Aggregate evaluation

When you fail to make the money in any of the sit and gos you play in a single session, it might not be the case that you're not playing well. On the other hand, that might indeed be the case. How can you distinguish a losing session where you played well from one where you played poorly? I've come up with a method. You need to use aggregated past results as a guide, where the aggregation is driven by characteristics of your current session. Let me use last night's session as an example. I played three sit and gos, and failed to make the money in any of them. However, I bubbled two of the three, and all three lasted a fair number of hands. My shortest sit and go lasted 37 hands, and my longest lasted 53. Using those numbers as bookends, I aggregated my results in all sit and go no limit hold'em tournaments which had a length in that range; here are the counts:

+-------+----------+
| place | count(*) |
+-------+----------+
|     1 |       35 |
|     2 |       48 |
|     3 |       62 |
|     4 |       36 |
|     5 |       11 |
+-------+----------+

If all of those 192 tournaments had been played at the $45,000 buy in level, I would have made a profit of $1,078,500 on them. That proves that I was playing quite well indeed last night, even though I failed to make the money. The real lesson here is that when you play sit and gos, you should pay very little attention to the results of any particular session; instead, you should take the long view and look at your results over extended periods of time.

buy_in entry players hands place winnings

 45000  5000       6    45     3        0
 45000  5000       6    37     4        0
 45000  5000       6    53     3        0

delta: $-150,000
Sit and go no limit hold'em balance: $294,700
balance: $7,385,164