WSOP: Main event Over/Under

[Oski]

I think no less than 1000 entries this year.

[Cubswin]

thats an easy over....bet the house

[hbk]

Call it 1500 and then you have a more even decision, 1000+ is an absolute certainty.

[sleepyjoeyt]

I know poker is booming, but it still costs $10K to enter.

I'd say the realistic over/under # might be 1200.

[thetman]

1326 is my guess

[southerndog]

I think there will be 1400. I think there are a lot of people out there that 10k just isn't a lot of money for.

[TylerD]

I think 1500 will easily be reached.

[scotnt73]

1800

[Al_Capone_Junior]

if that was the line I'd pick over.

I suggest that 1190 is the over/under line. I base this on absolutely nothing but my gut instinct. Curious to see what it really winds up being.

al

[sleepyjoeyt]

no f'n way its 1800.

i'll take any wagers on this.

(don't come back with some stupid ass idea like, "ok i'll bet 1 billion and then i'll just pay for the extra seats to make sure i win".)

I cannot possibly see 1800 people entering this 10K event. There were 931 (I think) last year. It AIN'T doubling, no matter how popular WPT is.

[Tyler Durden]

[ QUOTE ]

no f'n way its 1800.

i'll take any wagers on this.

(don't come back with some stupid ass idea like, "ok i'll bet 1 billion and then i'll just pay for the extra seats to make sure i win".)

I cannot possibly see 1800 people entering this 10K event. There were 931 (I think) last year. It AIN'T doubling, no matter how popular WPT is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Geez, you're pretty hostile about this.

Last year's main event of the WSOP had 839 entrants.

[Lazymeatball]

How many people are being sent by poker sites alone? 2-300? (random guess)

[LetsRock]

It's pretty easy over.

Put me down for $10 in the 1200-1300 bracket.

[Clarkmeister]

A better bet is whether or not they up the entry fee to 20k next year. I vote yes. The field is simply getting too large and unwieldy for even a 4 day tourney. Plus, enough people want to get in that despite doubling the entry fee they might only lose like 25% of the entries.

[Poker Jon]

Clark,

A very good point I think. $15,000 would be more realistic as there will be a hell of a lot of internet entrants this year. I think Pokerstars already have about 80 entrants and we still have another month to go. I reckon Stars themselves will be sending at least 100+ players to the event!

I agree though that by increasing the buyin the drop off rate wouldn't be too huge.

Cheers Jon

[sleepyjoeyt]

I really wasn't trying to sound hostile. The "f'n" was just put in to provide emphasis, not anger.

I would just be shocked to [censored] if there were 1800 entrants. I don't particularly care either way.

[wm r the rake]

i would say in the 1200-1300 range!!!!

[Greg (FossilMan)]

PokerStars will send at least 200, and 300 wouldn't shock me.

I expect there to be at least 400-500 entrants who got in through an internet poker site. While some of those are people who would've played anyway, most of them would not have entered, nor even shown up to try live sats or supers, without the online win. Add to that the overall increase in popularity of poker, and the numbers will be huge.

In fact, you can expect to see at least a dozen true celebrities in the event this year, possibly a couple dozen. With a definition of celebrity being somebody at least as famous as say Wilford Brimley or Gabe Kaplan. I'm NOT talking about the local news weatherman level of celebrity.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Rushmore]

Dear Clark,

You are my hero. Your response was virtually identical to the one I had planned, with the sole difference being that I thought $15K (as another poster posits) would be the correct new buyin.

I gotta tell you, I hate these tournies with 1300 players. Yes, I know, there's that much more dead money, but, well, you know--the luck factor goes up exponentially.

I wish every tourney was a $5K buyin with 200 entrants.

But I'm an idiot.

[jwvdcw]

Over 2000 this year with all of those internet qualifiers contributing an extra 300 or so to the 900+ of last year, and then the other 700+ coming from the game gaining popularity and rich people wanting to be on tv.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
Over 2000 this year with all of those internet qualifiers contributing an extra 300 or so to the 900+ of last year, and then the other 700+ coming from the game gaining popularity and rich people wanting to be on tv.

[/ QUOTE ]

It can't be over 2000, it's capped at 200 tables.

I've said all along that 1200 is a good over/under number going with the over. If you get 1400, I'd take the under.

[EWillers]

[ QUOTE ]
It can't be over 2000, it's capped at 200 tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? This sounds like an awfully stoopid (like goverment decision making level stoopid) move for a tournament host.

I don't think that they'll get close to 2K, but why on earth would the fella running the thing want to limit it?

Split the first day into 3 tournaments if you have to. Whatever it takes to meet the demand.

[tpir90036]

easiest. over. ever. the on-line qualifiers alone will put it over that from last year. i think the over/under line should be about 1250.

[Oski]

Just to clarify, my post was asking for what the over/under should be. It seems the line should be about 1350 - I think you would get action on both sides.

[sleepyjoeyt]

As I said so eloquently earlier:

"No f'n way it's this many"

1400 tops

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It can't be over 2000, it's capped at 200 tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? This sounds like an awfully stoopid (like goverment decision making level stoopid) move for a tournament host.

I don't think that they'll get close to 2K, but why on earth would the fella running the thing want to limit it?

Split the first day into 3 tournaments if you have to. Whatever it takes to meet the demand.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the bottom of the page, second sentence, "World Championship event limited to 200 tables."

http://www.harrahs.com/wsop/index.html

[Greg (FossilMan)]

[ QUOTE ]
I gotta tell you, I hate these tournies with 1300 players. Yes, I know, there's that much more dead money, but, well, you know--the luck factor goes up exponentially.

[/ QUOTE ]

The number of players doesn't have much impact on the luck factor, IMO. What matters is how much play you get at each level, and how fast the levels increase. If I set up a structure in advance, I think the luck factor is essentially equivalent whether 200 people show up to play that structure, or 2000. Because the latter has 10x the players and 10x the chips in play, it will take a few extra levels to finish, but I don't think the luck factor will be much greater.

Maybe somebody here who is better at high-level math can prove it for me.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
The number of players doesn't have much impact on the luck factor, IMO. What matters is how much play you get at each level, and how fast the levels increase. If I set up a structure in advance, I think the luck factor is essentially equivalent whether 200 people show up to play that structure, or 2000.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your reasoning. For instance, if you have a tourney where 5000 players each start with a million dollars in chips, the blinds start at 5 and 10 dollars, and the levels last 5 hours each, the best players will be there at the end. So it's structure-dependent, of course.

But I still say that there is more luck involved in a tournament with that many more players because there are that many more players trying to get lucky, regardless of the structure.

But I am intrigued, and would like for one of the "higher math" types to hash it out, too, if that's possible.

[EWillers]

[ QUOTE ]
At the bottom of the page, second sentence, "World Championship event limited to 200 tables."



[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the info.


Dang. If I were runnin' the thing and Harrah's was intent on this stoopid policy, I'd find some 12, 15, or 20 handed tables. . .whatever it takes.

[eggzz]

Quick question a little off topic, but before the WSOP became intensely popular, basically only last year was it televised on a national level so broadly, how does the casino that hosts the event pay for all the dealers it must have on staff, and all the admin fees that go along with hosting such a large tournament?

The WSOP kicks back 100% of the entry fee money. Most of the smaller tournaments have the buy in fee $300/40 with the forty going towards the costs I mention above.

Is the ad revenue generated from the bigger tournaments enough for the casino to make a profit on? Similar question would be on any large tournament with a buy in of a minimum of ten grand.

Thx.

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/blush.gif epsteins theory of gambling and statistical logic stated that the advantage of singel deck over multiple deck was not just due to more favourable counts, but also due to the lower deck number leading to more naturals (ace, ten count) even though the ratio is the same; the lower number leads to more naturals...that's when i realized this book was way outta my league...

but i did love his anecdotale entry regarding a coup at a race track where a group of players kept odds artificially high, then kept others from betting..lol

or something like that..

i think you're correct; as usual..

i think this is your year to win it all in the big one...it's gotta happen; it's already happened..

gl /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[Bob T.]

The WSOP kicks back 100% of the entry fee money.

WRONG!. Some is reserved for administrative costs, and staff tokes. I think it is 3%, but I might be wrong.

[BigBiceps]

I think they should up the entry fee to $100,000. They can have a separate 10k event, but not make it the main event. At 100k you will have only the best of the best and the richest players playing.