Discussion between friend and I.
As headline.
Cashgame players mostly measure their results in BB won pr. 100 hands to determine their skill level.
Is this also a good factor to determine how well you play MTTs?

No. You can win lots of bb's early and punt a few bb's late, have a good BB/100, but still never win anything.

Yes.

but filter for BB>200

It's more accurate than ROI over smallish samples because of variance, but there are lots of leaks you can have that kill your ROI but barely show up in BB/100, for example being bad at final tables or HU play.

I'm going to say no, it's apples and oranges. Realistically, how can you even begin to determine tournament winnings in bb/100? In cash games, blinds are a constant, and stacks are usually at 100 bb's. In tournament games everything is always changing, blinds go up and stacks go down in terms of amount of bb's. Roi is really the only measure of success I see that can work

Yes, so long as you filter for stack size. Obviously from there it takes a bit of interpretation, as being enormously profitable at 100bbs probably isn't going to be enough to compensate for being moderately unprofitable at 20bbs, and because your stack size is not necessarily the same as effective stack size, but you can still get a decent idea of where the stronger and weaker parts of your game are.

I do keep an eye on this and while I was re-evaluating my game and trying hard (well harder than usual) to improve earlier this year I was tracking it. But the overall number is fairly meaningless because it's skewed by early pots where the BB is very small.

I would recommend firstly dealing with EV BB to at least iron out the allin variance, and to check it filtering <15bb (open-jamming stack) and 15-25bb (reraising stack). Try to improve these numbers but don't assume that +ve automatically means winning player. -ve probably does mean you have some leaks though.

To anyone saying no, please tell us one statistic that better quantifies whether a player is playing winning poker.

$$$

Roi and profit

Winning? Profit/Loss.
If you're asking what a good quant stat is to judge how well someone is playing tournament poker, I would say that it would be hard to find one with much significance.

lol @ saying winnings mean more than bb/100

and this is coming from a luckbox with small sample

Well, the posts that addressed winnings were in response to the request "tell us one statistic that better quantifies whether a player is playing winning poker." If you're in profit you've been playing winning poker, if you're in loss you've been playing losing poker, seems like a decent way to quantify that.
The idea of whether or not bb/100 was a good metric to measure tournament skill was a separate question. I don't think you can look at either statistic and within any sort of narrow band "determine your MTT skills".

i think its important to a small degree. with a lot of games logged i think you can somewhat accurately look at various blind stages and buyins. its better than anything else.

bbs/100 especially if you can break it down by # handed and stack size (average, effective, yours, whatever) is going to be significantly more valuable information than ROI or profit. That's like comparing compensated YPP or PPP for a football or basketball team with like wins and losses and asking which is more useful for predicting future results

Not only that, but it's a hugely useful introspective tool once you have a played a million hands or so and can actually have large enough sample sizes to figure out a lot of your leaks with certain types of hands from certain positions.

Obviously it doesn't tell the whole story, but it's better than any other common single metric, and it's also a fantastic way of uncovering hidden talent, overrated winners, etc.

I might add this to my list of 10 easy questions to determine whether a poker player is an idiot that I'll probably ask every person next year before I buy big shares of them.

What would a good mid stakes EV BB/100 be in your guys opinion?

Winning money at poker != Playing winning poker

there's nothing quite as amusing and stunning as your ftp opr oh and grz on ftp comeback money etcetc must feel pretty surreal to you and yes even tho we're not quite there

winning or losing at poker doesnt mean you've been playing winning poker.

err slow ponied.*


edan@ yes.

I think I am missing something here. Can somebody explain to me how bb/100 pertains to a tournament, where chips have no monetary value? This is where I am not making the connection. In my mind, bb/100 is something that is useful in determining if you are good at a blind level in a cash game. In tournaments, where blinds are always going up and stacks are losing bb's every level, I dont see how bb/100 would be useful to determining if you are a good tournament player, where as your roi% shows if you are winning money in tournaments

I know what you're saying but I disagree in regards to your interpretation of certain English words.

In my entirely subjective opinion, anything north of 10bb/100 would be very good.

If you restrict to stack size <25bb, 5bb/100.

The question was about MTT skills not who has won the most money.

Pretty sure PageUp, Bonified, Galen and DoGGz ended this thread already.