Re: Okay, I\'ll go first!
 

[ QUOTE ]
1/600, based on regression to the mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

WHAT!!? Am I missing something or is this like saying it makes sense to bet black in roulette after 5 consecutive reds? Its a myth.

Re: how good can you be at tournament poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
* dan harrington made the final table of the two largest fields in big buyin tournament history, on top of having won the wsop a decade prior. What are his chances of making the final table in 2005, assuming a field of 5000? Say final 10 to simplify the math. The exactly average player's chances are 1/500. What are dan's?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any answer is obviously a guess, for all we know Dan's odds of making the final table are 1000/1.

[ QUOTE ]
* I'll let you pick some number of players. If a single one of those players wins a bracelet at the 2005 WSOP, you win the bet. How many players do you need to list before you are a favorite in this bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I think the sizes of the tournaments next year is the big unknown that makes it impossible, but I am sure the magic number is more than most think.

[ QUOTE ]
* How much positive equity does the very best player have in whichever currently existing $5K+ tournament you believe has the weakest field? Ignore juice. The exactly average player gets paid back his $X buyin on average. How good is the best? 3X? 5X? 10X? 20X? More?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really have no idea, and I don't believe anyone can either. Maybe that was your point.

[ QUOTE ]
* Two tournament players each play 100 large field tournaments. In the end, player A has averaged a profit of 0.5 buyins/tournament and player B has averaged 1.5 buyins/tournament. With what percentage confidence can you say that player B was actually playing with higher EV than player A? Alternately: what line would you place on player B winning more than A over the next 100 tournaments as well? What if B had averaged 3 buyins per tournament?

[/ QUOTE ]

This can obviously be calculated, but my stats days are over.

Re: Okay, I\'ll go first!
 

So, Dan can be expected to make every final table from here on in?

Yes, it's not the best use of the concept, but I would be willing to lay odds that, all other things being equal, when you flip heads 50 times in a row, I'd wager that you will flip fewer heads than tails over the next 50 tosses.

And yes, I know I'd be taking the worst of this bet... and I'd still gamble on it.

You read it wrong
 

[quote
I may be misreading what Paul wrote, but I belief when he said "winning a bracelet in 2005," he meant from any event, not just the championship event.


[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue">dan harrington made the final table of the two largest fields in big buyin tournament history, on top of having won the wsop a decade prior. What are his chances of making the final table in 2005, assuming a field of 5000 </font>

He is clearly referring to the $10K championship event (unless you expect a different tournament to have a chance of hitting 5,000 entrants)

Re: You read it wrong
 

[ QUOTE ]
[quote
I may be misreading what Paul wrote, but I belief when he said "winning a bracelet in 2005," he meant from any event, not just the championship event.


[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue">dan harrington made the final table of the two largest fields in big buyin tournament history, on top of having won the wsop a decade prior. What are his chances of making the final table in 2005, assuming a field of 5000 </font>

He is clearly referring to the $10K championship event (unless you expect a different tournament to have a chance of hitting 5,000 entrants)

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I did not:

I'll let you pick some number of players. If a single one of those players wins a bracelet at the 2005 WSOP, you win the bet. How many players do you need to list before you are a favorite in this bet?

Thats what I was referring to.

Re: Okay, I\'ll go first!
 

Same statement as I made above. "Knowing" that Dan is 2/500 to make the final table of the 2005, 5000 entrant $10K tournament... AND knowing he made the final table in 2003 and 2004... I'd give you a better bet than 249:1 that he wouldn't do it again in 2005.

Don't waste your time asking me to do it- I'd want the chance to win $100 or more and there's no way I'm covering a four-figure loss, much less a $30K losing bet. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Okay, I\'ll go first!
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, Dan can be expected to make every final table from here on in?

Yes, it's not the best use of the concept, but I would be willing to lay odds that, all other things being equal, when you flip heads 50 times in a row, I'd wager that you will flip fewer heads than tails over the next 50 tosses.

And yes, I know I'd be taking the worst of this bet... and I'd still gamble on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Paul's intent in posting this thread was looking for players to gamble with, I think he just found one.

Re: Okay, I\'ll go first!
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, Dan can be expected to make every final table from here on in?

Yes, it's not the best use of the concept, but I would be willing to lay odds that, all other things being equal, when you flip heads 50 times in a row, I'd wager that you will flip fewer heads than tails over the next 50 tosses.

And yes, I know I'd be taking the worst of this bet... and I'd still gamble on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a bad grasp of the concepts involved in statistics and probability theory. I don't want to be mean, but it's true. What you are saying is a fallacy, and a common fallacy at that.

Re: Okay, I\'ll go first!
 

FYI Raymer was about 500 to 1 this year. As were just about any non name player.

Re: You read it wrong
 

[ QUOTE ]
He is clearly referring to the $10K championship event (unless you expect a different tournament to have a chance of hitting 5,000 entrants)

[/ QUOTE ]

He was thinking total number of buy-ins, and figured that Daniel would rebuy in the $1k rebuy event about 4,000 times next year.

~D