How Many Have A Chance To Win?

[Al Smooth 0]

From playing in some WPT events and now my second WSOP ME, there are obviously less skilled players in the ME. The ultimate quesiton is, how many? In a usual WPT event, you can pick out one or two players at each table to target for chips at any point in a day 1, but after that, it's pretty tough. At the end of my day 1 in the ME, there were six people who me and a very good player felt had no chance at even cashing (at best, one maybe two will fold to the money). This made me think about the tournament as a whole. Maybe I was just at a super easy table, or maybe every table on day 1 is like that. What do you guys think, and how does that relate to the major tournaments online (since the fields in the Million is similar to the ME in size and range of talent)? Anyway, based on my play last year and yesterday I'd say that 60% of the people who start have zero chance of getting deep or even cashing...in the case of this tournament that makes 36 million of dead money...WOW. Thoughts?

[HubDub04 0]

1 give or take 3.

[chrozzo 19]

no one will win

[r0llin_game 1]

KK cracking AA on 6 high flops help =Dbut yea, there is def. alot of dead money, but remember even some of the dead money (ala Jamie Gold) can ran hotter then a mofo for a week. i'd say bout 35-40% of the field actually has a clue of what they are doin

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

that's why you keep going deep in these events, right? Oh wait...just kidding, but I'm sure it's amazing to experience this in person . Last night, I watched that LA Classic WPT where the guy that won appeared clueless, just clueless. Open limping from EP with KQ three handed, calling reraises with garbage, etc. He won over 2 million dollars, so I suppose anything is possible. Just depends how lucky someone can get in the right spots, how many beats they put on people, how cold a deck they can give to people. Look at Jamie Gold last year. Not saying he didn't make a few nice plays, but he cold decked a lot of people and kept flopping the nuts. Then, when you have enough chips, anything can happen.So, lets summarize. I half heartedly insulted you in a fit of jealousy and didn't really answer your question. Enjoy.

[a__thekevlar__2 0]

id say that you could get down to the final 200 people and never face a tough opponent in this. therefore you don't have to be that great to win, as long as you accummulate enough chips early on so that when you get to the point where people know what theyre doing you have the advantage just because you have more chips.

[Freddec 0]

I think these bad players Al is talking about are even worse the Jamie Gold. There are hundreds of people who play this tourny, and this tourny ONLY, every year, just because they have the money to do so. Jamie Gold atleast has a poker background and was a regular player. There are tons of people in this tourny who have no "regular" poker background at all. Know what I'm sayin???

[Cappy37 0]

You *HAVE* to accumulate chips. You *HAVE* to know when to switch gears. You *HAVE* to run goot in coin flips. That said, you'll notice that outside of Gold, Farha, and Arieh, you don't see too many maniacs making it that far. You are far more likely to see TAGs than LAGs, but the LAG who's running 80% on his coin flips is the one you are going to have to chip away at..Look at these names from the last few years: Wasicka, Binger, Cunningham, Williams, Matusow, Sheikan, Harrington, Krux, Raymer, Hachem, Black, Grey, Singer, Ivey.... The skills (discounting the luck, which is huuuuge) needed to survivie that kind of field requires are mentioned in my first sentence. Of course, with a field that large, my hat goes off to both Raymer and Hachem for making deep runs in back to back years.. That's truly an astounding feat.

[SilentButDeadly3 0]

You *HAVE* to accumulate chips. You *HAVE* to know when to switch gears. You *HAVE* to run goot and hit two outers.

FYP

[Freddec 0]

You *HAVE* to accumulate chips. You *HAVE* to know when to switch gears. You *HAVE* to run goot in coin flips. That said, you'll notice that outside of Gold, Farha, and Arieh, you don't see too many maniacs making it that far. You are far more likely to see TAGs than LAGs, but the LAG who's running 80% on his coin flips is the one you are going to have to chip away at..Look at these names from the last few years: Wasicka, Binger, Cunningham, Williams, Matusow, Sheikan, Harrington, Krux, Raymer, Hachem, Black, Grey, Singer, Ivey.... The skills (discounting the luck, which is huuuuge) needed to survivie that kind of field requires are mentioned in my first sentence. Of course, with a field that large, my hat goes off to both Raymer and Hachem for making deep runs in back to back years.. That's truly an astounding feat.

very well put........in my prior post i was responding to the people earlier bringing up Gold as one of these "clueless players". While he's not world class he still understands the deep stack play and how to play as a chipleader. There are some people out there who have no clue what they are doing. You don't see these guys so much in the preliminary events because they think the WSOP is just one tournament (Main Event)........

[chrozzo 19]

no one will win

sodrry, but it s asknow fact

[Veener Schnitz 0]

she treats me like a don, watchs for the hitshe checks where i go, even watchs who im witthe right when im wrong, so i never slipshow me how to move, thats why i never tripand babygirl you so major, they should front page yagod bless the parents who made yamiddle finger anybody who hate theway we burn it up

[Jdr999 0]

id say that you could get down to the final 200 people and never face a tough opponent in this. therefore you don't have to be that great to win, as long as you accummulate enough chips early on so that when you get to the point where people know what theyre doing you have the advantage just because you have more chips.

LOL @ Irony of your post and avatar!

[Al Smooth 0]

While Gold isn't the best player, he wouldn't be one of the people in that 60% figure I mentioned initially. I mean, look at his results...the guy had played a LOT of tournament poker before last year's ME and had enough experience to have a "chance" when the thing started. RM - I never said I had won a Major, but I do have enough experience and knowledge about the game to feel like I've got a shot at going deep in major tournaments if the situations present themselves.lol @ me hitting a 2 outer. Still don't believe that happened.

[Bizzle 0]

Anyway, based on my play last year and yesterday I'd say that 60% of the people who start have zero chance of getting deep or even cashing...in the case of this tournament that makes 36 million of dead money...WOW. Thoughts?

I'm with you on the WPT tables-I would say that on average, there were 2-3 at each table that are targetable for chips.I'm not with you on the WSOP (at least, not completely). Granted, this experience is totally biased for me due to my incredibly tough WSOP starting table last year (there was probably one weak player, who naturally picked up AA when I had KK, it was good times). Even still, I feel like you are underestimating the ability of weaker players in the main event to get into the money. I would say that in the main event a max of 20% have zero chance of making the money, while a solid 30% more have a very very low chance of making it deep.But once again, my glasses are prolly a little tinted due to my experience last year. I think the kicker for me was after I got eliminated, Tom got moved into my seat (he started one table over) and came home late that night and said "Holy hell, that was the toughest table I've ever played at in a big buyin event."

[gilbertology 0]

i wish i wouldve played this.many donks will cash...like jeremy roeknick

[Al Smooth 0]

I'm with you on the WPT tables-I would say that on average, there were 2-3 at each table that are targetable for chips.I'm not with you on the WSOP (at least, not completely). Granted, this experience is totally biased for me due to my incredibly tough WSOP starting table last year (there was probably one weak player, who naturally picked up AA when I had KK, it was good times). Even still, I feel like you are underestimating the ability of weaker players in the main event to get into the money. I would say that in the main event a max of 20% have zero chance of making the money, while a solid 30% more have a very very low chance of making it deep.But once again, my glasses are prolly a little tinted due to my experience last year. I think the kicker for me was after I got eliminated, Tom got moved into my seat (he started one table over) and came home late that night and said "Holy hell, that was the toughest table I've ever played at in a big buyin event."

My starting table yesterday was pretty tough with Elky, Tom Schnieder and Eugene Todd, but even that table had at least four targets at it. Maybe I was just lucky on Day 1 this and last year and I'm underestimating the strength of the field, but I played at four tables yesterday and there were at LEAST five targets at every table at all times, with as high as 7 at one point on my last table.

[Jam-Fly 8]

From playing in some WPT events and now my second WSOP ME, there are obviously less skilled players in the ME. The ultimate quesiton is, how many? In a usual WPT event, you can pick out one or two players at each table to target for chips at any point in a day 1, but after that, it's pretty tough. At the end of my day 1 in the ME, there were six people who me and a very good player felt had no chance at even cashing (at best, one maybe two will fold to the money). This made me think about the tournament as a whole. Maybe I was just at a super easy table, or maybe every table on day 1 is like that. What do you guys think, and how does that relate to the major tournaments online (since the fields in the Million is similar to the ME in size and range of talent)? Anyway, based on my play last year and yesterday I'd say that 60% of the people who start have zero chance of getting deep or even cashing...in the case of this tournament that makes 36 million of dead money...WOW. Thoughts?

WOW, 60%?? I can only go by what I've heard from people that the WSOP is a massive donkfest but 60%?!?! That's a crazy number

[Jam-Fly 8]

You *HAVE* to accumulate chips. You *HAVE* to know when to switch gears. You *HAVE* to run goot in coin flips. That said, you'll notice that outside of Gold, Farha, and Arieh, you don't see too many maniacs making it that far. You are far more likely to see TAGs than LAGs, but the LAG who's running 80% on his coin flips is the one you are going to have to chip away at..Look at these names from the last few years: Wasicka, Binger, Cunningham, Williams, Matusow, Sheikan, Harrington, Krux, Raymer, Hachem, Black, Grey, Singer, Ivey.... The skills (discounting the luck, which is huuuuge) needed to survivie that kind of field requires are mentioned in my first sentence. Of course, with a field that large, my hat goes off to both Raymer and Hachem for making deep runs in back to back years.. That's truly an astounding feat.

I'm not sure if I agree with this.I don't think any one 'style' will make it farther than another (assuming both styles are optimal, e.g. Harrington may be TAG while Negreanu may be LAG, but both are highly successful).Although, I would say that if I had to pick a style, I would pick LAG, simply because, you have to build up chips. Also, if guys like DN, Smith, Mizrachi can play like 60% of the hands, that gives them 3x the amount of hands to win money off the super-donks at the table than TAGs.Just my $0.02