IMO this is is just a bit of an overreaction. While it could have been interpreted as a douche-e act, he really was just organizing some info that any one of us could have gone on the website and found out.

lolz, ya i dont win

http://officialpokerrankings.com/pok...83C18.html?t=2

kill yourself

If Daniel is so eager to post results of the WPT events, would it be possible for someone to post lifetime results for all players on High Stakes Poker by Season and on a cumulative basis?

I have watched several years worth of these shows, and would love to see this published somewhere.

On the other hand, Im not sure if Daniel would like this info to get out ........

Ummm I don't think he really cares if these stats get out. Its pretty well documented how much he has lost by watching each season. Then again I have a feeling if they did put up stats I'm sure he'd figure it out...I'm a sicko too and love sports stats and try to figure them out myself, why wouldn't he.

Stop being butt hurt and figure out his stats yourself.

he used to publish his results in his blog, despite being pretty much an indefinite loser online (if im remembering correctly) so i doubt he would be against it.

The WPT results for me are a bit skewed. I lost a well publicized sick WPT final table hand with A10 v A8 to a runner runner 34567 board that cost me a few hundred thousand in equity. I suppose If I won that hand my ROI would be over 10K.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJq7lUFUeSc

It just shows how skewed these results can be.

Also, I'd say I get into most of these events for far less than the $10k or $15K buyin, at one point I had won entries to 6 consecutive events in Super Satellites (one shot).

Actually, I have made 3 final tables out of 71 WPT main events entered. They dont show the third one since i finished 9th (only the TV table is showin in the stats).

Didn't Matusow teach you about the whole positive thinking thing?

You get it in a a 70% fav and you're shaking your head, then you basically ask for a straight card on the turn and that's exactly what you get lol

"FML, A10 vs. A8"

I see your point chainsaw. I think just about everybody in this thread understands how small a sample size of 30 is for mtts. Most people also realize how huge one suck out or one set up hand can change mtt results.
One flip at the right /wrong time can be the difference between a winning /losing year for a live mtt player.

I have no idea how often people ask DN to put them into events. Maybe its so often that it wears on him. Heck, maybe several people on the negitive list have approached him a bunch of times and he published the list to get them to back off a bit. I still don't see the need for that list, but it could look different through his eyes.

Not sure if your example shows how stats are skewed... Just shows that it's a small sample size and can be ignored.

That said, DN acknowledges that the sample is too small to gain anything useful from (it's just interesting, according to him), and he also agrees 100% with your point that satting into the events can make a "loser" in his definition (10k) an actual winner IRL.

OT

Wouldn't the true bottom 10 players have negative numbers?
That's how it works on sharkscope.

That bottom ten list seems meaningless.

im so tilted by this its unreal. Please explain what your point is if possible. Are you saying that since im staked im obv a losing player or what?

not sure why so many are riding DN's nuts about this but this is obviously a classless maneuver.

What would you say if Albert pujols posted in his blog about the 10 worst hitters in baseball (not to compare DN to pujols but) and said something like "hope these guys have fun trying to sign a new contract."?

LOL, I don't even know you but +1, even got infraction points

I would feel sorry for the team that has a scout/GM/president who values Albert Pujols blog post over the numbers that are published.


"Well Brandon Inge, while we respect all that you do out on the field and such. Due to this post by Albert Pujols, we here in the Tiger organization are going to have to ask you to take a pay cut you from the time."

you don't need to say nada.
Your stats say all that needs to be said.

this is absolutely and positively allowed.

exactly...anyone who is looking for backing isn't going to say. "Well you have nice results online, BUT you weren't on DN top ten list so no moneys for you"

pretty sure she was talking about me here, not the players daniel's talking about.

Also i dont get what ur saying about brandon inge, my point was that pujols would be a jerk to do something like that, do u disagree?

He doesn't have to. It's already done. Whereas in poker it hasn't been.

except it is, on the site that DN pulled it from, WPT.com

negreanu also "didn't have to" cuz its already done. they have everyones winnings and everyones events entered listed very nicely on the site. All he did was calculate ROI's and shame a bunch of players with poor results, not like he compiled anything new for anyone.

Umm its impossible get runner runnered when u get it in preflop.

Is he one of 9 below 10K. I think he is just getting unlucky late. He may be playing scared but I think his ROI will go positive if he continues cashing at 30% rate.

Also 50 tournaments in not enough to make any statistically valid ROI determinations. I would bet that the top 10 on the list from this day forward would have ROI less than 300%. Take a top win away from each player and ROI drops drastically. Mortenson won 2 MM I think in WPT championship. Take badbeat away from earning nothing.

The whole point of the blog was to show interesting numbers and stats from the WPT that are accessible from the site. Nowhere do I make the claim that the bottom 10 are losing players, just that there results rank in the bottom 10 of players who've played 30 events. Matt Glantz is on that list. I've played with him, and I know he's a good player.
That only exemplifies my point further: even good players can go on long droughts in tournament poker, so it's necessary to subsidize your income by playing cash and satellites.

My spreadsheet included 176 players, someone had to rank 174th. If I stopped it at 144 players, someone would be in the "bottom three." You can't post a list without both a top, and a bottom, no matter where you cut it off.

My spreadsheet showed all of the players. In my blog, I highlighted a few things from it, including things I thought people may find interesting, i.e. the top 10 women, top 10 in cash pct., etc.

I guess you didn't suck out once for all your chips in all the hands preceding the final table, right?

I honestly think illuminating the fact that even solid players have very little equity in tournaments over anything other than a large sample is counterproductive.

I think I'd rather work in a factory than fly all over the world trying to make a living at tournaments.

But if I decided to sack up and make the effort, I sure wouldn't want the unhealthy money (no, not dead) to know they were sick.

Interesting stats, though.

The OP copied the wrong list. What DN called ROI, which is probably percentage cashed, is ready an unimportant list. It's who won what that counts. Only David Chiu made both list.

Think DN is telling the poker community that few, very few, poker pros are making money playing tournaments.