One thing you soon realize about playing in BJ Tournaments is that it is hard to judge how well you are playing compared to how well you should be playing. This is because the number of cashes you will get is a very low percentage, which means that if you look at Return On Investment or any win/loss figure, it will probably not be very accurate in prodicting future results. Therefore, my recommendation is to track your results round by round. For each round, track the level of the tournament, dollar amount, # of seats, number advancing, and whether or not you advanced. If you are performing above average, the number of rounds you advanced will be greater than the sum of the percentages of people advancing. For example: Round # Players Advancers Advance Rate Did you advance? (1/0) -------- ------ ---------- ------------- --------------------- 1 7 2 .28 0 1 6 3 .5 1 2 7 3 .42 1 3 6 2 .33 0 ------------------------------------------------------------ TOTAL 1.53 2 In this case, you are advancing at 131% (2/1.53) of the average player's rate. With more data, you can filter whether your win rate is dropping in the tougher later rounds, or whether you do better or worse in freerolls. I recommend that you do not choose to begin the spreadsheet by placing your most recent results. TO not bias your sample, do not begin to record your results until after you decided to track them. And be sure you track every round. If you do so, you will get a better idea as to whether you have the ability to beat the field at this game.
I agree Toonce, that is the way I am ranking players for the TBT. By awarding points on how they advance throughout the tournaments. Ranking them by average percentages I think give us the most acurate ranking for the players involved in the TBT. Plus by ranking the players this way, a player doesn't have to attend all or even a certain number of events to be ranked and qualify for the TBT "Player of the Year" award.
toonces your method is pretty much what I have been doing - only looking at it as both advances from each table and in terms of reaching final tables - it gives an interesting picture - especially looking at each buy in and rebuy as a separate 'start' - which each is - gives a much bigger sample and more accurate picture than tracking tourneys - I would recommend tracking each 'start' through to its end - whether flame out or final table - for total performance each time you sit down at the qualifier table - bottom line - no matter how you do it - with a large enough sample - you will tend to show the same edge - mine seems to be 40% edge over my competition - but that is exclusively small tourneys - most at small Indian casinos located in the most isolated parts of the Sonoran Desert - so level of competition is not real high - though there are a few good players who make some of these tourneys - also have played some Laughlin mini's - and there are some very good players in these -
Good method I converted my record keeping for this year to your formula. I have advanced 14 times out of 25 rounds with an advance rate total of 6.24 for an advance % of 224%. Did I figure this right? I counted the finals as three advance (out of 7)since top three get paid, and counted if I advanced by whether i finished in the money. I also track money, and so far I have made 2400.00 vs $780 in expenses (dealer tips and entry fees included). these are all B&M casinos, small local tourneys in NV, once a month.
Tracking Your Record The way to remove >100% errors from your calculation of your tournament record is to use % of losses vs. average expectation, not percentage of wins. Example: If you've been playing 2/7 tables and winning 3/7 of them, you figure you're losing 80% of the average expectation. That way you can figure if you're on a 3/4 table you'll lose 80% * 1/4 = 1/5. You have a 4/5 chance of winning. If you use your winning % of 150% you'll come up with an impossible 112.5% chance of winning.
Over 100% Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 112.5% is not the chance of winning (which of course is impossible) but rather how you are doing in relation to the average player. A 100% means that you advance 100% more or twice as much as the average player. A 150% means you advance 2 1/2 times more often than the average player. As I said, I think this is toonces' logic. Could be wrong. Stretch, You stated that you "counted if I advanced by whether i finished in the money". This is not the way to do it. Most B&M tournaments pay everyone at the final table. Therefore, using your logic, you get extra "points" just for making it past the semi-finals. The only logical way, using toonces's method, is to count a win at the final table only if you finish first.
most accurate method is to ignore final tables - I track those separately - since you are likely to play them differently - and - there is no 'advance' criteria - I look at how much money I come out with relative to the average player at the table - so - for example - total prize pool $5,000, 7 players - average player would figure to win - $714.29 - I come in second - winning $1,000 - then I am $1,000/$714.29 = 1.40 better than average - as far as the error monkeysystem mentioned - I too found this a problem - when almost everyone advanced - if the odds of an average player advancing are 75% and you are 1.5 times better - than that computes to you have 112.5% chance - and that is impossible - to resolve this - I modified my formula as follows - if three of four advance - then odds of advancing through winning for average player are 1 of 4 - so my odds of advancing through winning - with my 40% edge are 25%*1.4=35%; if I DON"T WIN then the odds of advancing for the average player by finishing second are 1 of 3 - so my odds figure as 33%*1.4*(1-.35) - the (1-.35) are the odds I would finish first - so odds of my finishing second are 30.3% - like wise the odds of finishing third are 1 of 2 for the average player - so my odds of finishing third are 50%*1.4*(1-.35)*(1-.303)=31.7% - so my total advance chances are 35%+30.3%+31.7%=97% - this is how I actually project my chances of advancing at a given table - in my spreadsheets -
Too Much Winning 112.5% is your chance of winning the game, if you use winning % as your criteria. That's impossible, and it implies profound errors in your calculations if you use that method, even if you get results <100%. That's why you need to use losing percentage. It eliminates that kind of error. And like RKuczek says, you should track final tables separately because they're played differently than elimination tables.
Thanks Tool I changed my finals appearances to 1 gets paid out of 7 instead of 3 get paid out of 7, and changed my 1's to 0's on the months I did not get first. That changed the advancing % to 3.92 and my advancing total to 9 (I found one other error), which still gives me the advantage of nearly 230% over my competition. Toolman - I placed second in the accumulation tourney (not part of this calculation since there is no advancing) to finish in good money.
Advance Rate Formula How about this one? [(Number of players advancing * 100) * (1 + Player edge)] / [(Number of players playing + Player edge)] e.g. Three of four advances and your edge is 40% Player advances at [(3 * 100) * (1 + 0.40)] / [(4 + 0.40)] = 95.5% Others advance at [(3 * 100) * (1 + 0.00)] / [(4 + 0.40)] = 68.2%
Holy Shiite, Batman! The Rocket Scientists have over taken a fun little kids game. Back to tiddly-winks and chutes and ladders for me. There the loser doesn't analyze the outcome, only tosses the board and scatters the "winks"
Actually all these formulas for calculating your edge over the average player are really just to keep your confidence up during your losing streaks - bottom line - only meaningfull stat - if you have a net profit off your play - you're better than average - if you have a net loss - you're a ploppy - nothing else really means anything - the higher your net profit relative to the total prize pools you have been playing for - the better you are - and that is real easy to track - what percent of the total prize pools available to you have you won?
I guess it depends on what you mean by meaningful. If you want to look back and evaluate how well you've done, clearly you want to look at net profit as money is the clear scorecard. But, if you are trying to look forward and predict how well you are likely to do in the future, the stats like we are talking about ought to be far more predictive than net profit. Net profit will track how often you were able to get several important wins in a row. Looking at net profit is likely to get you over-excited (especially if you won a recent or big tournament) or overly depressed, if you've been doing well, but have failed to hit it big.
Ploppy The term "ploppy" is used on many of the Blackjack sites to describe dumb play. Can anyone tell me where this originated from? Andy.
Survey Says... Hey Andy--According to the rather extensive BJ glossary at bjrnet.com: Ploppy: An uniformed gambler. Appears to be a term coined by gambling author Frank Scoblete in the early 1990s.
