Theoretical tournament risk rating

[Unabridged]

for a given tournament, take all the hands in which you were covered all in (ie all the hands you would go out if you lost) and multiply all their EVs(from 0 to 1) together. call this RR = risk rating. your average RR over many tournaments would represent the maximum percent of tournaments you can expect to win with your current playing style

you could also do this for different periods in the tournament (4-10 players, 3 players, ...) and come up with your maximum percent to place 3rd, 2nd, 1st

[bluefeet]

[ QUOTE ]
multiply all their EVs(from 0 to 1) together.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll skip the bunnie picture this time, and just tell you - I'm horrid at math.

Egg-sample me please...

[Unabridged]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
multiply all their EVs(from 0 to 1) together.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll skip the bunnie picture this time, and just tell you - I'm horrid at math.


Egg-sample me please...

[/ QUOTE ]

like the EV you get off of twodimes
example:
if you have a 33% chance to win the hand your EV would be .33
if you were all in 5 times with winning percentanges 70, 50, 40, 30, and 20 you get a RR=.7*.5*.4*.3*.2 = .0084
so you'd have a .84% chance of winning

[microbet]

I guess you mean all the hands in which you are covered, and you get all your chips into the pot and that EV is the chance of you busting after you get your chips in the pot allowing for the possibility that your opponent folds if you were the pusher.

Ok, point being?

[Unabridged]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess you mean all the hands in which you are covered, and you get all your chips into the pot and that EV is the chance of you busting after you get your chips in the pot allowing for the possibility that your opponent folds if you were the pusher.

Ok, point being?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, i mean your chance of winning(staying in the game) when the cards are flipped. it would measure the amount of risk you are taking and put an upper limit on how many tournaments you can expect to win(place)

[Shilly]

Does this have any practical use?

(Other than satisfying your curiosity?)

[Unabridged]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this have any practical use?

(Other than satisfying your curiosity?)

[/ QUOTE ]

it removes alot of the effects of variance, so you can have a better idea of how well you are playing, sooner

[tjh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does this have any practical use?

(Other than satisfying your curiosity?)

[/ QUOTE ]

it removes alot of the effects of variance, so you can have a better idea of how well you are playing, sooner

[/ QUOTE ]

It would give you an idea of were the "cieling" was. The best you could possibly do. An assesment of the risks that you can not avoid.

--
tjh

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does this have any practical use?

(Other than satisfying your curiosity?)

[/ QUOTE ]

it removes alot of the effects of variance, so you can have a better idea of how well you are playing, sooner

[/ QUOTE ]

This is in fact a good excercise. I did it after about 200 tournaments and figured out I didn't suck as badly as my results indicated (about 15 buy-in drop over 90 tournaments.... I was such a little bitch back then... I almost quit). It should net you some sort of mean value for your finish distribution, although it doesn't quite show the whole picture. As important as the hands that get called and shown is how often your opponents are dealt hands they can call with and how those holdings will fare against yours. That's much harder to quantify though.

[SumZero]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does this have any practical use?

(Other than satisfying your curiosity?)

[/ QUOTE ]

it removes alot of the effects of variance, so you can have a better idea of how well you are playing, sooner

[/ QUOTE ]

This is in fact a good excercise. I did it after about 200 tournaments and figured out I didn't suck as badly as my results indicated (about 15 buy-in drop over 90 tournaments.... I was such a little bitch back then... I almost quit). It should net you some sort of mean value for your finish distribution, although it doesn't quite show the whole picture. As important as the hands that get called and shown is how often your opponents are dealt hands they can call with and how those holdings will fare against yours. That's much harder to quantify though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well there is another drawback with this. You are ignoring the hands where you aren't covered. But those are significant hands (both in terms of bleeding chips and having leaks, earning chips through quality play, and getting lucky and unlucky in the short term).

Its true you can say that in order to win some tournament where you were covered as a 60/40 favorite twice and once as a 50/50 favorite that you only had an 18% chance to win the tournament given the way you played. But if you lost 10 pots for 3/4 of you stack where you were a 95% favorite you actually may not have been as lucky as the 18% suggests.

The bottom line is you always want to be studying your play, identifying leaks, thinking about past hands, and making correct decisions. If you do this, the results will take care of themselves in the long run. Either that or you'll be dead.