Stats for probability occurence

[Gabesaurus]

Are there stats or reports that can tell you the odds of being knocked out of tournaments over a sample size by hand strengths and weaknesses?
I don’t know how to do it but I know stats and reports can calibrate ‘luck’ occurences.

For example, if you’re itm 3 out of 5 tournaments or knocked out on the bubble 10/10 times.

How do we track these?

[WhiteRider]

I'm not sure exactly what you want to see - that sort of thing is pretty tricky since the circumstances can vary so much. Can you give us a specific example of what you want to see?

[Gabesaurus]

I am thinking of some kind of an algorithm like the one used to catch potripper.
But not necessarily for just looking at negative occurences, but to see how often a player wins when underdog- how often and how long.

In backgammon you could say someone rolled 66 x number of times in a match or game and apply the odds of each time by how many times and whether the roll had positive or negative value.

If a player plays a given amount (say 1000) of tournaments and feels they were exceptionally unlucky, there has to be a way to asign a value and method for comparable results.

[kraada]

All of the information is available to everyone in backgammon - it's not in poker. The players in that situation were playing 90% or more of hole cards, winning at phenomenal rates and never losing at showdown. I guarantee if you look at a player at any site we support you'll never again see that happen for anybody.

[Gabesaurus]

I don’t think the equation I am thinking of is incomplete information.

Player 1 and 2 (or more) are all in, hand strength, winning chances pre, stack size in relation to table, stack size in relation to average, how close to the money/final table, are all known variables.

Let’s say you were double avg, on the bubble, 60/40 favorite vs villain who has you covered and won 10 times in a row all in pre flop, you would have a very high luck factor. If you lost 10 times in a row you would have an even worse luck factor.

[kraada]

That kind of analysis wouldn't have shown anything about Potripper and cohorts - they were playing cash games and seeing hole cards, the actual deal was still random.

You could do this kind of analysis if you so desired, but what you'd find is that, yes, the deck truly is random.

[Gabesaurus]

And that it would be useful in seeing ones own pattern of play. It is a learning tool.

[Edit/Kraada: Edited by user request.]