How come so many of the name pros busted out the first day?

[betgo]

How come such a high percentage of the name pros busted out the first day when there were so many fish?

When I play in a tournament with weak players, I usually make the top third, since the fish usually bust themselves out fairly quickly.

Were the top players, taking risks to accululate a lot of chips?

Maybe these name pros don't knoew how to play fish, since they only play pretty big games. Maybe, you see players like Raymer, Arieh, Williams, Hachem, Kanter, and Black at the final table not just because there are more of them than the name pros, but but because they understand better how to play against fish.

[CaptSensible]

I thought about this too.

First off I think with the thousands of people playing getting to the final table is a crapshoot. You HAVE to get lucky a few times on key hands.

I'm sure a number of them just had luck working against them. Something like AK against AQ and having a Q come out.

I also heard Daniel Negraneu say something like he takes big risks early on to get chips. He said that he either comes to the final table with a huge chip stack or busts out early.

I think a 10k buy in is relatively small change to these guys. Do they want to play over a few days conservatively and still not make it? Or take some big chances early on and not waste their time if they don't get lucky.

Who knows. This is just some of the stuff I've thought about in regards to your question /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[fnord_too]

I think it's because they understand it is better to embrace variance early to mitigate it later.

[burningyen]

Because they were following your NL guide.

[Quicksilvre]

Almost two-thirds of the field was eliminated on the day ones, right? So, I'd figure anywhere between one half and two thirds of the name pros would be busted. Seems to be about right.

[cwsiggy]

discuss....

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Almost two-thirds of the field was eliminated on the day ones, right? So, I'd figure anywhere between one half and two thirds of the name pros would be busted. Seems to be about right.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I have heard most of the initial field was pretty weak and a lot of them typical loose Internet players. I would think most of the name players would survive a cut to 1/3 of the field.

Most pros will nibble at you, value bet you to death and slowly acculate. When up againt loose internet qualifies, the pros are forced into making all-in calls. The calls are likely well in their favor, but if you've got someone on a flush draw your still busting out to them 1/3 of the time if you're all-in on the flop.

Pros want those 2:1 odds, but the all-in nature of internet players tends to make it for all your chips, rather than a portion of your chips.

[AaronO]

I really wonder about the number of "fish" that play in the WSOP ME these days. Yes, I'm sure they are there. Mike O'Malley's trip report details the level of confusion that some of them displayed.

However, I would hesitate to call someone who wins their seat on line a fish. Fact is, they had to win a tournament just to get there. And while a few donks will get lucky and win a seat on line, I highly doubt that the majority of on line qualifiers suck.

Just my thoughts.

[Matt Williams]

If I were a pro, I would take a chance and try to get as many chips as possible the first day. My reasoning is that if I lose, I can play cash games instead of sticking around and just miss out in the money or barely make the money. A lot of these pros can make $10,000+ easily in a cash game.

[CaptSensible]

[ QUOTE ]
If I were a pro, I would take a chance and try to get as many chips as possible the first day. My reasoning is that if I lose, I can play cash games instead of sticking around and just miss out in the money or barely make the money. A lot of these pros can make $10,000+ easily in a cash game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea but this to me sounds like the best answer.

[curtains]

Also there is a LOT of luck in poker, more than most people seem willing to admit. Also plenty of the "non-name" pro's almost surely play just as well or close to the level of a lot of the "name" pro's.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]
How come such a high percentage of the name pros busted out the first day when there were so many fish?

When I play in a tournament with weak players, I usually make the top third, since the fish usually bust themselves out fairly quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you the kind of player who folds your way into the money on the bubble and has a relatively rate of final tables vs. times in the money?

[A_Junglen]

Playing for 15 hours in a game where you can go broke in a single hand will do it.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Almost two-thirds of the field was eliminated on the day ones, right? So, I'd figure anywhere between one half and two thirds of the name pros would be busted. Seems to be about right.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I have heard most of the initial field was pretty weak and a lot of them typical loose Internet players. I would think most of the name players would survive a cut to 1/3 of the field.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is where you are mistaken. Just because the pros will do better than the weak players does not mean that you should expect most of the pros to survive to the final 1/3 of the field. Out of every random group of 30 players, about 10 made it to day 2. Out of every group of 30 random pros, about 15 probably made it to day 2. And that is very good for them, and not less than you should expect.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
I really wonder about the number of "fish" that play in the WSOP ME these days. Yes, I'm sure they are there. Mike O'Malley's trip report details the level of confusion that some of them displayed.

However, I would hesitate to call someone who wins their seat on line a fish. Fact is, they had to win a tournament just to get there. And while a few donks will get lucky and win a seat on line, I highly doubt that the majority of on line qualifiers suck.

Just my thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know where they got their seat, but there were a ton of very weak and very inexperienced players in this event. I'm sure many of them won their seat online, but I'm also sure that some of them got in via other routes. As Mike described at his table, there were plenty of players like that at every table, as far as I could tell.

It doesn't mean that they're bad players, and it certainly doesn't mean that I assume somebody is not a good player just because they won their seat online. However, with no further information, I will have to assume that the player who paid $10,000 cash is going to be a lot stronger than the player who won his seat online. On average, the difference will be huge.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[TM1212]

[ QUOTE ]
How come such a high percentage of the name pros busted out the first day when there were so many fish?

When I play in a tournament with weak players, I usually make the top third, since the fish usually bust themselves out fairly quickly.

Were the top players, taking risks to accululate a lot of chips?

Maybe these name pros don't knoew how to play fish, since they only play pretty big games. Maybe, you see players like Raymer, Arieh, Williams, Hachem, Kanter, and Black at the final table not just because there are more of them than the name pros, but but because they understand better how to play against fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a common misconception that playing tight early is correct strategy. I'm not saying go out and try to be the chip leader...instead there’s alot of dead money out there and you better get it early. Id rather take a risk early getting chips from Mr. fish then waiting to get out played later by a better player. This however this is if your playing to win not just make the money. (the pros arent wasteing 5 days to make 15kor so

[TM1212]

How and an answer to the question... because of there play they take more risks and put chips in jepardy were they can be out drawn or on occation make a bad play. As about the correct number or pros mad the 2nd day there were 5,000 players

[TM1212]

[ QUOTE ]
I really wonder about the number of "fish" that play in the WSOP ME these days. Yes, I'm sure they are there. Mike O'Malley's trip report details the level of confusion that some of them displayed.

However, I would hesitate to call someone who wins their seat on line a fish. Fact is, they had to win a tournament just to get there. And while a few donks will get lucky and win a seat on line, I highly doubt that the majority of on line qualifiers suck.

Just my thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Last time i checked the only thing thats a bigger crap shoot in poker then the wsop me... are all of the internet qualifers staring with 50 to 75bb and blinds moving every 10 mins. Ie alot of internet qualifers are donkeys. (btw i have read at least 9 articles over the past year were some retard outdraws a 2+2er late in a tourt during the allin fest period, only to go on to win the seat, alot of luck in those tourts.)

[Jackal]

[ QUOTE ]


I don't know where they got their seat, but there were a ton of very weak and very inexperienced players in this event. I'm sure many of them won their seat online, but I'm also sure that some of them got in via other routes. As Mike described at his table, there were plenty of players like that at every table, as far as I could tell.

It doesn't mean that they're bad players, and it certainly doesn't mean that I assume somebody is not a good player just because they won their seat online. However, with no further information, I will have to assume that the player who paid $10,000 cash is going to be a lot stronger than the player who won his seat online. On average, the difference will be huge.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, didn't you win your seat online last year?

[TM1212]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I don't know where they got their seat, but there were a ton of very weak and very inexperienced players in this event. I'm sure many of them won their seat online, but I'm also sure that some of them got in via other routes. As Mike described at his table, there were plenty of players like that at every table, as far as I could tell.

It doesn't mean that they're bad players, and it certainly doesn't mean that I assume somebody is not a good player just because they won their seat online. However, with no further information, I will have to assume that the player who paid $10,000 cash is going to be a lot stronger than the player who won his seat online. On average, the difference will be huge.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, didn't you win your seat online last year?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that was his point...

LOL j/k

Most internet qualifers as he said got lucky at many points to win there crap shoot of a tourt. People who dont have a bankroll for the 10,000 dollar event or the 1,000 qualifers live, are usually the ones playing online to qualify. Now most of the time (not always) there playing this crapshoots because they dont have the roll to play the real tourts, and are jsut trying to get a seat because its a dream to play in the wsop to them.

(its late im not editing)

[MicroBob]

a few comments -


almost 2/3 of the field was eliminated on day 1. this is a lot. I suspect greg is correct when he says about half of the pros survived this cut to day 2 and that would be about how one would it expect it to go.



i was one of those internet qualifiers who got lucky to just be there.
in a pokerstars double-shootout i hit a major suck-out heads-up against a very good player named JC Tran (who I believed finished in the top 60 in the main-event so he certainly had the last laugh even though I won the seat from him).


I thought the competition was fairly soft at the WSOP although my table was a bit trickier with a couple of opponents making some pretty sharp raises. But 4 or 5 of the players there did not impress me AT ALL. 2 or 3 were really quite bad.


I could have had a decent chance of 'just surviving' day 1 if that was my only goal. but i obviously wanted some chips too and you can't just sit there and let yourself get blinded away.

If you're down to $6k or $7k in chips and the blinds are 150/300, ante 25 and then 200/400, ante 50 then you HAVE to hit a hand or two in there at some point or you won't be sticking around.
I think they got to the 300/600 limits on day 1.
It was a 15 hour day and that's a lot of poker!!!


no matter how good a player you are, sometimes you just don't get action on your big hands and you draw action when you really don't want it.


I was on the same table as Johnny Chan throughout my whole day 1.
He busted out about 10 minutes after I did (around 9:30pm I think).
He just wasn't getting any cards.
And when he did he wasn't getting action (folded around to him in the BB when he showed his KK for example).


A different player who was playing pretty recklessly had accumulated 60k in chips by the time I had gotten knocked out.
He busted the same guy's AA 2 different times (although the AA guy slow-played it pretty miserably).

He was catching some big hands and thus piiing up the chips even though some of his plays just weren't very good.


The play overall was not very strong.
Not too unlike what you would expect from a bunch of online-qualifiers and other mostly-amateur players.

A bunch of guys who were mostly kind of nervous in their first big event.
The guy on my immediate right was an absolutely terrible player but he still had some chips when I busted out. It happens.
It wasn't THAT unexpected....but this guy was significantly worse than I expected to see at the main-event.


I also played on the PPM IV cruise last March. Out of 735 entrants, 90% qualified online.
I learned at that time that just because you could make it to a big event via online qualifiers did NOT mean you were necessarily a good player.

Some of the players there were just plain awful (and I was truly frightened at the number of people who truly believe in such things as 'action flops' and rigged decks and cash-out curses at party poker).

[Saddlepoint]

[ QUOTE ]
almost 2/3 of the field was eliminated on day 1. this is a lot. I suspect greg is correct when he says about half of the pros survived this cut to day 2 and that would be about how one would it expect it to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have an interesting comment regarding this, and a possible answer to the OP's question.

I had some money riding on the success of the "name pros" in the WSOP Main Event this year, and was following their results from day to day. Counterintuitively, these names actually busted out at a much faster rate than the field overall on Day 1 (meaning the combined Day 1a/1b/1c). Don't recall exactly, but I believe somewhere between 70 and 75% of these "names" actually busted the first day. Needless to say I was a little surprised! I'd actually have been doing better in my wager had I selected completely random players.

However, upon further analysis, I discovered something interesting. While these names had busted at a faster rate than the overall field, their average stack at the start of Day 2 was considerabely higher. Don't remember exactly, but I think it was close to twice the average stack of the field overall. Though they'd been busting faster individually, they had also been "consolidating" chips as a group. While it would be irresponsible to come to a conclusion based on analysis of this one tournament, it would be reasonable I think to postulate that the names were more willing to gamble than the no-names in the field, who were perhaps more interested in surviving to Day 2 at a cost to their EV.

After Day 1, the name pros did considerably better. They continued accumulating chips, but also survived much more consistently. By Day 3, the "names" comprised a bigger fraction of the remaining field than they had at the onset of the tournament.

One tournament is obviously too few to come to any kind of statistical conclusion, but I thought this would be some food for thought. It certainly took me by surprise.

[niin]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know where they got their seat, but there were a ton of very weak and very inexperienced players in this event. I'm sure many of them won their seat online, but I'm also sure that some of them got in via other routes. As Mike described at his table, there were plenty of players like that at every table, as far as I could tell.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm by no means a pro, but even I could tell there were terrible players at my table this year (this being my second year). There were people there that simply had no business being there. They were clueless.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
I had some money riding on the success of the "name pros" in the WSOP Main Event this year, and was following their results from day to day. Counterintuitively, these names actually busted out at a much faster rate than the field overall on Day 1 (meaning the combined Day 1a/1b/1c). Don't recall exactly, but I believe somewhere between 70 and 75% of these "names" actually busted the first day. Needless to say I was a little surprised! I'd actually have been doing better in my wager had I selected completely random players.

However, upon further analysis, I discovered something interesting. While these names had busted at a faster rate than the overall field, their average stack at the start of Day 2 was considerabely higher. Don't remember exactly, but I think it was close to twice the average stack of the field overall. Though they'd been busting faster individually, they had also been "consolidating" chips as a group. While it would be irresponsible to come to a conclusion based on analysis of this one tournament, it would be reasonable I think to postulate that the names were more willing to gamble than the no-names in the field, who were perhaps more interested in surviving to Day 2 at a cost to their EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably the answer to my question. It is likely that the name pros were playing to win. They didn't want to waste time hanging around with a tiny stack. There were probably a lot of other players who wanted to survive as long as possible at the WSOP.

I did seem like more than 2/3 of the top contenders were knocked out on day 1, which is why I posed this question.

[the_joker]

Probably because most pros are playing to win. I was playing just to finish in the money because I only paid $300 to get in. Honestly with the correct strategy, I don't think it's that hard to do. I came in around 650th using a very tight (weak) conservative strategy. I never showed down a losing hand the whole first day. The second day I only showed down two losing hands, one of them being my last hand. Even when short stacked, I didn't go crazy trying to steal blinds, so that when I did go all-in, people would know that I wasn't pushing with garbage and fold. No pro would play like this, hence they have a greater potential to bust out earlier.

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]

Also there is a LOT of luck in individual poker tournaments, more than most people seem willing to admit. Not enough hands get played to even out the luck factor. Also plenty of the "non-name" pro's almost surely play just as well or close to the level of a lot of the "name" pro's.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, didn't you win your seat online last year?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. And I was part of a group that, on average, was worse than the average player who ponied up 10K in cash. Of course, averages don't mean much in poker. What matters is the exact opponent you're facing, not the fact that's he is part of a group who, on average, plays in a certain manner. It only matters how he, as an individual, plays.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[valenzuela]

Anyway isnt table selection a bit overrated?? I rather have cards than donks on my table.

[Teldar]

I played in the ME and I wondered the same thing. I personally think the pros must have taken too many risks to accumulate chips, which in my opinion is unnecessary on Day 1. The way I looked at it, you can't win a tournament on Day 1, but you sure can lose it. I was on two different tables on Day 1. The first table I was on had average skill (Tuan Le was on it and busted out early). The second table was one of the easiest I had ever seen. I heard that almost every table was "easy" on day 1, given the size of the field. On day one, I only had my chips all in once (I had QQ vs. 88). Other than that, I didnt have all my chips in the pot until I busted out on Day 3 (I finished 312). And that was a stupid move on my part. I also never had a huge stack. After day 1, I had 25k (below average), and on day two, I finished with 183k(66th of 568). Almost all of day 1, I was short stacked but still only had my chips all in one time. I focused on winnning medium sized pots. Also, if you look at how the eventual winner was on stack size throughout the tournament, he never had a big stack until close to the end. Just my two cents but I think a lot of the pros played too aggressive and it was really unnecessary..

[TM1212]

[ QUOTE ]

Anyway isnt table selection a bit overrated?? I rather have cards than donks on my table.

[/ QUOTE ]

u need someone to pay off ur cards with out the donks cards are worthless

[TM1212]

[ QUOTE ]
I played in the ME and I wondered the same thing. I personally think the pros must have taken too many risks to accumulate chips, which in my opinion is unnecessary on Day 1. The way I looked at it, you can't win a tournament on Day 1, but you sure can lose it. I was on two different tables on Day 1. The first table I was on had average skill (Tuan Le was on it and busted out early). The second table was one of the easiest I had ever seen. I heard that almost every table was "easy" on day 1, given the size of the field. On day one, I only had my chips all in once (I had QQ vs. 88). Other than that, I didnt have all my chips in the pot until I busted out on Day 3 (I finished 312). And that was a stupid move on my part. I also never had a huge stack. After day 1, I had 25k (below average), and on day two, I finished with 183k(66th of 568). Almost all of day 1, I was short stacked but still only had my chips all in one time. I focused on winnning medium sized pots. Also, if you look at how the eventual winner was on stack size throughout the tournament, he never had a big stack until close to the end. Just my two cents but I think a lot of the pros played too aggressive and it was really unnecessary..

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this post fits well here to:

Its a common misconception that playing tight early is correct strategy. I'm not saying go out and try to be the chip leader...instead there’s alot of dead money out there and you better get it early. Id rather take a risk early getting chips from Mr. fish then waiting to get out played later by a better player. This however this is if your playing to win not just make the money. (the pros arent wasteing 5 days to make 15k or so)
---

Simply the pros are in this thing to make the final table. To do this you need to make moves and acculate many chips. As i said there not playing in the main event for a couple thousand dollar profit, they could make 10 times that in the side game. There playing give give them selfs a shot at the win.

However the correct stradegy for you or your self could be tighter and more cashing oriented.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Its a common misconception that playing tight early is correct strategy. I'm not saying go out and try to be the chip leader...instead there’s alot of dead money out there and you better get it early. Id rather take a risk early getting chips from Mr. fish then waiting to get out played later by a better player. This however this is if your playing to win not just make the money. (the pros arent wasteing 5 days to make 15k or so)
---

Simply the pros are in this thing to make the final table. To do this you need to make moves and acculate many chips. As i said there not playing in the main event for a couple thousand dollar profit, they could make 10 times that in the side game. There playing give give them selfs a shot at the win.

However the correct stradegy for you or your self could be tighter and more cashing oriented.


[/ QUOTE ]

In a slow deep money tournament with a lot of loose fish, I would see a lot of flops with speculative hands hoping to hit. I wouldn't bluff unless I had the right situation and player.

A couple of years ago Doyle Brunson called allin with K9 (he must have been getting some kind of pot odds) and said "I'm looking for a way to get out of here." That is probably sort of the way that level of pro thinks when he gets fairly short stacked.

Playing to cash is probably only a good strategy if the $10K is really important to you and/or you know you are really weak for the field. Any strong player (by the standard of strong in a $200 MTT, not a contender) should play to make the bigger money. The last two years, there have been plenty of ordinary pros and strong amateurs or semipros making the final table.

[valenzuela]

Im playing with Phil Ivey...I have AA..I raise, he calls.
Flop comes AA7, i bet, he calls. AA77..anyway i have AA he has 77..this is an extreme example..but cards is not only sucking out and hitting flops.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
That is probably sort of the way that level of pro thinks when he gets fairly short stacked.


[/ QUOTE ]


Maybe it was a bad day for Doyle.
But I suspect he was trying to steal...and then got his 'hand caught in the cookie-jar' with K9....and THEN said what he did as kind of a joke.

I just can't see him actually looking to get out.


Johnny Chan was short-stacked almost the whole 10-11 hours I played with him. And he was scratching and clawing his way along and just getting bad cards.

He gets down to about 4BB's I think and in UTG+1 and then UTG is ready to go all-in with anything...looks at his cards each time and probably saw 32o or something because it was very obvious that he was quite frustrated when he mucked.


This was the main-event though.
Winning the 'big one' (or even just doing well) is obviously more important to a guy like Chan then the $10k entry-fee.


I don't know...maybe what you are saying is partly true.
But i just don't see ANY of them just showing up and really not caring.


However....now I am remembering that evidently Farha was down to almost his last chip in the 2003 WSOP after a bad-beat and was encouraged by someone to 'sit back down...anything can happen' (chip-and-a-chair and all that).
Obviously he came all the way back and almost won the hwole thing....but without the encouragement...he might have just walked right out for all we know because "it's not even worth staying" or something like that.


My personal experience was with Chan though and he was definitely scratching and clawing as best he could...even with less than 10BB's for a LONG time.

(if anything...I'm the one who got too impatient when my A5o in the CO all-in with 12xBB got called by AK on the button...I was hoping I could get Chan in the BB to come after me with less than a bare-ace)

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]

However....now I am remembering that evidently Farha was down to almost his last chip in the 2003 WSOP after a bad-beat and was encouraged by someone to 'sit back down...anything can happen' (chip-and-a-chair and all that).
Obviously he came all the way back and almost won the hwole thing....but without the encouragement...he might have just walked right out for all we know because "it's not even worth staying" or something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was Barry Greenstein. In his player anaylses, this was the amusing anecdote.