I am so sick of these statements (x post from the Zoo)

[Jax_Grinder]

Given the interest in the **Official** post for Event #2, I thought this might be apropos for this board...

[ QUOTE ]
it has become hard for skilled players /b] to navigate their way through such a big field without hitting a "landmine".

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
reduce the fields to a more reasonable number so that the tournaments don't become [b] complete lotteries

[/ QUOTE ]

This are ubiquitous thoughts that are repeated ad naseum this time of year.

Let's see if we can employ some qualitative debunking of this sentiment...

Final table for Event #2, 2005 WSOP.

Seat 1 - Richard Boutwell: No reported prize money;
Seat 2 - Scott Fischman: $866,938 since Sep. '02 (2 Bracelets);
Seat 3 - Devilfish: $2,732,946 since '93 (1 Bracelet);
Seat 4 - Allen Cunningman: $1,482,037 since '98 (1 Bracelet);
Seat 5 - Charlie Huff: No reported prize money;
Seat 6 - Randy Edmonson: $14,700 since '91 (O Bracelets);
Seat 7 - Can Kim Hua: $1,259,224 since Sep. '02 (0 Bracelets);
Seat 8 - Liz Lieu: No reported prize money;
Seat 9 - An Tran: $880,918 since '89 (1 Bracelet, 19 final tables).

In sum: 5 Bracelets, $7,000,000+ in tournament prize money, and 6 people who have cashed at prior WSOP events. Of the 3 players with no reported tournament cashes (per the Hendon Mob), we have NO IDEA what their poker background/skills are like so any suppositions on that issue lack credibility.

This in field of 2300+ at the lowest buy-in (and therefore likely the fishiest) NL Hold 'em event at the Series.

Seems to me that the cream has risen to the top. Maybe you aren't familiar with the names or accomplishments, but that doesn't make them unworthy of being there (which is precisely what terms like "crapshoot" and "lottery", etc. imply).

Of course, why should I think that anybody on this board will give props where they are due. After all, we would all have Bracelets by the boatload if some donkey hadn't sucked out on us, right?

[Simplistic]

game. set. match.

[sandrew]

I think the pros can navigate this field. They got down to 111 in 12 hrs out of 2400 + alternates. That was alot of dead money, I was one who gave it a shot but was dead money early.

The final table is very impressive and i think the pros and semi-pros will do very well during the WSOP. It takes more luck than skill i think at this size. The pros have know when to make a move in a field this size and have more exprience playing live games then proably 3/4 the field.

I think playing mostly live games gives them an advantage over the online crowed. They are better at spotting tells, more patient, and less likely to gamble. I know that one of my resolutions this year is to play 90% B&M and 10% online. I am lucky however to have the Commerce, Bike, and Chumash all with 90 minutes and a local card club in town.

its not that i don't like to play online, i don't have the cocentration and the one thing i did badly at WSOP was getting wrong reads, i think i got bluffed out of more pots than i should have early. I think having live pay and live tournament experience is a benifit that pros have over the field.

If you look at moneymaker and raimer they both had b&m cash experience, from what i have read. raimer had b&m tourney experience and cash, moneymaker had cash experience. They didn't just come, exclusively, from the online world to win.

[Jax_Grinder]

.

[ismisus]

the chances of "skilled" players winning bracelets are decreased as the field increases. However their EV increases, since there's more fishy players adding their money to the prize pool.

There was 1 pro, and 999 clueless monkeys
There's 1 pro facing the toughest 9 players alive.

I would still bet on option 2

[Jax_Grinder]

Sure, but since we're playing for money, you may like your odds on option 2, but there is no question in my mind that I would put my $$ behind option 2.

And 1/999 is useless for this example. I would suggest the ratio of highly skilled/lesser skilled players (of all levels) was more like 1/5 in a field like Event 2. Whatever the actual ratio, it is certainly SUBSTANTIALLY less than the 6/9 found at the final table in this example.