Final Day of Feb 180/20 Challenge - Post Results - Final Day Sweat!

[Goodi]

Awesome stats bro. Congratz on those results !!

[Everlong]

[ QUOTE ]
Tourneys 133
FT: 14 (1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 6, 7, 9, 9)
10-18: 6 (10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17)
Cost: $2926
Winnings: $6494
ROI: 121.9%
FT %: 10.5%
ITM %: 15.0%
TLB points: 3034.33


Breakdown of the rest:

18-27 4
28-54 21
54-81 16
81-108 22
109-135 24
135-180 27

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow - these are some amazing numbers. ReeeeeeeSpecct!

[jaybert]

damn, very impressive...congrats. makes me think I have a long way to go before I can consider myself even decent at these!

[Goodi]

Btw i am quiet interested in how you play the bubble. You have only 4 finish on the bubble which is clearly suprising according to the number of tournament you played. Are you really aggressive in stealing restealing?

[ZBTHorton]

[ QUOTE ]
Btw i am quiet interested in how you play the bubble. You have only 4 finish on the bubble which is clearly suprising according to the number of tournament you played. Are you really aggressive in stealing restealing?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is by far the most amazing part of his finishes to me. I know Justin and I both finish on the bubble ALOT. I know I had 4 19th's alone.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Btw i am quiet interested in how you play the bubble. You have only 4 finish on the bubble which is clearly suprising according to the number of tournament you played. Are you really aggressive in stealing restealing?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is by far the most amazing part of his finishes to me. I know Justin and I both finish on the bubble ALOT. I know I had 4 19th's alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of this is just luck, 133 is not a lot of tourneys, but I rarely get to the final 30 with a short stack.

Two other distributions:

1-9: 14
10-18: 6
19-27: 4
28-36: 5
36-45: 7
45-54: 9

1-54: 45
55-108: 37
109-162: 49
163-180: 2

I only made the top quarter of the field 36/133 = 27%, so presuming I have an edge, apparently I'm using it to get to the final quarter with a bigger stack rather than to get there more frequently.

And, yes, the short explanation is that I'm aggressive, not so much always on the bubble but always in the middle stages and whenever I have a big stack on the bubble.

[Mi_T_Sharp]

No offense intended at all, but this could be credited at least a little bit to variance. I am NOT at all trying to take away anything from these stats (please don't think I am and keep reading). They are very good and you did an awesome job and are clearly a very good player (I am sure much better than I am at the bubble, too)!!! But, look at Justin's numbers. I have a similar quandry going. At times I will have runs of >100% ROI and 15% FT and think I am God. Then, I will play a 10% ROI and 6% FT for a while as I get very unlucky (or play bad) during the bubble. Again, I am NOT taking away from Learned From TVs performance this month at all. I am just saying that a winning player could easily wind up bubbling over and over again for 15 days even if they are playing well, and that can be very frustrating. The hard part is trying to not let it effect your game. I mean, just going by Justin's numbers alone - he would of been in the running to win this in January, but didn't have a chance in February. It's not like he suddenly started to suck this month, you know...A couple of bad beats, or a couple of people wake up with AA when you try to steal, and your numbers can go right down the toilet...

[LearnedfromTV]

Agreed. There's no difference in skill, for example, between myself going 11123344 and ZBT going 11224444, but in $ and points there is.

Also, he got royally screwed in huge pots in two different tourneys last night (2 outed on river and KQ outflopped his AA). If those go the other way, he and I are dead even or he wins.

There is a trend in my distribution, though, and it's a trend that is similar to my overall trend over more tourneys.

[Mi_T_Sharp]

Thanks for not taking that the wrong way Learned. You knew what I meant. It is interesting that you said that your performance in these parallels your normal MTT performance. I beleive that Bestcellar's original reason for starting this contest was because he wanted to play in a ton of these to see if they really are easier than normal MTTs. We don't have even near the sample size to do any data analysis, but we could discuss this stuff in theory possibly.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for not taking that the wrong way Learned. You knew what I meant. It is interesting that you said that your performance in these parallels your normal MTT performance. I beleive that Bestcellar's original reason for starting this contest was because he wanted to play in a ton of these to see if they really are easier than normal MTTs. We don't have even near the sample size to do any data analysis, but we could discuss this stuff in theory possibly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think these are pretty soft. I don't have enough experience with the large Stars/Party MTT's to compare, but regardless, one being easier is just reflected in the size of your edge, not how you apply it. The trend I see across my tournament results in tournaments of roughly this size is that I make the final table more the half the time I make the final 2 tables and more than a third of the time I make the final 3 tables, which actually says more about my play prior to the final 2-3 tables than anything (reflecting my average stack size in the endgame). To figure out if the same thing happens in my large field results would require a much larger sample size than I have, and would probably require looking at, say 1-50 vs 51-100 and 101-150.

I mentioned once before but will again, I'm doing several variance simulations, first with the 180s and then with larger fields. I plan to post results sometime in the next few weeks.