Who? It’s your topic and your idea. You’re the best person to argue about it with 
Jeeze, we finally agree on something. Yay!
The problem is that in your Bank history, it’s easy to filter RG chips from Tournament winnings. But in your hand Statistics, all types of play are lumped together. So you’ll never sort that mess out.
1 Like
Exactly!!! You can’t really separate them.
Clearly, you find this to be at least semi-interesting-ish, or you wouldn’t be spending so much time telling us why it’s not. Are you just trying to be difficult?
1 Like
I’m just trying to be factual. It would’ve been more than semi-interesting-ish if it was doable, manageable, and useful. But it factually isn’t. Just making my point. 
I’m actually very interested in finding a way to evaluate skill and this idea could work if it was possible, as puggy said, to separate “chips won” in tournaments from those won in ring games. But this data isn’t available to us. And as a tournament player, the number of hands played vs chips won doesn’t lead anywhere in skill evaluation. That’s all.
1 Like
Yes dear. I don’t know how I could have been silly enough to doubt you. You are, of course, 100% right.
I did mention that I don’t play ring games, right?
So you just want us to agree with you, and if not, we get your classic sarcastic reply? I am genuinely discussing your idea and giving you my point of view.
If you just wanted me to agree that it’s interesting and post my results I can do it just to please you, sir!
I don’t care if you or anyone agrees with me, in this thread or ever, on any topic.
Anyway, it would be nice to be able to separate it out if you play both ring and tournies. i don’t, and you can’t. So, within it’s limitations, which I freely admit, i still think it’s a semi-interesting-ish way to track how you’re doing.
And you are very likely to get my sarcasm even if you do agree with me!
From my Bank history:
RG Play: Chips put in: 3625000 Chips came out: 4074134 Net: 449134
I have no way to figure out how many hands of RG I’ve played, but it’s obviously capped at the total number of hands that I’ve played, which is 28650. But I’d guesstimate that I’ve probably played about 75% Tournament, and 25% Ring, if that. So if that’s accurate, then I’ve won 449134 chips with around 7162.5 hands, which amounts to just 62.7 chips/hand.
I tried running numbers for tournaments, but something’s screwy with the data and I don’t trust what I’m seeing. It’s too late for me to try to figure out what the problem is, so I’ll have to leave it for now.
2 Likes
Well, you could note your bank and hands played now, then just play ring or tounies for a week and get useful data.
You can then see how your bank moved in the time period and how many hands you played, and get a number. One could do this every week or every day, or each session, or whatever, and it would generate useful data.
But if you do that, it would go from semi-interesting-ish to just interesting.
You could play 50 hands in a tournament, and you could have won 49 of them, and only lost 1 which knocked you out of the tournament. So you would have played 50 hands, won 49, lost only 1, and yet not won a single chip for your effort.
Whilst every hand played and won in a ring game affects your bank, hands won in a tournament don’t necessarily do.
In fact, the number of hands won in a tourney could harm your calculations, because it will increase the number of hands you won, without having any increase on your bank. So you’re still dividing the same number of chips you won by a much larger number of hands won.
The data you get from chips won/ hands won in tournaments is therefore useless in determining how your game is improving. I don’t know how to say it clearer. It’s ok if you still finding semi-interesting-ish, but it really isn’t helpful AT ALL for tournament players.
Probably counting how many hands you win in a tourney vs how many hands you lose could be indicative of skill somehow, but there are many tournaments where you win many many hands and don’t end up in the top 3 or 4 paid places, which means you win 0 chips for all your efforts, but that doesn’t indicate how well or bad you played AT ALL.
Sorry I keep disagreeing, but that’s only because I disagree 
I tend to agree with @Maya in that this has its limits for how useful it is due to the way tournaments work. But I also think it’s interesting to run the numbers anyway. It’s sort of like a batting average or a QB rating. Maybe it doesn’t tell you the whole story, but, understanding the limitations, if you perform the math the same way you end up with a number that you can use to compare two different players and get some sense of how they compare in this specific equation.
For better tournament analysis, you can take the number of tournaments entered, divided into the amount of real chips won less the number of real chips spent on the buy-in, and not worry about the number of hands played or the number of intra-tournament chips won.
Figured I’d put together a little info for the group…
Using @SunPowerGuru’s calculation I’m at about 340.
However, I actually went through and created a fairly good estimate of RG hands I’ve played. This number being a total including all the rags I mucked pre-flop, I’ve come up with around 100 chips per RG hand.
(This was somewhat painful, but not the worst thing I’ve had to do. 3/10 do not recommend.)
2 Likes
Thanks Fozman. Very semi-interesting-ish.
Just for the record, I never suggested this was useful in any way, shape, or form, at least not as originally posted. I clearly said that I came up with a number, but had no idea what it meant, or if it meant anything. If someone has a tool, but has no idea what it’s for, it can hardly be useful.
I think it’s mildly interesting that the one side of the moon always faces Earth. I don’t think this fact is useful.
I think playing poker on Replay is interesting, but it’s not exactly useful to me. There are a great many things I find interesting that have no real use at all. So what?
If I say, “I think scrambled eggs are interesting,” and someone comes back with, “bacon isn’t very useful,” yes, it’s mildly irritating. I apologize for letting myself be dragged into a meaningless and childish argument over something that had absolutely nothing to do with my post.
Granted, this information, as presented, isn’t useful. I never said it was, so won’t bother debating the issue further.
Lacking access to hand histories, it would be nice to have a fast, simple metric by which to gauge one’s progress. I think this general idea could easily be adapted, perhaps on a month by month basis, to provide that metric to those who focus on one form of poker or another (ring or tournaments)
How many chips did I actually win last month? How many hands did I actually play? Fast, simple, easy to do, and at least semi-useful-ish.
1 Like
Thank you for calling our discussion childish and meaningless. I just wanted to point out that it had everything to do with your post, and you just didn’t like it. Not sure why you want to belittle it, but ok.
Regarding your last post:
and
Not going to debate it any further, but just look at what you said just before that:
and
So you did say it was useful in some way, shape and form, and that’s what triggered the debate. Now you’re denying it for some reason, but that’s ok too.
Anyway, no need to continue discussing something you think is childish and meaningless. But just as you disagree with posters on some of their ideas, you should be prepared for others to disagree with you on some of your ideas, and there’s nothing wrong, childish, or meaningless about that.
The “hands folded” includes hands that were initially played but don’t remain in play to the showdown. I suspect that could skew the calculation by enough to matter.
3 Likes
Oh, I didn’t realize that. If you are sure about that, yes, it would skew the results. I should use the “flops seen” number instead?
I think that, as long as one is consistent in how they get their number of chips per hand, it would yeild a numbet that is at least quasi-useful-ish. I’m looking for a simple way to gauge my game month after month. If I see a big swing one way or the other, I can dig deeper to try to figure out why it changed.
You guys need to see a couples therapist, seriously!
3 Likes
I wouldn’t bet my life on it, but that’s what it looks like. So, yes, “Flops Seen” is likely a more consistent number. At a minimum, we know what it includes.
1 Like