Great read guys - keep it up!

playing poker and winning and playing winning poker are two completely different things.

Ofc chips have monetaryvalue, it`s just not cEV =$EV(It`s pretty close early tough). On a Finaltable its obviously different, you might have a negative BB/100 and still played the best poker(Could happen while you have to wait till other people bust).

If the Top 10 MTT-Players got like 10bb/100 and you got like 5bb/100 you can be pretty damn sure to do something wrong.

Do y'all think I am right to use BB/100 to compare how well I am playing in in different positions or different starting hands and so on?

I like to check my HM2 position report and see what is my BB/100 in sb, bb, early, middle, late position and the button is.

Or if I am winning less BB/100 with AJs than I am with AQs and with ATs isn't that the best stat to show I am not playing AJs right?

make a new thread imo, would be a roaring success

Huge sample size problem. You'd need to have played AJs 10k times to get real meaning from such a small slice of data.

I think 1k is more like it but either way unless someone can suggest a better way that still leaves BB/100 as the best stat for measuring how you play each position and groups of starting hands. while its not perfect other stats mentioned here like RIO, ITM%, winnings etc are obviously irrelevant for that.

If the blinds were fixed in a tournament, everyone would have a negative BB/100 unless someone is managing to ship 50%+ of their games. (And this is after we assume some situation which would never exist.) In a 9 man with fixed blinds, every player would have a negative BB/100 except the winner. Since 3 people usually get paid, the second and third players would have negative BB/100 but still be profitable. Sure, for one game, the BB/100 would be closer to 0 as those players would survive more hands but the point is, the ninth place finisher and the third place finisher both would have negative BB/100 when one is profitable and one is not.

ev bb/100

I can't have a opinion on this matter because my evbb/100 hands and actual bb/100 is positive yet my roi is negative for mtts with an average field size of 4700 entrants. Can anyone give me a explanation as to why this is?

Effective <5bbs

evbb/100 = 16bbs
bb/100 = 18bbs

Effective between 5 and 10bbs

evbb/100 = -4.7bbs
bb/100 = -3.88bbs

Effective < 15bbs

evbb/100 = 4.74bbs
bb/100 = .75bbs

Effective > 15bbs

evbb/100 = 6.75bbs
bb/100 = 9.35bbs

All effective stacks

evbb/100 = 6.44bbs
bb/100 = 7.98

jmond

First, you should filter your stats for various blind levels and see how they change. For all you know you could be crushing pre-ante levels and breaking even or losing in ante levels, especially later ones. It might also help to further filter for number of players seated at the table (this could also help you figure out if you are winning or losing ev at later stages, especially if you don't play many shorthanded mtts). The problem with filtering is that your sample gets smaller the more you filter, so keep that in mind.

Second, even if you are playing well and should be winning bb at all points in the tourney, then your roi is negative because you are running bad and losing allins late in tourneys even though your evbb is positive (it only takes one all in to bust a tourney no matter how good you got it in, and you will see this reflected in filtered stats anyway with positive ev and negative results). Either that or you are just -ev at the late stages and don't/can't know for sure yet.

edit: I guess ICM and etc could skew what good evbb stats are as you get closer to the end of a tourney, but I doubt it would result in a negative evbb stat being good as someone else itt said might happen. Only way that's like to happen is if you have had only absurd ICM spots like having to constantly fold until the 2bb stack busts and you bust the hand after he does in every tourney you get deep in or something.

This post is also beyond irrelevant because blinds aren't fixed in any tournament. That's what makes it a tournament. Not really sure why you decided to post this since you know it's impossible.

Okay, so I couldn't filter my stats by blind level because Hem 1 doesn't have the option. I was however able to filter my stats by stack size. Btw, thank you very much for your help joedeertay. If there's anything I can help you with that is within my ability let me know. I'm a HU hyper turbo specialist.

The results are as follows:

250+ bb: bb/100 72.58 evbb/100 76.07 (198 hands)

150-250bb: bb/100 39.23 evbb/100 35.71 (613 hands)

115-150bb: bb/100 12.60 evbb/100 -16.43 (1000 hands)

85-115bb: bb/100 45.02 evbb/100 15.43 (1547 hands)

50-85bb: bb/100 2.98 evbb/100 -1.43 (3610 hands)

0-50bb: bb/100 1.49 evbb/100 6.94 (11694 hands)

I'm down 2.1k over 488 games with an average stake of 12.45. I am by no means complaining I just need to know I'm running bad and not leaking.

Sure it has, it's not a filter but a report tho. You should consider your "by position" report as well, both filtered for stacksize like you did. Together with ROI/profit this gives the best possible indication whether you're playing good but running bad, and vice versa, and/or where exactly you're leaking bb's which is crucial for the biggest part of any tourney where cEV is all that matters (that said even where ICM factors in heavily they're not entirely neglectable). Using some custom reports/stats like EVbb and SD/nonSD winrates also helps a ton to gather a better overall picture of how you're doing.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=5601

Didn't read most of the replies but basically if you can filter it quite specifically, including buy-in, stack size etc it's not a terrible measure of skill, but definitely not a great one.
Not filtering by buy-in or tournament type is terrible though as beating $2 freezeout T100/200 for 10BB/100 is obviously a way smaller accomplishment than S500 etc.

I happen to think this is a really good way of measuring your ability. I'd find it reassuring to see I was winning 5 BB/100 or w/e if I were on a downer. I would split the stats into groups of stack sizes, i.e.

(a) 0-10 BBs
(b) 11-20 BBs
(c) 21-35 BBs
(d) 36-60 BBs
(e) 61+ BBs

Then, see how you are doing at each stack depth. I don't think it's nearly as useful, as a few posters suggested, to split up your stats based on each stage of the tournament. Is there really anyone who plays solid poker until only 5% of the field is left and then implodes? Doubtful.

If you're playing strong poker in level 1, then you're going to be a good closer, too -- the results may not have come yet but they will in time.

I think the skillsets required for different blind levels say t10/20 or t500/1000/a100 is definitely quite different and even though there is an obvious correlation between a strong bb/100 at both levels there will definitely be people who can "crush" t20 but suffer at 1000..

Won't that be reflected in their winrate with different stack sizes? Do you really think there are players who excel with 3k chips at 15/30 but struggle with 100k chips at 500/1k/100a? I beg to differ. Seems redundant to me.

Other peoples stack sizes. I find it useful to filter from bb>100 && < 5000 to get a less biased picture.

Just a quick note, your observed ROI with this kind of field size is never going to be meaningful. They're just too big. To get an idea of whether you're +EV or not, either play some smaller fields (much smaller) or, probably better, get a friend or coach to review your play.

In general effective stacks are way shorter at 500/1k so I think looking at winrates at different blindlevels is a good way to determine your skill in every stage of a tournament. It's not gonna paint a clear picture because there are different structures and different avg stacksizes in every tournament, but it's gonna give you an idea of how you are doing at all the different stages mtt poker has to offer :P

What is the evbb/100 of a decent MTT reg at mid stakes (30-60, someone with 30% ROI over massive sample)?
Is 10bbs/100 good (at all stack sizes)?
Is 30bbs/100 in early stage (100bbs+) standard?

Oh how naïve people were back then <3