Pokerstars best NLH players

[patrick]

Hello,

Who are the best NLH tourney players on Pokerstars ??

The PS leader board points rewards those who play a lot. So is not a very
scientific measure.
Even so alex1 might still come out on top.

It would also be nice to have a more detailed breakdown into tourney
type,country etc.

patrick

[eMarkM]

Yeah, I don't think the "leader" board can be used to determine who's
best. Just most prolifc. Based on the points I've accumulated it looks
like each point is worth about $5, more or less. I'll use alex1 as an
example, since he's the current leader. He has about 14K pts, so that
translates to around 70K in winnings. Impressive for a half year. But if
you look at completed tourneys at any given time, you'll find that this
fellow basically never sleeps. He seems to play every freakin tournament.
On a random 24hr period you can see he spends around $400-500 on fees a
day, sometimes more. If he spends $500/day on tourney fees, worked 25
weeks, 5 days/week, in this half year he's spent 62.5K to get his 70K. A
$7500 for all that time isn't quite as impressive.

Not to pick on this alex1, he obviously has skills to make so many final
tables, but I don't know if you can call him the best. Just seems he's
playing the most. I'm guessing some of these "leaders" may not even be
winning players at all since entry fees in tourneys where they didn't
place are not taken into account.

Can't say who's best. Haven't played any of them enough to say. Some on
the leaderboard I've played are, of course, quite good. But without
knowing how they fare in all the tourneys they play, it's too tough to say.

On Aug 26 2003 9:30PM, patrick wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Who are the best NLH tourney players on Pokerstars ??
>
> The PS leader board points rewards those who play a lot. So is not a very
> scientific measure.

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[Premier]

Your calculations are way off. I know for a fact alex has taken breaks,
some for as long as even a month. The only time I would stay up for about
15 straight hours of poker is if I was going for a point race, whether for
week or month. Also your calculations don't factor in big wins, such as a
$200 event win, etc. Anyways I'm #14th on the year and I am up a
significant amount, and I've been playing since April, not even the whole
year.
On Aug 27 2003 4:01AM, eMarkM wrote:

> Yeah, I don't think the "leader" board can be used to determine who's
> best. Just most prolifc. Based on the points I've accumulated it looks
> like each point is worth about $5, more or less. I'll use alex1 as an
> example, since he's the current leader. He has about 14K pts, so that
> translates to around 70K in winnings. Impressive for a half year. But if
> you look at completed tourneys at any given time, you'll find that this
> fellow basically never sleeps. He seems to play every freakin tournament.
> On a random 24hr period you can see he spends around $400-500 on fees a
> day, sometimes more. If he spends $500/day on tourney fees, worked 25
> weeks, 5 days/week, in this half year he's spent 62.5K to get his 70K. A
> $7500 for all that time isn't quite as impressive.
>
> Not to pick on this alex1, he obviously has skills to make so many final
> tables, but I don't know if you can call him the best. Just seems he's
> playing the most. I'm guessing some of these "leaders" may not even be
> winning players at all since entry fees in tourneys where they didn't
> place are not taken into account.
>
> Can't say who's best. Haven't played any of them enough to say. Some on
> the leaderboard I've played are, of course, quite good. But without
> knowing how they fare in all the tourneys they play, it's too tough to say.
>
> On Aug 26 2003 9:30PM, patrick wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Who are the best NLH tourney players on Pokerstars ??
> >
> > The PS leader board points rewards those who play a lot. So is not a very
> > scientific measure.

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[eMarkM]

> Your calculations are way off.

No doubt. I wasn't making an attempt to be accurate or suggest that alex
or you or anyone on that list is a long term loser. Just that the very
good players that play a LOT are the ones that make the list. It doesn't
mean they've won the most, net cash. A better system would be to account
for all buyins a player makes, perhaps deduct points for times when you
finish out of the money. Of course, Stars isn't going to change a thing,
since the point system rewards frequent play. They're not going to
discourage that.

> The only time I would stay up for about
> 15 straight hours of poker is if I was going for a point race, whether for
> week or month.

What's the point of a "point race"? Ok, the weekly winner gets the HU
freeroll for 1K vs McCovey, I'd certainly try to win that race. But
monthly and annual, who cares? It's not a reflection of who's really the
best, just the good players that play the most frequently.

> Also your calculations don't factor in big wins, such as a
> $200 event win, etc.

It doesn't? I thought the point system gave a lot more points for higher
buyin, amount of opponents, etc.

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[Nicolas Lefebvre]

I'm compiling currently data for tourneys with buy-in above or equal to 10$.
I'm using the pokerstars formula, less the buy-in factor, so
"10*(RACINE(x)/RACINE(y)))*(1+LOG(0,25))
And then I count the average points by tourneys
The main flaw is that 100$ tourney are harder to play than 10$ touneys
Anyway this system seems to be more accurate to know how are the best
players on the site
Don't know if Dan from Pokerstars would be happy if I publish the results

NL
Sorry for my english
"eMarkM" <anonymous@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message news:
3f4cedd8$0$10481$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> > Your calculations are way off.
>
> No doubt. I wasn't making an attempt to be accurate or suggest that alex
> or you or anyone on that list is a long term loser. Just that the very
> good players that play a LOT are the ones that make the list. It doesn't
> mean they've won the most, net cash. A better system would be to account
> for all buyins a player makes, perhaps deduct points for times when you
> finish out of the money. Of course, Stars isn't going to change a thing,
> since the point system rewards frequent play. They're not going to
> discourage that.
>
> > The only time I would stay up for about
> > 15 straight hours of poker is if I was going for a point race, whether
for
> > week or month.
>
> What's the point of a "point race"? Ok, the weekly winner gets the HU
> freeroll for 1K vs McCovey, I'd certainly try to win that race. But
> monthly and annual, who cares? It's not a reflection of who's really the
> best, just the good players that play the most frequently.
>
> > Also your calculations don't factor in big wins, such as a
> > $200 event win, etc.
>
> It doesn't? I thought the point system gave a lot more points for higher
> buyin, amount of opponents, etc.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
>
>

[wg bradley]

"eMarkM" <anonymous@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f4cc5a7$0$23203$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> Yeah, I don't think the "leader" board can be used to determine
who's
> best. Just most prolifc. Based on the points I've accumulated it
looks
> like each point is worth about $5, more or less. I'll use alex1 as
an
> example, since he's the current leader. He has about 14K pts, so
that
> translates to around 70K in winnings. Impressive for a half year.
But if
> you look at completed tourneys at any given time, you'll find that
this
> fellow basically never sleeps. He seems to play every freakin
tournament.
> On a random 24hr period you can see he spends around $400-500 on
fees a
> day, sometimes more. If he spends $500/day on tourney fees, worked
25
> weeks, 5 days/week, in this half year he's spent 62.5K to get his
70K. A
> $7500 for all that time isn't quite as impressive.
>
> Not to pick on this alex1, he obviously has skills to make so many
final
> tables, but I don't know if you can call him the best. Just seems
he's
> playing the most. I'm guessing some of these "leaders" may not even
be
> winning players at all since entry fees in tourneys where they
didn't
> place are not taken into account.
>
> Can't say who's best. Haven't played any of them enough to say.
Some on
> the leaderboard I've played are, of course, quite good. But without
> knowing how they fare in all the tourneys they play, it's too tough
to say.

You are right. PokerStars is great but their so-called "leaderboard"
is downright st00pid. And then to claim on their website the the board
tells you who the the best tourney players on Stars are is
....well...let's just be polite and give them the benefit of the doubt
and say it's misguided (Even though I pointed this out to them months
ago but they haven't revised this claim on their site). IMO PokerStars
is THE tourney site on the net, so to devise a "leaderboard" that
isn't based on ROI baffles and disappoints me. It's something I'd
expect from one of the lesser sites but unbecoming of a site of
PokerStars' stature. It's basically just an incentive to get players
to play ever more and ever higher tourneys.

[Augie Chiausa]

I thought Pokerstars used the same formula as Cardplayer does in its "Player
of the Year". Chris Fergeson had a similar complaint that it punishes
people who don't play a scadillion tournaments.

"wg bradley" <check@archives.ca> wrote in message
news:x%73b.852967$ro6.16905663@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> "eMarkM" <anonymous@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3f4cc5a7$0$23203$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> > Yeah, I don't think the "leader" board can be used to determine
> who's
> > best. Just most prolifc. Based on the points I've accumulated it
> looks
> > like each point is worth about $5, more or less. I'll use alex1 as
> an
> > example, since he's the current leader. He has about 14K pts, so
> that
> > translates to around 70K in winnings. Impressive for a half year.
> But if
> > you look at completed tourneys at any given time, you'll find that
> this
> > fellow basically never sleeps. He seems to play every freakin
> tournament.
> > On a random 24hr period you can see he spends around $400-500 on
> fees a
> > day, sometimes more. If he spends $500/day on tourney fees, worked
> 25
> > weeks, 5 days/week, in this half year he's spent 62.5K to get his
> 70K. A
> > $7500 for all that time isn't quite as impressive.
> >
> > Not to pick on this alex1, he obviously has skills to make so many
> final
> > tables, but I don't know if you can call him the best. Just seems
> he's
> > playing the most. I'm guessing some of these "leaders" may not even
> be
> > winning players at all since entry fees in tourneys where they
> didn't
> > place are not taken into account.
> >
> > Can't say who's best. Haven't played any of them enough to say.
> Some on
> > the leaderboard I've played are, of course, quite good. But without
> > knowing how they fare in all the tourneys they play, it's too tough
> to say.
>
> You are right. PokerStars is great but their so-called "leaderboard"
> is downright st00pid. And then to claim on their website the the board
> tells you who the the best tourney players on Stars are is
> ...well...let's just be polite and give them the benefit of the doubt
> and say it's misguided (Even though I pointed this out to them months
> ago but they haven't revised this claim on their site). IMO PokerStars
> is THE tourney site on the net, so to devise a "leaderboard" that
> isn't based on ROI baffles and disappoints me. It's something I'd
> expect from one of the lesser sites but unbecoming of a site of
> PokerStars' stature. It's basically just an incentive to get players
> to play ever more and ever higher tourneys.
>
>

[Spielmacher]

As an interesting sidebar: who would you consider the best Pokerstars
cashgame players? Spielmacher