(OT) What does the Party Leader Board really mean?

[z32fanatic]

Right, there are many top players that aren't on there, bad_egg being another example. I usually can find tables where there arent any good players at all (good meaning winning consistently). I doubt there are many winning players at all on party. If most of the leaderboard players are winning players, they are the best on party. Most tables I play at the 50s and the 100s, there aren't many winning players at all I think, or at least I would be amazed if they were winning players.
I agree that there are many good players who aren't on the leaderboard who are good, but I generally avoid players on the leaderboard because there are so many bad/losing players out there.

If you are on the LB I think you are almost certainly a winning player, and likely by a fairly significant margin. The only way to make the party LB is to play A LOT of games, and what losing player is going to 6-10 table?

I just don't think it would cross the mind of losing or even marginally winning players to play a lot of SNG's at the same time.

[good2cu]

Well I'm #18 on the party leaderboard and have played about 500 55s and 500 100s for a 5% ROI. And 30 200s for 30%. Sad that i made as much money in 1000 tourneys as i did in 30 =/. So basically party leaderboard = 8 tabling 5 hours a day.

[ QUOTE ]
Well I'm #18 on the party leaderboard and have played about 500 55s and 500 100s for a 5% ROI. And 30 200s for 30%. Sad that i made as much money in 1000 tourneys as i did in 30 =/. So basically party leaderboard = 8 tabling 5 hours a day.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are DoYouSeeWhy?

[Mr_J]

It doesn't take much play to get on the leaderboard. I think nothing unless they score very highly on it, then I assume they are a decent player who multitables heavily and puts in alot of hours.

[ebaudry]

I played about 500 $33 STT each of November and December (as of today). Both months my ROI was about equal at 13%. I don't really play any MTT or STTs of other levels. I 4-table in sets for what works out to be around 100 hours per month.

Each month i have been floating between 150th-250th on the leaderboard.

I think another 25% more points would get to me about #100.

So it would seem that Leaderboarders might:

Play more than 20 tournes per day.
Make more than 13% ROI @ around 40% ITM.

Neither of these is an indicator of a great player, but they must be decent if they aren't losing a lot of money playing that many games, especially multi-tabling. The FAQ says 16% indicates someone as being "very good at what they do" while 4-tabling the $33s, so we could consistently say that top 100 Leaderboarders are "very good".

Also, given variance and such, it would be safe to say that anyone on the leaderboard for more than 2 months in a row should be biased towards the high side of very good.

I offer the following info as a "data point" for anyone starting out wondering about getting to the leaderboard. I think there are many, many players much, much better than me.

To get to my quasi-accomplishment of ~200th, i played 100 hours a month for the last 6 months. Played about 2,500 STT. Studied TOP, SSHE, TPFAP, HOH1+2 reading each 2-3 times each till i "got it", and these forums. @ 17 i was 4th in the U.S. for minor blitz chess players. I also have a finance degree, and never tilt [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

I am assuming that if i don't want to play more hours in the day, i will have to 8-table @ about the same ROI to make it to the top 50 on the leaderboard.

Hope this is useful to someone, i would have loved more "bios" when i was starting out.

[DMACM]

It doesnt tell you much. I am in the top 500 this month mostly doing 11s and 22s. It would be hard to play such a high quanity as a losing player though unless u wanted to throw a lot of money away.