What is more impressive?

[sirio11]

I posted the following in P5s; to generate some discussion about how this apply to the rankings, and to help vanish a misconception about impressive performances. What is your take on it?

______________


Scenario #1:

Player A played 500 $100 tournaments with 100 entries each, and won 5 times.

Player B played 500 $100 tournaments with 500 entries each and won 1 time.


Scenario #2:

Player A played 500 $100 tournaments with 100 entries each and won 10 times.

Player B played 500 $100 tournaments with 500 entries each and won 2 times.

Scenario #3:

Player A played 500 $100 tournaments with 100 entries each and won 10 times.

Player B played 100 $100 tournaments with 500 entries each and won 2 times.

Scenario #4:

Player A played 250 $100 tournaments with 100 entries each and won 5 times.

Player B played 50 $200 tournaments with 500 entries each and won 2 times.

Scenario #5:

Player A played 250 $100 tournaments with 100 entries each and won 10 times.

Player B played 25 $200 tournaments with 500 entries each and won 2 times.

_________

[Exitonly]

1) player A

2) Player A

3) Player A

4) Player A

5) Player A

A,A,A,B,B

[the_main]

[ QUOTE ]
A,A,A,B,B

[/ QUOTE ]

aaabb

[curtains]

I dunno. Do they actually use a really objective criteria for those rankings?? I just assumed it was more of a popularity contest. I mean how do they actually determine who is number 1 and who is number 15.

[Exitonly]

i switch.. #4 to B

[justT]

1) equally impressive
2) equally impressive
3) B
4) B
5) B

[TheJackal]

Ok are we looking at how much better we are than the rest of the field?
Scenario 1 - Player A 100:1 would be average player to win. Player A win's 500:5 or 100:1, which is average.
Player B 500:1 would be average player to win.
Player B win's 500:1, which average. Neither is more impressive than the other. They are both average players and given the buy-in, the fields should be equal in skill level.
Scenario 2
Average player 100:1 to win. Player A wins 500:10, or 50:1, he is twice as good as the average player.
Average player 500:1 to win. Player B wins 500:2 or 250:1, he is twice as good as the average player.
Maybe I'm missing something here but neither are more impressive to me, although Player B's odds of winning are 5x harder than Player A's. As far as skill level, they are the same.
Scenario 3
100:1 average, we win 50:1, twice as good as the field.
500:1 average, we win 100:2 or 50:1, we are ten times as good as the field. Player B feat is much better.
Buy in same, skill level the same.
Scenario 4
100:1, we win 250:5, or 50:1. we are twice as good as the field.
500:1, we win 500:2 or 250:1. We are twice as good as the field, although our buyin is twice as much. If we believe skill level is higher at the higher levels, Player B's feat is more impressive.
Scenario 5
100:1 average, we win 250:10, or 25:1, we are 4 times better than the field.
500:1 average, we win 500:2 or 250:1, out of 25 tries, we are 10:1 better than the field, variance has been kind to us. Also we are playing in a higher buyin than player A, Player B's feat is much better.

Yes it is more impressive to win through bigger fields than smaller fields.
1. Same
2. Same
3. B
4. B
5. B

A A B B B

The third one is close, but having to go through a larger field is more challenging so i chose B.

In 4 and 5 player B could just be hot and not be better than player A, but its still more impressive.