Until you datamine every site and every tourney, this kind of analysis is worthless.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
Stars is not the MTT universe. Basing one's skill based on his results on one site is retarded. Until you datamine every site and every tourney, this kind of analysis is worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's not worthless nor retarded. It's simply analysing a more or less random subset of the data. Out there in the real world it's called statistics.

Have a nice day

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
Stars is not the MTT universe. Basing one's skill based on his results on one site is retarded. Until you datamine every site and every tourney, this kind of analysis is worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh... how many times do we have to discuss this qualification of this MTT data?

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
Stars is not the MTT universe. Basing one's skill based on his results on one site is retarded. Until you datamine every site and every tourney, this kind of analysis is worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to have the see entire MTT "universe" to speculate about a players skill level. Performance on each of the sites should be the same for all sites (no one is "luckier on stars"). So if you have a decent sample size for a player, even if it's all for Stars tournaments, you should be able to get a decent feel for how 'good' the player is.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
Stars is not the MTT universe. Basing one's skill based on his results on one site is retarded. Until you datamine every site and every tourney, this kind of analysis is worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. And until you test a vaccine on every potential user, clinical trials are useless. Same goes for election polls, censuses, etc. Down with statistics!

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

How do you get those extra stats?

Edit n/m realise who posted this now, know the extra info isnt public domain yet.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

Thank you for posting this, pokerdb. I can't see the graphics, but your descriptions are good. Cool idea for a site, BTW. Nothing tells the truth like simple numbers.

X

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

ALL statisical data analysis should be taken with a grain of salt.

The purpose of this post was to attempt to quantify Justin's skill level, not to paint an accurate picture of MTT ROI as a whole, nor to prepare Justin's taxes (LOL). The data sample, although from only one site is perfectly adequate for that end.

It is common to use whatever data is easily available and extrapolate from that. I don't think Justin deliberately plays lousy on other sites, or better on Stars, so the general assumptions are valid.

Another great thing about this post, is that it puts things into prespective.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

Why be embaraassed? Most of us would love to trade stats with you.

A side questtion here: Two people have said, or implied, that they meet with more success at pokerparty rather than poker stars. Why would this be? Personally, I only play at stars. Am I missing something?

This is a legitimate question for me, I am very new to on-line tournaments, being far more used to playing live.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

Zee, don't let him get to ya. 1st place in Sundays 500k. Nuff said.

yo zee
 

just logged into stars today and saw you won the sunday!

good job bro [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

Nice job, N82.

How many of us have actually wondered how one of the top players perform at a given site. We all know Zee has some great cashes over the last couple of years. This puts on paper what a lot of players have advocated (ala MLG), that going for a big score is what it's all about. I am a little surprised that he has so few "big" scores on Stars. Again, in Zee's defense this is least frequented site. (I tend to get the worst rivers on Stars which detracts me from the site.)

This is a perfect case study of risking it all to win the top prize.

Great job, Zee. Great observation, N82, whoever you are.

Stipe

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

Wow, I'm genuinely disapointed in some of the responses in this thread.

Billyjex: N 82 never said this is the end all be all of all [censored] multi's. He specifically used this data to point out that a fantastic player can be losing over a relatively long period of time, due to the insane variance in MTTs. He is not saying "oooh look at me, I run a site that tells you who is good and who is bad." He acknowledged that its just stars.

Zee: He's not talking about satellites. There is NOTHING to be ashamed of. I have your data in front of me too from the site, and wow, you play almost every big buy in tournament on the site. So uh yeah, you didn't ever win the 500k before this, that means nothing. You are a good player because you make good decisions etc etc, it doesn't really matter what specific results you have over a small sample size. N 82 is NOT saying that this is your true ROI, or that before yesterday your true ROI was less or anything like that. Why somebody like you is embaressed... boggles my mind. Oh and lol @ thinking the 3 dollar tournaments will have any significant effect on any piece of data.

Rockin: Way to completely misunderstand the entire purpose of this post. Congratulations.

HEY EVERYBODY: I am down about 11,000 dollars over my last 150 stars MTTs. WOW I MUST BE HORRIBLE AT POKER. Oh wait, 150 MTTs before that, I was up 16,000. I MUST HAVE BEEN GREAT AT POKER FOR THAT STRETCH, RIGHT? No. I'm not ashamed at this... at all. I have a barely positive ROI on stars, I'm up about 3000 over like 450 tournaments. I'm on a terrible run. It happens. On partypoker and UB I definitely have a higher ROI over a smaller sample size, and I couldn't care less what a bunch of people want to interpret my data as. Before about 8 months ago, I wasn't very serious about MTTs and I screwed around in them and I lost a lot. I also played several WCOOPs, and all the 200s, and have 0 cashes in them. All this crap skews my data. There are multiple factors which can contribute to your ROI being not as positive as you would think it *should* be.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]


Rockin: Way to completely misunderstand the entire purpose of this post. Congratulations.



[/ QUOTE ]

ansky maybe you need to reread this yourself, I was responding to Zee's post not N 82's.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Rockin: Way to completely misunderstand the entire purpose of this post. Congratulations.



[/ QUOTE ]

ansky maybe you need to reread this yourself, I was responding to Zee's post not N 82's.

[/ QUOTE ]


You said this: [ QUOTE ]
Zee, don't let him get to ya. 1st place in Sundays 500k. Nuff said.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Him" is obviously implying N82, and you are saying as if N 82 was insulting Zee, or putting him down in any way. I did not misread.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sobering data to be sure, although as far as im concerned not all that surprising. Whats surprising to me is that Justin thinks there's anything to be embarassed about. These are great stats really. Oh, and anybody who would make the comment "he would be a losing player without his top two cashes" is missing the point of MTTs entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]

the guy that is still massively +ev after taking out his top 2 cashes either
A) never goes really deep
B) rhymes with colson

[/ QUOTE ]

C) Rhymes with JohnnyTax

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

i wish i had a 888% ROI [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Rockin: Way to completely misunderstand the entire purpose of this post. Congratulations.



[/ QUOTE ]

ansky maybe you need to reread this yourself, I was responding to Zee's post not N 82's.

[/ QUOTE ]


You said this: [ QUOTE ]
Zee, don't let him get to ya. 1st place in Sundays 500k. Nuff said.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Him" is obviously implying N82, and you are saying as if N 82 was insulting Zee, or putting him down in any way. I did not misread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zee wrote:

"Wow, this is embarrassing. Ok, a few points in my defense."

and I said "Zee, don't let him get to ya."

You did misread, try reading the post that i responded to. Zee said it was embarassing and felt a need to defend himself, hence my remarks.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
Zee: He's not talking about satellites. There is NOTHING to be ashamed of. I have your data in front of me too from the site, and wow, you play almost every big buy in tournament on the site. So uh yeah, you didn't ever win the 500k before this, that means nothing. You are a good player because you make good decisions etc etc, it doesn't really matter what specific results you have over a small sample size. N 82 is NOT saying that this is your true ROI, or that before yesterday your true ROI was less or anything like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the main message in this post and the couple of others like it. But I think Zee's mention of satellites is worth considering because the main thing everyone is getting from this data is a confirmation that MTT's with large fields are a very high-variance form of poker. Playing satellites reduces that variance by providing the flattest possible prize pool (I'm talking here about sats where 10% get a seat, not 2% like the big 10K buyin sats.) and allowing a skilled player to reduce his average cost of entry to the tournaments with cash prizes without much risk. There is an opportunity cost for the time spent if you play in lower buyin satellites than your bankroll would allow, and satelliting in to buyins over your roll may not be a great idea, but they do reduce variance if used properly.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
nice post. especially nicec because i like to be reminded how crazy mtt's are, while i'm at the very end of a downswing.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

Could you calculate the standard deviation of his winnings/tournamennt please? You acknowledged that the sample size was small, but it's really really important to note just how small the sample size is.

Also, 200% ROI's really good.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
You did misread, try reading the post that i responded to. Zee said it was embarassing and felt a need to defend himself, hence my remarks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well this is the same as my other point, that n 82 was not critisizing Zee's results, nor was he trying to put down zee in anyway. For him to defend himself implies that somehow he was being attacked, which he wasn't.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
Am I really telling you one of the supposed best NLHE players on the internet only has two cashes over $2500 this year on Stars? Yes, it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

i count 7.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
ALL statisical data analysis should be taken with a grain of salt.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's really really really wrong.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I really telling you one of the supposed best NLHE players on the internet only has two cashes over $2500 this year on Stars? Yes, it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

i count 7.

[/ QUOTE ]

count again

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I really telling you one of the supposed best NLHE players on the internet only has two cashes over $2500 this year on Stars? Yes, it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

i count 7.

[/ QUOTE ]

count again

[/ QUOTE ]

oh, you mean in earth years?

there are actually 3 in 2005.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

Indeed, that 100 rebuy counts too.

Re: ZeeJustin: A Case Study
 

N,

I think this is an excellent post and analysis and pretty succinctly illustrates the insanely high variance that exists in tourney poker. Another way of looking at it is that here's this thing where you have an expectation of say $200-400 a shot, yet in one instance you might get lucky and win $100k+. The long run in tourneys is much longer than even many very experienced top tourney players would like to think.