Poker Needs Better Stats
#1
Posted 29 December 2007 - 10:12 AM
The biggest problem for me is that none of the money winner lists include costs. I'm a lot less impressed by a guy who's made $2 million on the tourney circuit but has spent $3 million on buy-ins than by a guy who's won $1 million but spent $50K on buy-ins.
Cash players track their wins by BB/100 or BB/hr. Tourney players online track ROI. Though it would be impossibly skewed to guys like Jerry Yang an ROI leader list would be most telling IMHO.
#2
Posted 29 December 2007 - 10:30 AM
Having said that, putting regulations or more stipulations on the tile would get cloudy and create grey areas . the title is just all time money winner in tournament play!! of coarse just my two cents !!
#3
Posted 29 December 2007 - 11:13 AM
a point system would be good but never perfect.
Restricted events def a no no
MJ at B&Ms
#4
Posted 29 December 2007 - 11:17 AM
The biggest problem for me is that none of the money winner lists include costs. I'm a lot less impressed by a guy who's made $2 million on the tourney circuit but has spent $3 million on buy-ins than by a guy who's won $1 million but spent $50K on buy-ins.
Cash players track their wins by BB/100 or BB/hr. Tourney players online track ROI. Though it would be impossibly skewed to guys like Jerry Yang an ROI leader list would be most telling IMHO.
A agree 100% with this. It would be very interesting to see whether or not players like Phil Gordon and Tom McEvoy have been winners, how much have players like Clonie Gowen lost and it would also be fun to look at players like Hellmuth's ROI's in WPT event compared to WSOP events.
#5
Posted 29 December 2007 - 11:26 AM
The ideal way to track tournament stats, would be for all casinos to share a central tournament database. It would include: Player Name, Buy-In, Amount Won, Profit, # of Players, Place Finished, Game Type (NLHE, PLO, etc), Event Type (WPT, WSOP, Invite, etc).
Then queries could be run to give all sorts of tournament stats. The problem of course would be getting the historical data and getting all the different casinos to collaborate.
#6
Posted 29 December 2007 - 02:03 PM
#7
Posted 29 December 2007 - 02:38 PM
This could be easily done just like baseball determines batting leaders and e.r.a leaders: Minimum requirements.
you need at least, say, 40 tourneys under your belt to "qualify" for the "ROI" or "Finished Late" type categories.
#8
Posted 29 December 2007 - 02:51 PM
#9
Posted 29 December 2007 - 03:31 PM
I'm actually organizing a really, really big tournament in February. It's a $100 million buy in heads up event between me and my mother. First prize is $100,000,000.01 and second will get $99,999,999.99. I will then be the all-time money winner in poker history, yeah!!!

#10
Posted 29 December 2007 - 03:36 PM
I'm actually organizing a really, really big tournament in February. It's a $100 million buy in heads up event between me and my mother. First prize is $100,000,000.01 and second will get $99,999,999.99. I will then be the all-time money winner in poker history, yeah!!!
Thats right you would be the all time winner of money in the ****en history of poker and thats what the title is meant for who won the most. but she might beat you and officially have won more money than you have!!!
#11
Posted 29 December 2007 - 03:43 PM
I don't think the two-cent swing between first and second will let his mom catch up to his career earnings.
#12
Posted 29 December 2007 - 03:45 PM
I'm actually organizing a really, really big tournament in February. It's a $100 million buy in heads up event between me and my mother. First prize is $100,000,000.01 and second will get $99,999,999.99. I will then be the all-time money winner in poker history, yeah!!!
I would consider you the all-time money winner if you really had that tournament. Of course that would mean that you would actually have 100,000,000.01 on you! What address will this game be taking place at?
#13
Posted 29 December 2007 - 03:46 PM
Ouch!
#14
Posted 29 December 2007 - 04:52 PM
how can there there be two winners in a two man turney explain this.
it would'nt be very ligitimite if there was.
#15
Posted 29 December 2007 - 04:53 PM
please stop typing before i start being rude!!
#16
Posted 29 December 2007 - 05:54 PM
Oh loving thise internet toughies. Maybe with the two cents Daniel will win from his Mother, he can give you half so you can buy some sarcasm pills.
Take it easy man, it's a fun internet forum. It's all good. Hope you have a good holliday.
#17
Posted 29 December 2007 - 06:45 PM
I'm actually organizing a really, really big tournament in February. It's a $100 million buy in heads up event between me and my mother. First prize is $100,000,000.01 and second will get $99,999,999.99. I will then be the all-time money winner in poker history, yeah!!!
Good luck with that tourny.
_____ That's what she said!
#18
Posted 29 December 2007 - 09:22 PM
Yes in years that it an invitational it shouldn't count. I don't think having sponsor exemptions makes a difference though. In my mind the even is open if I personally can win it. The only thing the prevented me from being able to win last year's TOC is the fact that I didn't play any WSOP events.
Looking at it another way is the WSOP ME an invitational event because some players get a "free" (sponsored) entry and other have to pay their way in with their own money?
I think the point about the WPT money list counting only the main events is an interesting one. I think that with an event like the 5 Diamonds only the main event is an actual WPT event. The others are simply tournaments that the casino happens to schedule in advance of the WPT event.
Of course it wouldn't be fair to compare the WPT events to just the WSOP ME either since there are 8 or 10 or however many WPT events in a year as opposed to one WSOP ME.
#19
Posted 30 December 2007 - 01:18 AM
Point systems are better but still not perfect. It’s funny to see how different the point systems of Cardplayer and Bluff magazine are. When Chad Brown won the Bluff Player of the Year Award in 2006 he was 88th on the Cardplayer list.
#20
Posted 30 December 2007 - 05:56 AM
And Daniel, I will be happy to deal your tournament, for no pay...just tip me out of the prize pool.
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." G.K. Chesterson 1900
timwakefield, on 18 April 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users









