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.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are 1K NL Tourneys Lotteries?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Are 1K NL Tourneys Lotteries?

    Which tournament structure requires more skill: the old 10K NLHE freerolls or the new 1K NLHE freerolls?

    I believe randomness plays a much larger role in the new structure than it did in the old structure simply because the sample size of hands is smaller (implying very shallow money after just a few rounds).

    But I'm an idiot, so what do I know?

    BTW, I've done no worse with the new structure than with the old so far, so this isn't a whine.

  • #2
    The current variety structure new for 2003 is fine.
    According to reports from Tunica PSO players won many Sats, and made money in several tournaments.

    Not much change is needed.....

    Comment


    • #3
      They are both crap, but at least the 1k ones give practice for real world crapshoots.

      The 10k 10 min round tournies serve absolutely no purpose for real world practice. They are nothing like the multi-day tournies, or the 1 day tournies.

      Neither of them require much skill, though the 10k one does at the beginning due to the deep money. They are both crapshoots later on. I would ditch the 10k 10 minute structure completely. The others are better.

      The 20 minute round structures are both very good. One is good practice for multiday events, and the other for 1 day events.

      The 5k 10 minute round structure is the worst of the lot. Be interesting to see how these would play with 15 minute levels.

      Comment


      • #4
        i think the 1K is better, you have to learn more discipline in protecting your stack were as the 10K you will take more chances with thing you might normally not.

        Also, I feel the 1K teaches how to play shock-stacked.

        my local tuesnight tourney gets about 100+ players (NLHE) 1K to start (haven't played one though)

        but i have played my local B&M's saturday morning limit hold em with 1K w/1K rebuy, ok 2K total, but the limits raise every 20 mins and they jump BIG

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Noodles
          Neither of them require much skill,
          Tut, tut. The data refute this with probability 1. Your own performance refutes this with probability 1.

          Originally posted by Noodles
          though the 10k one does at the beginning due to the deep money.
          That is more like it.

          Using minpin's data, I normalized PPT scores for both satellites and multis. (That is, I expressed the PPT score as the number of standard deviations away from pure randomness, adjusting for number of games.) Intuition suggests that the less skillful game would have more players clustered around the average performance and fewer players performing at either extreme. As I would predict, the distribution for multis, with their higher starting chips, has fewer people at the mean and more people in the tails of the distribution than does the distribution for satellites. I believe this is evidence that the multis sort out the players' skill levels better than the satellites. And satellites have $2K in starting chips, so I think the comparison for the $10K vs. $1K would be even sharper.

          Interestingly, while the satellite distribution is symmetrically distributed around 0 standard deviations, the multi distribution has its peak at +1 standard deviations and more people in the negative tail than in the positive tail. So it appears that most of the differentiation in multis is that the bad players really distinguish themselves.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Lloyd
            Originally posted by Noodles
            Neither of them require much skill,
            Tut, tut. The data refute this with probability 1. Your own performance refutes this with probability 1.
            I know how much skill it takes in the later stages when the money is shallow, with quick rounds, under both structures, and it isn't much. Even more so on the internet. Trust me. It's pretty simple to learn. All preflop. Raise or fold. Re-raise all-in or fold covers about 90% of it.

            The 1k event is still useful for real world practice though. The 10k one is not, unless it is the one with the 20 minute rounds, (which has a lot or real world relevance in terms of multi-day events. It also has more tourney skill in it. A lot more, even towards the end compared to the 2 10 minute level structures). The 3k starting stack events are also better than the 1k events, but they are both relevant to the real world 1 day events and compliment each other nicely.


            I believe this is evidence that the multis sort out the players' skill levels better than the satellites.........So it appears that most of the differentiation in multis is that the bad players really distinguish themselves.
            Ultimately, it has little do with multi-table verses satellites. Or the number of starting chips. It is to do with the depth of money and time levels.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Noodles

              Trust me. It's pretty simple to learn. All preflop. Raise or fold. Re-raise all-in or fold covers about 90% of it.
              Yup. That's why the $1k tourneys will prove to be more variable: correct play requires earlier exposure to bustout risk. I predict the best PPTs and cumulative %s will be lower in 2003 than in 2002.

              Originally posted by Noodles
              Ultimately, it has little do with multi-table verses satellites. Or the number of starting chips. It is to do with the depth of money and time levels.
              Yes. Multis serve as a proxy for deeper money, which is really the driving force.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Lloyd
                Yup. That's why the $1k tourneys will prove to be more variable: correct play requires earlier exposure to bustout risk. I predict the best PPTs and cumulative %s will be lower in 2003 than in 2002.
                i disagree
                as the 2002 results were for 14 months not 12 and that for first 6 months single table result counted too
                players like freddieboy jmussey and rggator whom played alot of single table events will have a much higher % than they had at end of last year.

                Comment


                • #9
                  i agree with iron

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Like many others, PSO is not likely to change. Some tourneys
                    increase the time for each round as the blinds advance. It seems to
                    me that would be desirable.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      If cumulative rankings change overall it is solely due to the number of entrants in an event. The larger the field size the larger the average finish for an event (in log points). More log points available to earn translates into a higher group average score.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ironside

                        i disagree
                        as the 2002 results were for 14 months not 12 and that for first 6 months single table result counted too
                        players like freddieboy jmussey and rggator whom played alot of single table events will have a much higher % than they had at end of last year.
                        You are correct, but actually, I was referring to the PSO Detail, which separates the multis from the satellites. I predict those cumulatives will be lower. (Assuming minpin continues to maintain the database. Otherwise we'll never know.) More precisely, the BEST cumulatives and PPTs will be lower.

                        Originally posted by TrumpinJoe
                        If cumulative rankings change overall it is solely due to the number of entrants in an event. The larger the field size the larger the average finish for an event (in log points). More log points available to earn translates intoa higher group average score.
                        I was imprecise. You are talking about averages and I am talking about the spread of the distribution (how many people in the tails). I believe that the increased randomness in the $1K events will force all scores closer to the mean. Thus, the best cumu% will be lower and the worst cumu% will be higher.

                        Just a hunch.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Can anyone explain the laws of cricket?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by pokerpagekev
                            Can anyone explain the laws of cricket?
                            The rules of cricket are beyond the comprehension of any American. All I know is that "googlies" are apparently very important.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              cricket is a game played by upper class english twits the rules of which they made up thmsleves so that they could cheat and beat the "world" (other 8 test playing nations) untill they cottoned on got umpires themselves and now if a player is LBW you will get 10-1 that it was going to miss by a mile.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X