Party Super Musings

[locutus2002]

[ QUOTE ]
No, finish position is totally irrelevant.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is just wrong. You either aren't explaining some assumptions or you don't know what you're talking about.


You need to make some assumptions about the underlying distribution. And the distribution of 4th place finishes is going to be a lot higher for a winning player than 10th place finishes.

I'd be interested to know if most winning players distribution of finishes (position) is normal.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, finish position is totally irrelevant.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is just wrong. You either aren't explaining some assumptions or you don't know what you're talking about.


You need to make some assumptions about the underlying distribution. And the distribution of 4th place finishes is going to be a lot higher for a winning player than 10th place finishes.

I'd be interested to know if most winning players distribution of finishes (position) is normal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, I have the tool to attempt to answer this question... Name a few PokerStars players who have played enough in the last 16 months and I'll make some graphs. I need enough so we can compare them...

BTW, I should make the graph as a % of field finish, not absolute, correct?

[N 82 50 24]

Since he started this whole thread, I just picked shaniac.

This is Shane's last 644 tournament on PokerStars. Each bar represents a 5% band in terms of finish in relation to the field. So anytime he finished in the top 5%, it will be in the first bar. He finished dead last twice and those will be all the way on the right. It's actually a bit of pain to aggregate these into 5% bars, so I doubt I want to do another one....

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
If you played the Party "Super" Weekday tournaments 4 times a week, 50 weeks out of the year, you'd need to win one (or an equivalent amount in smaller cashes) just to break even.

Discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, I saw this quote and thought "Wow sounds like a good deal!"

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
Since he started this whole thread, I just picked shaniac.

This is Shane's last 644 tournament on PokerStars. Each bar represents a 5% band in terms of finish in relation to the field. So anytime he finished in the top 5%, it will be in the first bar. He finished dead last twice and those will be all the way on the right. It's actually a bit of pain to aggregate these into 5% bars, so I doubt I want to do another one....



[/ QUOTE ]

What does this graph represent?

[N 82 50 24]

Hrmm, thought I explained it. But you've played 644 tournaments in my database. I assigned 5-percentage-point bands. So your 1sts will be in the left-most band. Something where you got 7% of the field (7th out of a 100 person field) would be in the 2nd band. And the height of the band represents the number of tournies.

[Pat Southern]

Cool graph, but there's a huge difference between 1st in a 1001 person tournament and 5th in a 1001 person tournament or 1st in a 201 person tournament.

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
Cool graph, but there's a huge difference between 1st in a 1001 person tournament and 5th in a 1001 person tournament or 1st in a 201 person tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, I tried making it with 100 bars, but it looked terrible... data wasn't coherent at all. As it is, I don't think it's that useful. Just that someone asked for it, so I did one...

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
I tried making it with 100 bars, but it looked terrible... data wasn't coherent at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the problem of variance in MTTs. Need to play 100s of 1000s before the data will look sexy. That said, nice work on the Shaniac graph. Seems he's a good player. He may need to address the fact that his 3rd most likely finish (based on 20 groupings) is in the 95th-100th percentile. But you can clearly see that he finishes well. When he gets to the top 10%, he is likely to make it to the top 5%. Also, just look at the graph, he finishes in the top 50% much more than in the bottom 50%.

[Jason Strasser]

Damnit Shaniac work on that incredibly low 12th percentile.

This graph is useless lol, but pretty. Just like if you let Jenna Jameson run a fortune 500 company.