PokerStars homepage
  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.


No announcement yet.

Cumulative % IS important

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cumulative % IS important

    For the majority of players I've checked, cumulative % ups and downs have a direct correlation to PPT. In this informal research, it appears to me that fluctuations in cumulative % are directly related to profitibility of one's play. As cumulative % goes up, so do profits. As it goes down, profits go down.

    Of course this seems obvious - but some have argued that cumulative % is meaningless, or that it has little to do with "money". A few examples:

    rggator multi trend

    minpin multi trend

    apryllshowers multi trend

    thehazyone multi trend

    And a satellite example:

    dreams32097 sat trend

    Of course there are exceptions. Remember, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics .

  • #2
    there are correct ways to measure things, there are not quite so correct ways to measure things, there are approximate ways to measure things- but in the end the only accurate way is the correct way.


    • #3
      but some have argued that cumulative % is meaningless, or that it has little to do with "money".
      I have never argued this. However, I have argued that the cumulative ranking, if one were to play with that in mind, encourages students to develop/learn/practice a style of play that is not optimal for making the big money places in a tournament. Obviously, beginners will not realise this and think they are learning the best way....survival.

      I will admit though, that it is better than playing to the other extreme. i.e. loose and reckless. I also think the cumulative rank is a good thing as it encourages semi-realistic play in the games. It just isn't the best possible feedback system with regards one's tournament ablity. Neither is it a rank of which player is better than another as some seem to think, (which is probably a good thing as it will again encourage serious play from those motivated by such a thing).


      • #4
        The PSO percent, when compared over a fixed number of similarly sized events, is a good barometer for a moderately aggressive style of play. It rewards those with early patience the most. It penalizes those that tend to bust-out early twice as often (and more) as they make it past the midway point.

        If a tournament strategy with more early aggressiveness is the optimal play, PSO will not recognize that. If, as geezer states, the opimum B&M tournament strategy is to build a HUGE stack early or bust out and get into lucrative side-action, PSO is a long, long way off in how they measure performance and prepare future poker players. However, with their stated mission of producing Tournament Poker Champions they are probably fairly close to providing a decent metric.

        As it other RL situations, it is rarely possible to develop ONE measure that considers everything.