an idea about skill vs. field

[closetwin 0]

Sure, people say "it's all luck in big tournaments", but I'm not so sure.If you're at a nine person table the whole time, isn't it different than playing at a 6600 person table?It seems that people have been calculating odds based on a 6600 person table rather than figuring the odds for many tables.I dunno...seeems like a variable that hasn't been addressed.CT

[fryer98 30]

Whoever said "it's ALL luck" is an idiot anyway, IMO.

[zimmer4141 0]

I tend to agree with the fact that you still play them 8 at a time. However, I equate it to a shootout tournament. It is much easier to win a double shootout, where you have to beat 2 tables than a triple shootout where you have to win 3 tables.

[closetwin 0]

The fact that large tourneys are considered "ALL luck" is a matter of consensus between the people who post about the differences between smaller tourneys (early WSOPs) versus more recent tourneys (recent WSOPs).They may not say this, but it is implied. The opinion that pros are huge underdogs versus the SEA of amateurs is reguarly expressed. I am merely attempting to state that the "sea" may be considered more negatable when you consider the fact that one pro is only ever up against 8 other people. Right?CT

[MilesZS 0]

Sure, people say "it's all luck in big tournaments", but I'm not so sure.If you're at a nine person table the whole time, isn't it different than playing at a 6600 person table?It seems that people have been calculating odds based on a 6600 person table rather than figuring the odds for many tables.I dunno...seeems like a variable that hasn't been addressed.CT

I think the variable that hasn't been addressed is more the pros skill versus the field at large. I've said before, a regular pro will always have better odds to win than, say, me. A pro may have 2000-1 in a 6600 person field where an amateur may have worse than 6600-1 to win.Granted, it's only a 9 person table, but you're seeing more than 9 people. You will potentially be seeing hundreds of people, depending on how long you last. Really, the number of possible variables make actually figuring odds that are in any way accurate near impossible. I'm sorry, I have to quit thinking about this now while I search for my ibuprofen.

[crowTrobot 2]

it's not just one table. more people = more tables you have to survive, every one a mine-field of all-in suckouts.

[closetwin 0]

Zimmer: That's very true. It would be harder to beat 3 tables than 4 tables....but I think the simplistic probabilites being calculated (with the arrogant implication that since it is MATH it will be accepted) do not take the fact that poker is only ever played at one table, despite the fact that there will be other tables into account. I am not very well-versed in mathematics, but I think that the calculations treat a 24 man table the same as three 8 person tables.Is this wrong? I don't know. I would like to find out, though.CT

[closetwin 0]

Really' date=' the number of possible variables make actually figuring odds that are in any way accurate near impossible. [/quote']This is my point. I certainly could not figure the amount of variables, I just believe there is a difference between the standard probabilities created versus the imaginary probabilities that take more poker variables into account.CT

[jonnyhockey 0]

24 man table the same as three 8 person tablesYa, in that sense you may be right, winning a 24 man tourney is similar to winning three consecutive 8 man tourney's.So in the main event, you'd have to win 660 consecutive ten man tourney's. :shock:

[MilesZS 0]

Zimmer: That's very true. It would be harder to beat 3 tables than 4 tables....but I think the simplistic probabilites being calculated (with the arrogant implication that since it is MATH it will be accepted) do not take the fact that poker is only ever played at one table, despite the fact that there will be other tables into account. I am not very well-versed in mathematics, but I think that the calculations treat a 24 man table the same as three 8 person tables.Is this wrong? I don't know. I would like to find out, though.CT

None of the probabilities 'calculated' can be truly accurate, as there is really no proper way to assess and value 'skill'. Probabilities have to be calculated on a flat line. I don't see how things could be otherwise. In other words, if we're talking about odds with respect to Vegas and betting, than you should be able to use the poorly dreamed numbers to your advantage easily.$200k on Eddie.

[closetwin 0]

jonnyhockey: that illustrates my point. Certainly consecutively winning 660 10-man tourney would be near to ridiculously impossible, I think the odds pros are given are STILL too far-fetched. I feel that, given the level of competition, they would have HUGE edge in most of these 10 man tourneys....therefore making it more realistic for them to win 660 of them. Of course, table 1 would be easier than table 2, on average. Table 456 would be easier than tabel 457 on average....That's where it gets too complicated for me to do anything but ask what other people think on a message board.CT

[Mr Monkey 0]

jonnyhockey: that illustrates my point. Certainly consecutively winning 660 10-man tourney would be near to ridiculously impossible, I think the odds pros are given are STILL too far-fetched. I feel that, given the level of competition, they would have HUGE edge in most of these 10 man tourneys....therefore making it more realistic for them to win 660 of them. Of course, table 1 would be easier than table 2, on average. Table 456 would be easier than tabel 457 on average....That's where it gets too complicated for me to do anything but ask what other people think on a message board.CT

i think it was Erik Seidel who called the main event a $10000 lottery ticket

[jonnyhockey 0]

Ya, I hear what you're saying.I guess there's two trains of thought, 1) Way more fish/dead money, so the pro's should be able to accumulate their chips early, and go on to cash relatively easily.2) Way more fish/dead money to get sucked out on by. Winning the main event with say, 600 people may require upwards of maybe 10 race situations. Again, with 6000, that'd be 100 of them.So it goes both ways I guess, and to be honest, it's 2am, and the only thing I can really concentrate on right now is Uma Thurman and her boobies. Sorry.

[crowTrobot 2]

if you simplify 6600 to bracketed 8 person tables i think you'd have to win 11 in a row to win it all. even if you have a skill advantage to the point where you have a 50% chance to win any 8 man table, odds of winning 11 in a row are around 1/1000.try flipping a coin and have it land heads 11 straight times.

[Mr Monkey 0]

if you simplify 6600 to bracketed 8 person tables i think you'd have to win 11 in a row to win it all. even if you have a skill advantage to the point where you have a 50% chance to win any 8 man table, odds of winning 11 in a row are around 1/1000.try flipping a coin and have it land heads 11 straight times.

why are u baseing it on winning 11 8 person tables. i think its flawed because your not playing sng table tourneys

[MilesZS 0]

Excercise in futility...There is not a perfect way to figure the odds for any one player in the main event of the WSOP (or any decently size tournament, really). Is that concept really lost on anyone? You can discuss it until you all pass out, and you will never come to a perfect conclusion.

[Mr Monkey 0]

Excercise in futility...There is not a perfect way to figure the odds for any one player in the main event of the WSOP (or any decently size tournament, really). Is that concept really lost on anyone? You can discuss it until you all pass out, and you will never come to a perfect conclusion.

i agree

[elkang 0]

24 man table the same as three 8 person tablesYa, in that sense you may be right, winning a 24 man tourney is similar to winning three consecutive 8 man tourney's.So in the main event, you'd have to win 660 consecutive ten man tourney's. :shock:

It's not 660 ten man tourneys. After you win your table (assuming you finishe them off at the average pace) - you are facing 660 players or 66 ten man tourneys. In any case, the real calculation for winning is much more complicated than this. I just like to say it's harder to win a 6600 tourney than a 10 man tourney. I don't need to go much further yet. A friend posted a thread about a math problem where: With a standard 52 card deck, I deal 13 hands of 4 cards. What is the probability that no hand contains a duplicate suit? It is not necessary to reduce your answer to its simplest form. There were a lot of great (correct) answers with wonderful formulas that I can understand but not create. Hoever, I had the needed answer immediately: The chance is very fucking unlikely. Large MTT strategy is a different beast and there is a lot of ideas of value out there ranging from inflection points and chip stacks to whatever. Fischman said he was going to post about it and I'm looking forward to reading his thoughts. I wish I had better input than this but I'm tired and suck at MTTs.

[chinaman10 0]

Theres 8 days of play, if you go all in say 5 times with the biggest pf edge possibile math says, you'll go bust on one of those hands.

[DaBruins 0]

i basically disagree with this whole thread. No a huge tournament is not close to just playing your own table, because even after the players on your table bust out there is a whole 'nother fleet of people to take on. And certainly its infintely harder to win 660 consecutive 10 man tables than 1 tournament with 660 tables and 10 per table. The reasoning should be pretty obvious...you dont have to beat all the players on your table at any time in the huge tournament except at the final table, where as in the other situation you have to win 660 consecutive single tables. Not to mention that while you play in the huge tournament, other players will be busting out at the same time....its not like you have to play every opponent in the field.

[Governator 54]

How can you base it on 660 10-man table tournies.... Consider this, let's say your the chip leader at one table for x amount of time, they move you to a new table as more people are eliminated... suddenly you go from chip leader to a mid-low stack and your no longer at equal starting chips as the rest of the field at your new table.You are up against 6599 any way you put it. There is no true way to calculate the odds of winning based on skill on a field this size except 6600 to 1.... As someone mentioned a $10k lottery ticket.

[crowTrobot 2]

why are u baseing it on winning 11 8 person tables. i think its flawed because your not playing sng table tourneys

effectively you are. the winner will see 70-80 or more people bust at the tables he is at regardless of actual number of tables involved, unless he happens to be playing at the tightest tables.

[pokepoke1967 0]

Half way through this monster tourney you are going to be seeing at every table differences in stack size by MILLIONS. With 800 players left tables will have players with millions in chips and players with less than 200,000 in chip.....that is a dynamic that you will never find at a 3 table shootout.....players being outchipped by such a huge degree!

[vaglvr 0]

I hate when I get put on a 6600 person table, never seems to be enough cards to go around...

[LongOdds 0]

I havent read all the replies (no time at work), but here is my take.Luck is a very significant factor in any tourney with a large field. Why? Because of the number of repeated situations. If you play well, and are getting some decent cards, there are going to be many occasions where you get your chips in a 65-35 favorite (just an example, better than a coinflip). Obviously, you win this 65 times out of a hundred. So, where does the luck come into play? Well, in two ways. First of all, given the short term length of the tourney, it is very easy for some lucky player to outperform this expectation. It isnt unheard of to win this situation 9 out of 10 times. That is a lucky streak. Where else does luck come into play? Well, you have to be lucky enough to avoid being on the losing side (the 35 percent of the time, in the example) when your opponent has you outchipped. You can be an 95% underdog in a hand, and get lucky against a small stack, and it helps you a little. You can be a 90% favorite in a hand, and run into that 10% loss, and if it happens against a big stack, your toast. This is why pros usually try to avoid playing in huge pots when they feel they are better than their opponents. They are simply attempting to reduce the luck factor. Now, since its such a big tourney, rinse and repeat.