OT: Assessing causes

When (if) people assess the cause of their performance, what does it say about their play?

For an example:

When I win (cash): A/B
20/30% - Made few mistakes, just solid poker
40/20% - got several key lucky suckouts
30/50% - just held on longer while everyone else blew up
10/ 0% - other?

When I lose:
50/80% - Got sucked out on
30/10% - Never got the lucky card I needed when behind
20/10% - blew up
0/ 0% - other?

So, in their own words, is "B" tighter than "A" or a more solid player or don't know don't care?

The reason I ask is I reviewd my notes from a group of SnGs, and saw (for example) a higher number of "played stupid draw and lost" type things than I would have thought, and wondered if these types of observations might be a good indicator of where my game needs work (duh), and thought about what sort of distributions above would look like for a solid player. (or this is just a pointless philosophical musing..).

[citanul]

while clearly you should be looking for things of the general form:

"blatantly got my money in bad for no reason" which you might qualify as something like "blew up" or "played bad" or whatever

the important thing to realize is that the primary things to look for in sng play in terms of mistakes and spots to improve are primarilly spots where you're looking to steal blinds or call pushes. the stealing hands don't necessarilly need to go in to the "didn't get my lucky card" column, you might be stealing poorly, from bad positions, badly estimating calling ranges, folding equity, etc. these are a bit harder to check for than simply "i didn't hit my card" or "i got sucked out on" or whatever.

there's clearly value in the first set mentioned above, as fixing those will make sure you're at least not playing [censored] poker. after you stop playing [censored] poker, you might want to start looking at things like stopping playing [censored] sngs though.

c