Wow, these bad streaks in tournament play are disheartening. The last 20 or so tourneys I've played (including mini) haven't even made it to the second round in most cases. Have made some blunders like forgetting "power chip" at my disposal (St. Ignace) but mostly bad luck. So goes the tourney world! I know things will change, if I live long enough. Billy C
Happens to all of us Billy The worst feeling is to keep making the semifinals and ending up one away from the final table. But just keep chipping away and it will all workout.
Keep Disciplined I had a horrible semifinal losing streak a couple years back. I learned a lot from it, like asking myself the following questions after each loss: - Did I analyze the tournament format and develop a sound strategy? - Did I plan my strategy before each game? Did I stick with my plan? - What was my state of mind? Was I tired, ill, pissed off, hung over, etc? Did I have a positive winning attitude or was I convinced I would fail? Was I overconfident? Did I feel like playing? - Has frustration led me to doubt and change my approach to the game? - Was I out of practice? Was I in over my head? - Have I begun to think irrationally (flow of the cards, BJ is due, feeling lucky or unlucky, etc.)? - Did I go on tilt? Was I talking too much instead of concentrating? Did someone intimidate me? As long as you're using sound strategy and tactics, you should be all right in the long run. Streaks are a necessary part of anything with a chance element, such as card games. If you honestly assess your own game and find nothing wrong, you are giving yourself the best chance to win. Things will turn around.
streaks streaks happen - both good and bad - I have found that in both live tbj and on-line ebj - nothing but streaks - I am either the world's biggest ploppy or the world's most kick-butt tbj stud - one or the other - somehow never just 'normal' results - in fact - was just thinking of posting on this subject - to ask others about how much they streak - curious if others see streaks as strong and constant as I do - or if it is an artifact of the way I play - In live play I have had streaks where I made 1 final table in 15 tourneys, 0 out of 10- where I think I will never see a final table again - then all of a sudden - I get 5 final tables in a row - or hit 7 out of ten to the final table - in semi-finals - can win every one - six semis in row - or - lose 8 in row - once had a streak at semi tables - where five semi tables in a row - went into final hand with the lead - and betting last - correlated with everyone - and - got swung - it can get ugly - or be beautiful I think Monkey's comments are very good - I know I am still working hard on keeping my play together through a losing streak - I have a bad tendency to change the way I play when I have a run of bad tables - tend to get 'gun'shy' and play too conservative - start playing as if I am going to lose every hand - one thing I have found with tbj is that you must play each hand as if the cards will do what you need them too - have to play the probabilities and make the bets you have to make to advance/win - can't play based on 'I'm going to lose this hand' - and I tend to do that when I am in a losing streak - or - tend to get careless - thinking - 'it doesn't matter what I do, the blackjack gods will do me in' so - as Monkey suggests - examine your game to see if you are contributing to the bad streak through changes or carelessness in your play - when I do that - I always find that I just might have made another final table or two during the bad streaks if I hadn't messed up my play - and really focus in on playing your best possible game - even if tired or sick - or whatever - and you'll find the streak turning around - so - question for everyone - just how much do you find your results streaking? - I know if I look over my past tournaments - all I see or either 'voids' where I went tourney after tourney with no final tables - or - periods where I get to the final table over half the tourneys - and that's both live tbj and on-line - does everyone see this kind of streakiness? - or is it just me and Billy C.?
streakin We all hit those dang losing streaks. I think of good luck as having short losing streaks and long winning ones. Really though I think events occurring in streaks is statistically correct. Come on you math guys give us the formula! tgun "There is always a better streak."
Concept, Not A Formula Random distributions MUST have streaks and clumping. If there were no streaks or clumping you would have a non-random distribution by definition. Example: If you flipped a coin one million times and there were no streaks, that would mean it assumed a pattern of head-tail-head-tail the whole time. That would certainly not be random. The same principle holds true in card games because the cards are randomized. Players are somewhat predictable in their decision making but the human factor guarantees deviations from their predictable patterns of behavior. So players add a random factor as well. If you're a good player you'll win games and tournaments at a greater than average expectation, but these events are randomly distributed. Therefore, streaks are a necessary part of the game. Just make sure you don't compromise your play when you're in a streak - winning or losing. Of course you're welcome to compromise your play if I'm sitting at your table... :laugh:
Streak odds OK - here are the odds of making final table/cashing in a specified number of tourneys, assuming that you reach the final table in 1/3 of the tourneys you play, as your long term odds: out of ten tourneys, reach final table in: 0 .01735 1 .08671 .10306 --------------------- 2 .19513 3 .26013 .68284 4 .22758 -------------------- 5 .13653 6 .05687 7 .01624 .2141 8 .00304 9 .00033 10 .00001 and for a series of 15 tourneys: 0 .00228 1 .01713 .07938 2 .05997 ------------------- 3 .12992 4 .19485 5 .21430 .8324 6 .17856 7 .11477 ------------------- 8 .05737 9 .02231 10 .00669 11 .00152 .08822 12 .000253 13 .000029 14 .00000208 15 .000000695 So- most tournament series should, indeed, fall into the 'normal range of your projected average + or - one tourney, for ten tourney series (68% should be in this range) - and - for 15 tourney series, within a range of your projected average plus or minus two tourneys - (83%) - and extreme streaks should be relatively unusual - and good streaks should be somewhat more frequent than bad streaks - so when I have one of my frequent bad streaks, it is just because I am playing like a brain damaged ploppy - good to know -
Interesting statistics, RKuczek. However, your assumption that one will reach the final table 1/3 of the time seems to me to be unrealistic. If one plays minis only with 20 to 40 players (I assumed 20 - 40 but I never played a mini so I don't know for sure) then maybe the 1/3 number is realistic for a seasoned player. Most of the larger money tournaments have 200 to 800 players and I would guess the average would be about 300 players. So with 300 players, what percentage can the average seasoned player assume he/she would reach the final table? That's a tough question because as the number of players increase, those sheer numbers increase the probability that several ploppies will get lucky enough to reach the final table. Also, rules that favor luck over skill is a factor. I don't have a reasonable answer. Anyone care to venture an answer to my question?
toolman had to pick a number - so - I get to the final table or semi-final cash: 33.92% of the time - if that sounds too good - think "small tournaments at isolated Indian casinos located in the most remote and desolate parts of the Sonoran Desert" - explains all
Golden Nugget-LV Odds I have played the Golden Nugget Las Vegas tourney - the time I played - they had about 200 players, I believe - and format was: first round 1 of 6 advance; second round 1 of 5 advance; third round 1 of 4 advance to final table. One rebuy was allowd - so -without counting the wild cards, but with the rebuy, average player would be 0.01527 to final table; a player with a 50% edge would be 0.04921 to the final table. They drew wild cards, however, to each round, and one wildcard to the final table - so - actual odds would be appreciably better with the wild cards
Viejas Odds have also played the Viejas $50K tourney - and that one had about 280 players - format was 1st round 2 of 6 advance, 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounds, all 3 of 6 advance, semi-final round, 2 of 6 advance - so - for average player, with one rebuy available, odds of 0.023148 to final table by play; for a player with a 50% advantage; 0.1582 to the final table; also - some wild cards in some of the early rounds - so actual odds somewhat better advantage obviously accumulates big time with large number of multiple advance rounds
50% Advantage RKuczek, how do you use a 50% advantage in your calculations? I assume it's multiplying the average expectation by 50%. An example of that would be in a 3/6 game, our expert would average 4-1/2 out of 6 or 75%. That doesn't work in, say a 4/5 game like they had in a recent event I played in. You can't win 6 out of 5. Your idea is on the right track, but here's a way to improve the accuracy of your calculations. Instead of our expert winning 150% of the average expectation, have him lose 70% of the average expectation. The lower the percentage, the better the player. In one-winner games cut his advantage in half (to account for the dumbed down factor) and assume he'll lose 85% of the average expectation. Example: In a 3/6 game he'll lose 70% * 1/2 = 35%. If he loses 35% he wins 65%. This may seem like splitting hairs but it fixes the problem of tables in which over half the players advance. Now instead of our expert winning 6 out of 5 in a 4/5 table he wins 1 - 70% * 1/5 = 86%.
I really think its going to be hard to put a number of value on the question Toolman posed ""So with 300 players, what percentage can the average seasoned player assume he/she would reach the final table?"" Obviously the rules and format. In a tourney with 2:1 BJ and no max bet limit and 1/6 or 1/7 advance from from round extreme frustration can be found and a huge luck factor. These games typically have 80% or more invites that have nothing to lose so they bang away. Out of a table of 7,, 2 or 3 will rabbit. Also, if we are talking cashing- some of the games and most of the minis Ive played dont pay semis. It just aint easy! But maybe a 300 player game will pay in the 4th round.
I've talked about this before. I have found that by focusing on my per-round results over the long run, it helps quite a bit to console me as well as make sure I am not in over my head. So, instead of being focused on the fact that I keep losing semi-final matches in the last month, I can look at my overall record in Round 2 (or Round 3) of my tournaments and be comfortable that it's not significantly different from my Round 1 results. I've also noticed that my results in $100 tournaments have deteriorated from 140% to only 98% of expected (even though I'm still up quite a bit of money in $100 tournaments). It just reinforces to me that I probably shouldn't be throwing myself into online $100 SnGs, and should focus on overlays offered. A smart person once said that making decisions based on the streaks you have recently suffered is like trying to drive by looking through your rear-view mirror. It is interesting to see where you have just come from, but it's not going to be very indicative of what's ahead.
figuring advantage toolman - you are right - that's how I used the 50% edge to do the projections - and - you are right - that sometimes using the reverse - figuring odds not to advance makes more sense - as you are not going to advance 100% of the time - at any table - regardless of format or edge - however - usually - you calculate edge by comparing actual advances to projected advances - so are actually calculating edges based on the additional frequency of advance - so - would apply it the way I did - however - there is a real problem I think - in applying any edge that based on mixing different formats - if 90% of the tables you play are single advance - can you apply that edge to a table which is 2 advance? or 3 advance? - I have started keeping edges by format - and find that my edge seems to differ substantially depending on format - my two advance edge being better than my single advance edge - most likely because the 'done in by the lucky ploppy' factor is reduced - but - one really needs to calculate each tourney individually - according to the player's edge in that format - what I have found to be pretty meaningful is calculating an edge based on getting to the final table - projecting final tables for each buy-in or rebuy - and then comparing to actual final tables - and normalizing to a per table edge - that seems to be the most meaningful and accurate in projecting actual future performance - I do like the idea of a 5 out of six table - but the closest I have come to that was a 2 out of 3 table in one of Rick's tourneys in Laughlin - of course the other two players were S. Yama and Ken Smith I think in the examples I gave though - the estimates are not unreasonable - certainly any positive edge accumulates substantially in a long series of multiple advance tables (as at Viejas) with a rebuy or two offered - and a seasoned tournament player with a 50% edge should advance a 3 of 6 table 75% of the time - I would think - or close to that, at least - In looking at edges - I think it reasonable an experienced player would do relatively better in a 2 of 6 than a single advance - but - maybe not improve much or even lose some edge when gpoing from 2 of 6 to 3 of 6 - and maybe lose edge when going from 3 of 6 to 4 of 6 - the big advantage in multiple advance format - is that one person chunking out big bets and getting lucky doesn't do you in - you can still play for the second or third spot - but once that factor is removed - it is maybe more important that you don't get unlucky - if that makes sense -
