how can i consider someone as a good tournament player ?

there are a lot of player databases. there some statistics about a player is shown. i want your opinions about them. who is a good player, who is one of best ?

for a field size larger than 100; what do you think a players "final table rate" "top 3 rate", "cash rate" must be to be considered as a good tournament player ?

i think this is a beauty is in the eye of the beholder kind of thing. aside from the great players we all know and see on television. because i could say that someone like phil helmuth is a terrible tourney player, thats not true but, technically its all in the persons opinion. as for the best player in my eyes it has to be gauged on bracelet wins, as this is the ultimate goal of any poker player

actually i am asking specific percentages. for example %10 final table rate is good ? or normal ? analysis of these percentages ; "final table rate" "top 3 rate" "cash rate". i appreciate all answers

i agree whit corrado on the bracelets things but you gotta admit phill ivey beats hellmuth evryday
hellmuth thinks hes the best of all and than whines if he loses
but it sometimes give some funny moments hehe

Good tourny players?

I really don't think the number of braclets is the BEST way to determine if a player is 'good'--acourse it does say alot about them, but I think the best way to determin who's REALLY, REALLY good wpould be the number of cashes a player has in the past year! AND, how much money was accumulated in those cashes! A player can win a braclet and that IS good, and he would have won alot of money on that one win---BUT if it's his ONLY win of the year, he has 1 win!!! A "GOOD" player will have won maybe less money, but if he wins, lets say 36 cashes, who's really the better player? 1 win-1 braclet-1 cash OR 0 wins-0 braclets-36 cashes? Now, who's the better player? to my thinking, 36 cashes is the better player!

I have to admit Phil H has been acting more like a dick the last 2 years vs. just kind of a bitchy player pre 2 years. Before 2 years ago he was super popular, the fans loved him. Now he gets boooooooo's when he's at tournaments. If I where him I could care less. He's making a crap load of money no matter what everyday all day. Even if he doesn't cash in anymore tournaments for ever he's set for life!!!

I would say a poker player is most successful if they cash more and more often. For pro players, the main goal is to make money (i'm assuming), and by law, the more cashes that you make, the more money you earn. Even though some pros don't cash often but win the big tournaments with the huge prize pools, I still feel as though a better player cashes more often than others.

I think the most important thing is not the money earned. I guess best tourney player is chris ferguson itself. I think sometimes on tourney table things may go well beyond bad. So you can do nothing

Everyone missed the point of the OP

What the OP is asking is what stats on (OPR) do you use to evaluate whether an online player is a good tournament player or not. This was not a discussion about who the best live tournament player is.

sisko said:

there are a lot of player databases. there some statistics about a player is shown. i want your opinions about them. who is a good player, who is one of best ?

for a field size larger than 100; what do you think a players "final table rate" "top 3 rate", "cash rate" must be to be considered as a good tournament player ?

Click to expand...

To answer the OP...

If you are talking OPR then look at their distribution of finishes. It should be heavily skewed towards the end.

An ITM of 15% or greater and lots of final tables.

All dependant on field size of course how many FTs they'll make.

The money won can be very misleading with a lucky result skewing a bad player into profit or a good player being negative ROI% for a decent sample.

Speaking of which if they've got less than 50 recorded then it's very hard to tell much unless there's a really clear pattern and less than 100 is still not much evidence.

Generally though the OPR rankings for the year seem to do a pretty good job of sorting things out and taking account of all the variables. They keep exactly how they do it a secret but you won't find many donks near the top or good players near the bottom.

i agree that when a player always cashes in then he is a good player and to be a good player i think should be also a wise player who stops playing while still ahead.

Here's some bodog stats for a guy that I know is a good tourney player and makes money. I think they're pretty typical of very good tourney players. These stats are just Bodog MTTs for 2008.

Total Played: 267
Cashes: 66 24.72%
Final Tables: 45 16.85% this seems high prolly due to some small
fields. I think 10% or so is good here .
Top 3 Rate: 7.12%
Thirds: 7 2.62%
Seconds: 6 2.25%
Wins: 6 2.25%

Winnings: $22,208.83
Average Cash: $ 336.50
Biggest Buy-in $ 200.00

Average finish: 34/100
Average field size: 209

Return on Investment: I don't have this because I don't subscribe. But, I
had a subscription for a couple of months and
remember that it was a very good ROI.


These stats came from ThePokerDB

Hope that helps give you and idea.

Yeah and also theres some ranking databases and websites around, they will give you info on a lot of players.

i wouldnt read into what u see on these online databases. some players are just unlucky a lot or better playing live. plus i do believe that some poker sites are rigged.i have no proof of that but i just see way too many miracle river cards online. i see them in casinos but no where near as much as when i play online. id say make ur own judgement.

I think it is the amount of times that a person cashes in a tournament. Just because a person wins one tournament, but does not consistently make it in the money does not mean there a good tournament player. Just look at Gus Hanson he is a great player, but you can not say that he is not good just because he has never won a bracelet before. I think consitency is the name of the game.

I would pay to much attention to the cash they've won bc they could have won that in 1 tourny. I would say if they have mad alot of final tables i would consider them a good tourny player. On any given day some could win a tourny just look at Jamie Gold

IMHO none of the player databases as they are are even remotely accurate at present. that being said, i really dont know how seriously you can take any of them if youre so gung-ho about rating your fellow (online) poker tourney opponents.

id say esp if u frequent same types/buyins to simply build up a good notes database instead on the ppl u play against.

BrentD22 said:

I have to admit Phil H has been acting more like a dick the last 2 years vs. just kind of a bitchy player pre 2 years. Before 2 years ago he was super popular, the fans loved him. Now he gets boooooooo's when he's at tournaments.!

Click to expand...

Isnt that just the image he wants though. The Mr Unpopular..

People like the bad guy. They want him there so someone can stuff him and they can laugh..

Hellmuth has created this persona, and being fair, its worked.

I for one would love to see him in action, not because of his poker skills but because of his reputation..