% of money finishes

[Bernas]

[ QUOTE ]
Or put it this way, is someone who finishes on the final table of the WSOP 6 out of 20 attempts but never above 5th, a worst player than someone who wins 1 and has 19 out of the money finishes, simply becasue he has won less money?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a BIG difference between consistently making it to the final table and consistently making it into the money. %10 of the field make it into the money.

[sofere]

Instead of looking solely at one aspect such as % of money finishes or ROI or $/hr wouldn't it be best to come up with some form of weighted avg of all three? Something similar to a power ranking.

For simplicity's sake I'll give a real easy example that should absolutely be modified (but I'll leave that up to u pros [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img])

(ROI * %Money Finishes)/(Hrs Played)

This could be easily weighted as per what you feel is more important and what your poker goals are, but I think all of those factors should be counted when thinking about your performance.

[smoore]

[ QUOTE ]

Or put it this way, is someone who finishes on the final table of the WSOP 6 out of 20 attempts but never above 5th, a worst player than someone who wins 1 and has 19 out of the money finishes, simply becasue he has won less money?

What i am trying to get at is a better way to judge my performance (over the short term), than simply looking at the bottom line.


[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot equate skill directly with performance in poker, or as Phil H. said this year at the WSOP, "I guess if there was no luck involved, I'd win every one." Heh, that Phil...

Performance is just that.... win (or loss) per hour invested playing. I think the only way to truly measure skill is to evaluate performance over the "long run". In this particular example, I would have to rate a Dan Harrington (6/20 finals?) over a Moneymaker/Raymer (1/20 finals?) in absolute skill. The performance values speak for themselves... In one sitting Raymer is "ahead" of Harrington in all time money won at the WSOP (also possibly Williams and Arieh), but I have to rate Harrington as the superior player.

... now where did I leave my long run?

[billyjex]

I think a better guide to your performance would be ROI%, or return on investment, which people use to gauge their SNG performance. Or by using an In the money% and an ROI%.

[Steve Chase]

I think you guys better answer Ric's questions instead talking about other things. What is the big deal making into the final table? As long as money amount is concerned, the money earned by no. 1 and no. 9 has a huge difference.
Even both are on the final table. The tournament strategy to just reach the money, to just reach the final table, or to reach no 1 maybe different. It is too complicate to address these issues.

Let's start something really simple. Just answer Ric's questions.

[Cleveland Guy]

okay. simple as possible. You want to beat the % of people in the money. It's hard to classify because some will pay top 10%, others top 20%.

But assuming all things equal, if you are playing a tournament that pays top 20% time in and time out, you would be sucsessful if you cashed 25% of the time.

As each MTT has it's own structure for how deep it goes, it's hard to put a ballpark you should money X% of the time.

[RFJ]

I think when u can make it into the money consistently then u have skillz...I don't think it has to be first place or final table. The more money placement u have the more chances u have to make it to the final table. When u make it to the money placement then u have skills. I think when u make it to the final table u had skills + luck. you need skills plus luck to make it to the top money. The reason is because when u made it to the money placement there are often times you will be the one that's short stacked. This means that you really cannot play the flop you will most likely push all in with cards and hope your luck will prevail. If you did get a good lead early on that means you had a good run of luck.