2008 Season two AVERAGES

[muzzington]

Little different if it's all at the same venue.

[David]

Little different if it's all at the same venue.

I was about to say that!

Sod.

[BigPete33]

Was just thinking that it's hard to compare metro and regional players at all.

A player could do really well in their region (lets say Riverland for the sake of the exercise) but that has practically zero bearing on how well they'd do in say Metro NE because it's an entirely different group of players. And vice versa. The reference point in how well a player does over the course of a season can therefore only be 'for where they play at'.

As long as people remember that 'top 50' doesn't necessarily mean that at all then everything's ok

[Chelsea4thewin]

i should be on the list then remembered i only played like 13 games, real average was 31.4

[maccatak11]

Macca who won his venue his strike rate must be considered as excellent, he played all 10 games DNP'd twice, finished just in points twice, played final table 6 times for 1st, 2nd , 3rd, 5th, 6th and a 9th. thats an 80% points finish and a 60% final table strike rate and thats with a venue averaging 40+ players per week.

His record speakes dor it self/

(Somebody looked me up)

[bennymacca]

Macca who won his venue his strike rate must be considered as excellent, he played all 10 games DNP'd twice, finished just in points twice, played final table 6 times for 1st, 2nd , 3rd, 5th, 6th and a 9th. thats an 80% points finish and a 60% final table strike rate and thats with a venue averaging 40+ players per week.

His record speakes dor it self/

(Somebody looked me up)

just pay the man his money for blowing smoke up your arse

gundog, i think you are missing the point with the top 50. it is not really a "best 50 players" and there have been many a thread on this. it is really a mechanism for the players that play an insane amount of games to have a reason to fit in an extra couple of games a week, that is all really.

I think a player who finishes in the t3 of his region back to back seasons must be respected as a good player.

yes he should be respected as a good player

player that makes points 40 to 60% of the time
places in a venue and regional leaderboard or the player who plays 1 venue and places no 1 with a clear points lead

matt definitely didn't fluke it by getting these good results, but i know at least 1 player that has won a venue by a mile, and then averages 15 or less since then - winning a venue doesn't automatically get respect

[studmanxxx]

David's list of natural averages is fascinating reading, and a great job.

Regarding the tone of the thread - the truth is, averages (by themselves) will not determine whether a player is "good", but is certainly an indication. The structure of NPL tournaments, certainly the ones where you are getting upwards of 35 players, makes it difficult to just fold into points, and if you do, it won't be very high, so a good average is a valid guide to a player's worth.

I read recently a quote from a pro poker player (can't think who it was) that the best players either went deep into tournaments or went out early - there was no in between, coz that is the style of play needed to WIN tournaments.

It is not hard to see then, that a player with that style will not necessarily have a leading average, but will certainly have wins under their belt.

I don't know Peter Koroneos, but he seems to have that sort of game. In the B/G region, Karl Pech and Gorden Foden are a couple of blokes in that mould.

[Origami]

Love Statistics & Percentages

All part of this fine Game of Poker.

When we play, When we Win / Lose and
When we talk about it.
be it before after or even during the Game !!

Thanks for making the data available to all -- maybe another column with region/ city/country /venue played would even further enhance the data ( I for one will be customizing the spreadsheet for my further info/ enjoyment ...

Roll on further comment/debate re this data

cheers

[Chelsea4thewin]

the important question is

does getting in the points on a regular basis mean u are a good poker player or u are a good NPL player?

playing a tight game and only playing ur good hands is a way points can be achieved quite easilly but this is not really improving ur poker game at all, u dont bluff and reading ur opponents is not that important because ur only really playing the nuts

i see these same people at certain venues always getting in the points but NEVER getting to the top 3 or winning because they would rather sit back and wait till other people get knocked out

[rcon]

playing a tight game and only playing ur good hands is a way points can be achieved quite easilly but this is not really improving ur poker game at all, u dont bluff and reading ur opponents is not that important because ur only really playing the nuts

and you just can't do this to make points at larger venues. 35 or less runners and you only need to play a couple of hand (and win of course) and you can fold the rest of the way to the points. Any more than that, will require you to make a few moves.

Taking down a tourney with 50+ runners does require more than just patients and good cards. Whilst I've had 5 wins, only 1 was 50+ (75)and that was recently. I would come close to the points in larger fields, but I'm still learning the proper mix of patience and aggressiveness needed to be good player. I certainly rate players who consistently points in larger fields >50 (not me) as better player than those who consistently win/do well in small tourneys <50 (me)