Be A Part Of The Wpt Championship

[makeyourself 0]

OK, just to set the record straight here...I was NOT trying to berate anyone here for taking a stake in Looshle at the WPT Championship. I was merely commenting on how the payout odds didn't justify the risk. This is true for ALL tournaments when everyone has an equal chance of winning. You can argue that Looshle has a better than average chance of winning, maybe he does. But tournaments NEVER pay out equitably, and never will. It's the way it goes.I will apologize if I offended anyone with my comment about Looshle being the only one who was not a sucker in the deal. It was intended as a joke, because I fully realized that his odds of getting paid were the exact same as your odds of getting paid. But when only he has control over how he does, I was simply equating it to buying a Keno ticket where the payouts aren't even close to the odds of hitting your numbers. That's all.

if you read my post above that you will realise that if everybody has an even chance of winning then the tournament is pointless... do you agree on that or am i thinking wrong?the reason poker tournaments exist is to give the people who are better than other the edge. and thus the 'dead money' played a far worse chance odds. so with a tourney of 10k buy in (maybe not this 25k one as its more of a show than a tourney in my eyes, just a bragging rites event') then there are probably alot of awful players. i certainly am not offended by your post, but i did'nt stake him. the only tournaments which would adhere to your odds point would be satellites etc.

[Scanner313 0]

Holy ****! I give up! I would have thought that on a forum where generally good poker players hang out, that someone would understand the concept of odds, and would understand my point.Maybe it was too blatant. Maybe the concept of payout odds not equaling the buy-in risk is too complex for people. All I can think is that I struck a nerve with my sucker comment, which I already stated was a joke. I give up. I'm conceding this to you all as obviously it's not making sense for whatever reason.

[makeyourself 0]

maybe its just me... but your whole 'you don't get the odds payout idea/concept/comment' would only be possible EVER if all buyin's were put to one prize!I personally think either is you that is slow and not understand our point or that your original idea is completly pointless. you will never ever get those statistical odds, the whole point of a poker tournament is the odds of your cashing, and then ontop of that the return you would expect and where you would have to finish for this tourney to be profitable overall. not just in on tourney but over many..... don't take offence but i think its crazy to say people have no understood you. they have and realised 'what the hell is this dude on'

[FoxwoodsPro 0]

People did it to have a routing interest in the 2nd biggest tourney of they year. It may of not been the most sure thing investment but that wasn't the point. I think we can all agree on that. end of argument?Group e- hug?

[DoinSublime 0]

No, please enlighten me. Are you saying that Looshle has a better than average chance of winning with almost every top pro in the world in this tourney? Or are you saying he has a less than average chance of winning?And with everyone starting from the same point, what a horrible assumption it would be to say he's got as much of a chance as everyone else. What was I thinking?

Since you're having a hard time here, I just want to be clear.Given his record, Looshle had a much better chance than the average entrant to win this thing.gg.

[Scanner313 0]

if you read my post above that you will realise that if everybody has an even chance of winning then the tournament is pointless... do you agree on that or am i thinking wrong?

In a perfect situation, where luck plays no part, I agree with you. The best will come out ahead. But when you see amatuers winning 5 of the last WSOP main events, it proves that luck has a major part in it. Who on this site (or any other) has ever stated that Chris Moneymaker or Robert Varkyoni are great players? And they make up 40% of that field of the last 5. And look how many people ***** and complain about the main event crowning the "World Champion". Individual tournaments are not good indicators of who the greatest players are. They are open competitions where even the amatuers have a chance. That's why I believe the world champion should be ranked each year based on their year long results, like CardPlayer ranks them. So no, I don't agree that everyone having the same chance of winning makes tournaments pointless. Their value is what the entrants get out of it. But, if you're looking to name the world's best player from 1 tourney, then yes, they are pointless.

the reason poker tournaments exist is to give the people who are better than other the edge. and thus the 'dead money' played a far worse chance odds. so with a tourney of 10k buy in (maybe not this 25k one as its more of a show than a tourney in my eyes, just a bragging rites event') then there are probably alot of awful players.

Low stakes tourneys, absolutely there are plenty of dead money players. But with the luck factor they still have a chance of winning. You could be the worst player in the world, and if your cards just keep coming you can win a tourney. I cite Jamie Gold as the perfect example of this, judging by the majority of comments about him on this very forum. I doubt he's the worst player in the world by far, but look how many people here refer to him as a donkey, or as a joke, a luckbox, etc. So while you're right, the elite players have an advantage over bad players, the pure luck factor minimizes their advantage to a few percentage points over the average player. And anyone who denies that there is a significant amount of luck in poker is delusional. Think of your worst bad beat story, and then feel free to argue.

i certainly am not offended by your post, but i did'nt stake him. the only tournaments which would adhere to your odds point would be satellites etc.

Well, like I said, I didn't mean to offend anyone, and I can only imagine that my sucker comment struck a nerve with a few people. I think it's pretty obvious what I was trying to state in my original post, and with that said I'll drop it now. I appreciate the honest discussion.

[DCJ001 0]

Since you're having a hard time here, I just want to be clear.Given his record, Looshle had a much better chance than the average entrant to win this thing.

Better than the average entrant who played in this tournament?

[Scanner313 0]

maybe its just me... but your whole 'you don't get the odds payout idea/concept/comment' would only be possible EVER if all buyin's were put to one prize!

I'm not commenting on the rest of your post because it would be pointless. But how many more times can I state EXACTLY what you just said above? Of course the only way the odds are 1:1 is if they paid only 1st place. I've made that point again and again and yet YOU still don't get my position.It's over Johnny, IT'S OVER!

[DoinSublime 0]

Better than the average entrant who played in this tournament?

Get a list and we can go over every single one.

[AAsnake88 0]

Have you ever bet $25 without giving a sh!t about the outcome?I don't think anyone here expected with absolute certainty that they would get a return on the investment, it was just fun to have a horse in the tourney.

[Scanner313 0]

Since you're having a hard time here, I just want to be clear.Given his record, Looshle had a much better chance than the average entrant to win this thing.gg.

Well, I haven't seen Looshle's stats, and I really don't care. But with a $25k buy-in, just about every top pro in the world playing in this, he must be damned good if he's got better than average chance to win.And I'm not having a hard time at all. I can see clearly that you highly regard Losshle's abilities. Maybe it's justified, if so more power to you. But again, you've missed my point. This was never about Looshle, YOU, etc. It was about the inequity in tourney payouts vs. the buy-in risk. That's all. A very easy concept to understand. Hell, just about everyone I know bitches about tourney directors paying out too high a percentage of the field, thereby reducing the payout odds. I figured we could all relate to this, but I guess I was wrong. Somehow you took offense to my post, and here we are. Well, I can't stop you from posting and feeling the way you do.You're all right, I'm wrong. Now that I've said this, please feel free to return to your lives.

[makeyourself 0]

hmmmm i think your post about the amatures winning WSOP bracelets and Jamie gold is unfounded. simply because its not like these players were just entered into a poker tournament randomly. they are good players who know how to play the game... they played thier way to the final table.if you look at the ME and see where pro's or very experienced players finished compared to the worse players i do still think you woudl see a distinct correllation. i think in the ME it would be worse than say in a WPT simply because most players are playing to win that bracelet in THAT PARTICULAR tourney. you often see/hear players go 'well the cash is nothing i just wanna win it' when asked about the ME. I do still think though that the advantage that players have over other is huge, especially in a live tournament position. for many reasons, even experienced players are phycolgically and poker wise at a disadvantage. i just read about steve posting on his blog about playing against johnny chan and second guessing himself. so good players have a huge advantage. if they didn't the why do you always see the same people on the ps leader board, why do alot of players just have sick statistics. even in the huge events.... no matter what the buy in, who against, you will always have one person having an advantage over another.thinking about it you original post of 'you are never getting the odds on your buy in to warrent staking somebody?' (i hope that is correct as i have not looked through this thread) is just an obvious statement statisically on the face of it. for various reason we have gone over the more you look into it you are actually getting better odds than the numbers of just 1st prize show.... agreed ?

[James D 0]

Have you ever bet $25 without giving a sh!t about the outcome?I don't think anyone here expected with absolute certainty that they would get a return on the investment, it was just fun to have a horse in the tourney.

There was a horse in the tournament?! This is getting interesting..

[mtdesmoines 3]

Here's some math for you all...Let's assume Looshle has as good a chance as any other entrant to win this thing. With 639 players entering, he has a 1 in 639 chance of winning.Now, he's selling .1% blocks of himself for $25. .1% of the 1st prize payout ($3,970,000) is $3970. A return on your money of 159 to 1.So your odds of winning 1st prize money are 639 to 1, with a payout of 159 to 1. And that's PRE-TAX! Anyone up for some Keno?The only one who's not a sucker in this deal is Looshle.

Sigh. "Some men you just can't reach."

[Canary3 1]

well scanner... people probably took offense when you told them that anyone who staked looshle was a sucker.

[Canuckickstan 2]

well scanner... people probably took offense when you told them that anyone who staked looshle was a sucker.

I said Pardon. :besteverchampvoice:It was all cheap fun. If he made the FT it would have been the greatest rail thread in FCP history. Thats what it was about. A forum bonding exercise. Hate to agree with fwp here but I do.

[AAsnake88 0]

well scanner... people probably took offense when you told them that anyone who staked looshle was a sucker.

No offense taken on my part. I just think the argument going on is retarded.

[bull62 0]

639 entrants100 paid539 ways to lose100 ways to winAll other things being equal, the odds are 5.39:1 of making a profit. So yes, technically we are taking the worst of it on the bottom end. Betting a 5:1 shot to be paid approx. 2:1. But getting almost 160:1 on the top end more than makes up for it imo. Of course, none of this has anything to do with why I bought a piece.

[MikeJohnson724 0]

LOL. With that attitude why even play poker?

[CodyHartman 0]

I gave him 25$ for the sheer reason 25$ is nothing really worth worrying about losing. If he "only" cashed and I got like 35$ for my 35$ I wouldn't of cared. But if he final tables woot woot, for the 1k.Its a gambol for a reason. Why do you think I stake 4 people in a $4.40 180 man tourney. Sure I am putting out $22.00 for the oppertunity of winning only $108 if someone wins the whole thing. But its a fun ride. Poker is gamboling and if you dont see it that way then you need to rethink poker 101.

[looshle 6]

I don't understand how you can argue its a bad deal to buy a piece of a winning player, especially when you aren't responsible for any of the rake.Sure most of the time I'm not going to get top 10 but I will def get top 100 enough to make it a +ev deal.

[mtdesmoines 3]

Mods ... the direction this thread is taking is not why I bumped it. Lock?

[CobaltBlue 662]

So yes, technically we are taking the worst of it on the bottom end. Betting a 5:1 shot to be paid approx. 2:1. But getting almost 160:1 on the top end more than makes up for it imo.

Bingo. And if we think looshle is better than average, that makes the move +EV.

[Balloon guy 158]

Who on this site (or any other) has ever stated that Chris Moneymaker or Robert Varkyoni are great players?

Man you are really close to getting banned with talk like that!Robert Varkonyi Fan clubTread careful around here for the next few days, I might get over it!

[CrookedLink 0]

what place did looshle end up placing in?