how good can you be at tournament poker?
 

I don't feel like point-by-point addressing the problems with many of the statements in this thread and it'll be clearer this way anyway.

Almost everyone believes there is more skill in tournament poker than there actually is. One of the reasons is that it's so easy to buy into the seductive fallacy that if someone achieves multiple impressive results over a period of time, it must be because of skill. When more than one person wins multiple bracelets at the 2004 WSOP, we think, wow! Those guys must be playing great, and it's nice to have confirmation that skill wins out in the end.

This line of thinking illustrates a lack of understanding regarding the manifestations of variance and the certainty of clumping among chance results. If a guy wins one tournament we have no problem chalking it up to variance. After all, somebody had to win, maybe he was just the luckiest guy that day. But somehow the minute somebody has a few good results in quick succession, it's because of skill. The fact is that out of a large population of tournament players, it is absolutely inevitable that some will turn out to be much, much luckier at critical moments than others: not just in single tournaments, but over the course of a month, a year, and even a lifetime.

When someone has a great year, people conclude that those results illustrate how good it is possible to be. BUT NOBODY IS ANYWHERE NEAR AS "GOOD" AS YOU WOULD CONCLUDE FROM THOSE RESULTS. And this is where people go off the beam.

Since I know most people still won't believe any of this, here's how we settle things gambler-style. QUANTIFY your beliefs about how good players are. Decide who you think the very best tournament players are and make specific predictions about their results. Now bet on it. It's so easy to reach the end of the WSOP, find a lot of well-known players have won bracelets, and then say "yep, it's skill!" But were those the specific well-known players you predicted, or are you fitting the data to the hypothesis? There are many more poker players you've heard of than you may realize until you attempt to make forward-looking predictions.

Here are some ideas for possible proposition bets involving verifiable predictions. There is nothing that encourages clarity of thought quite so much as having to put your money where your mouth is. Post your ideas on these subjects in this thread, I imagine it'll be revealing.

* 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?

* 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?

* 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?

* 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?

Here is one of the great articles ever written about tournament variance, almost five years old but as relevant as ever: Question Authority by Tom Weideman. If you have a serious interest in the subject this is required reading.

There is a risk-free fortune to be made for the industrious proposition bet seeker by exploiting the gap between perceptions and reality. Go forth and wager!

Okay, I\'ll go first!
 

Flame away!

* dan harrington - 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?

<font color="blue"> 1/600, based on regression to the mean. Based on pure skill (meaning, talent, experience, intangibles) I'd put Dan H at 1/250. I would put him higher, but I think his somewhat less aggressive style will make it less likely that he'll catch the lucky hands in big pots to give him the chips to survive.

* 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?
2000 of the players that I feel were most likely to win (i.e be above average, so with a chance between 1/250 and 1/167) based on a field of 5000.
I still don't think I'd be a "favorite" but I'll take that as close enough to bet on.... not for big money however.

* 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?

I'll say 1 1/3 X of the average player... and that's a gamble.

* 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?

None. Besides needing a lot more information, it's too short-term (assuming 1 year duration here) to come up with a meaningful number in my opinion.

**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?

3:1 against. 9:1 against with the buyins.

Re: how good can you be at tournament poker?
 

Wow, nice post. It is always funny to me that even players who have a complete understanding of the statistical nature of the game believe that the statistics should hold true no matter how small the sample size. Of course if it wasnt for luck I would win every tournament. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Okay, I\'ll go first!
 

[ QUOTE ]
* dan harrington - 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?

1/600, based on regression to the mean. Based on pure skill (meaning, talent, experience, intangibles) I'd put Dan H at 1/250.

[/ QUOTE ] I think you're wrong here. Each main event is more or less an independent event, so there is no regression to the mean.

Re: how good can you be at tournament poker?
 

Crap. I have no idea what "regression to the mean" even means!

Re: how good can you be at tournament poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Since I know most people still won't believe any of this, here's how we settle things gambler-style. QUANTIFY your beliefs about how good players are. Decide who you think the very best tournament players are and make specific predictions about their results. Now bet on it. It's so easy to reach the end of the WSOP, find a lot of well-known players have won bracelets, and then say "yep, it's skill!" But were those the specific well-known players you predicted, or are you fitting the data to the hypothesis? There are many more poker players you've heard of than you may realize until you attempt to make forward-looking predictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I made a bet with a friend concerning this World Series. Here's what happened: We both got to draft a "team," akin to fantasy football, of 12 players. (I drafted Dan Harrington in the later rounds, actually) If any player on the either team won the event, the bet was over, and that person won. In the likely event that no one won, we simply had total cash payout to each team, and the best cash team won the bet.
He had Chris Ferguson, so in the end it came down to a pretty exciting bet. (When we followed it while it happened through pokerpages and other sites)
I suggest to readers that a fantasy football style draft is the way to go. It was fun.
Phil Hellmuth was the 3rd overall pick, I believe, but I'm sure his stock has slipped. I picked Daniel Negreanu first, he picked Phil Ivey second. We both believe those two players are the two best in the world, but hey, what do we know!

[ 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 ]

In a weak field, where blinds increase very slowly, (the structure most accomodating to players, such as the Championship at the Plaza) I believe the best player has a "5x" buyin on average. This is pretty much just picking a number without using math, but I see no reason why in a low blind, weak field, a player (such as Negreanu) to cash more than 10% of the time, and when cashing, finishing much higher than an average finish.



All in all, I think your post was very thought provoking... And of your mentioned bets, I think they all would seem like fun. Wanna bet on 2005? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Okay, I\'ll go first!
 

[ 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?
2000 of the players that I feel were most likely to win (i.e be above average, so with a chance between 1/250 and 1/167) based on a field of 5000.
I still don't think I'd be a "favorite" but I'll take that as close enough to bet on.... not for big money however.


[/ 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.

In that regard, 2000 would be an insanely high number, as some events (i.e. no limit 2-7 lowball) still draw just 47ish players. (And ace to five only drew slightly more than 100 I think)

However, the numbers increased heavily from 2003 to 2004, and I do not see why this trend will not continue, but if Paul did in fact mean "from any event," I would take this bet if I could pick 12 players. I would feel great about my chances if I could pick 15. If I could pick 20, I would feel foolish to lose.

I could be waaaaay wrong here though.

Re: how good can you be at tournament poker?
 

Was Tradesports.com offering bets for this year's WSOP?

Dan Harrington to make the final table at next year's WSOP - 50:1.


I need 7 players to get me even money to win a bracelet (Daniel N. is about 2:1 himself to win a bracelet next year). As a matter of fact I'm making my list right now. Daniel N., Men the Master, Ted Forrest, Phil Ivey, Scott Fishman, Barry Greenstein, Howard Lederer.

2+2 should have an unoffical pool for tournaments. You get to pick 5 guys and get points for highest combined finish. The winner gets something.

The rest of the stuff I don't care about.

Re: how good can you be at tournament poker?
 

Is there anywhere to get a complete lists of players and placements for both the 2003 and 2004 WSOP main event? If so, it seems to me that you could get somewhere toward answering this question by taking a simple correlation of placements in each of the two years. I guess that it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of .2, or perhaps a little lower.

Re: how good can you be at tournament poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Almost everyone believes there is more skill in tournament poker than there actually is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Remove the word 'tournament', and add 'in the short term' at the end of the sentence. Anyone can lose in any given short term period; cash games or tournaments. It is not till we begin to see a long term trend that we get an idea. There are daily posts on the strategy forums of this board along the lines of 'I am losing over 10k hands, I don't know what to do'. The answer is generally play more hands if you believe you should be beating the game, until your sample size is relevant.

Getting long term results in cash games, whilst playing multiple tables online, is hard enough but IMO long term tournament results don't even exist; with the size of WPT events these days you would surely need to play many 1000s before getting a sample size of any relevance at all. Noone is ever going to play enough, so how can we ever know who the best players are from results alone?

[ QUOTE ]
When someone has a great year, people conclude that those results illustrate how good it is possible to be. BUT NOBODY IS ANYWHERE NEAR AS "GOOD" AS YOU WOULD CONCLUDE FROM THOSE RESULTS. And this is where people go off the beam.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't agree more. I also think its a bad idea for any poker pro to just play tournaments as a means of support, without a very large cushion for variance.

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

Re: Okay, I\'ll go first!
 

Hi EasyE,

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, all other things being equal, if you flip heads 50 times in succession, there's a significant possibility that the coin is somehow weighted -- albeit perhaps in ways you can't easily detect -- and I'd be expecting a greater than 50% of heads over the next N (very large) tosses.

Cris

Re: how good can you be at tournament poker?
 

Very nice post. I agree with you on this. Tournaments have one other function besides winning a boat loads of cash is Fame and Fame only. People dream (I know I do) about winning a Major. But my odds are not good because the fields are so large. For a Pro to make to the final table next year will be near to imposible. Look at this years 6+ players won their seat through the internet. DH the only real major Pro headliner there.

I feel players plucking down $10k to play are insane no matter how good you are (or think you are for that matter) are really throwing your money away. Maybe you'll make the money and get your money back, but why not put the $10k in a NL ring game. You have a better shot to double or triple you buyin.

I think the only time playing in a big tourney for a Rec. Player like myself is to win it though a Super. One that pays a vacation or something like the UB Aruba tourney. Now that is a great Vaca, free, and you play poker, Yehaaaaaaaaaa!!!

Paul I think you make great points and keep these coming.

Big O

Re: how good can you be at tournament poker?
 

I, for one, am honored to have both started the initial thread that got PP going on this topic, AND for riling him up with my deadly hack math!

Once again, I agree with 99% of what you say,(hell, i'm experincing the bad side of luck in my game right now..), but your post seems to insinuate that results don't matter that much, except for long term(right?). Well, PH had long term results. Maybe it's an aberration. Hell, for that matter then, maybe Doyle's whole career is an aberration of a lifetime of good luck. I don't know

What I do know is what my new fantasy sport is! I will be tailoring a points system for this if one is not already made for next year's WSOP.

Re: how good can you be at tournament poker?
 

Hi Paul,

I think most people significantly overestimate the skill difference between winners and losers, in almost every kind of sporting endeavor.

For example, consider the end-of-season scoring averages for PGA tour pros. In most years, the difference between the scoring leader and the 126th player will typically be right around two strokes per round. The scoring leader will often (although not always) be the money leader for that year. The 126th player will probably have lost his tour card and go back to Q-School.

Similarly, consider the effect of just one or two injuries on an NFL football team. With only 16 games in the season, one or two significant injuries will take the "best" team in the league out of playoff contention, because the skill difference between the "best" and "worst" teams just isn't all that great. For most of the also-rans, the difference between making and missing the playoffs comes down to five or six key plays over the course of a season: a touchdown pass dropped in this game, a blown coverage that gives up a touchdown in that one, a missed field goal here, a fourth-quarter drive-killing penalty there. The margin really is that small.

The same is true in tournament poker. While I won't go to the same extent as Tosh and say that there's no way to draw any conclusions on less than 1000 tournaments, neither do I agree with the "results speak for themselves" crowd.

Chaos and statistical theory predict a substantial clumping factor in random events. If you roll a six-sided die often enough, sooner or later you'll roll a streak of 6s. If you see only a small sample containing that streak, you might conclude that 6 is the "best" number. A poker tournament, by nature, takes a tiny sample of the players' careers. In most tournaments, the finalists will play fewer than 500 hands from start to finish. Even in this year's WSOP Main Event, I doubt that was much greater than 2000 hands. That is a tiny sample in poker.

So yes, I agree that the luck factor is significantly underrated in tournament outcomes. The good players need a bit less "luck" than the poor players, but every tournament winner will have gotten lucky to win.

Cris

Re: Okay, I\'ll go first!
 

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, all other things being equal, if you flip heads 50 times in succession, there's a significant possibility that the coin is somehow weighted -- albeit perhaps in ways you can't easily detect. I'd be expecting a greater than 50% of heads over the next N (very large) tosses.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

Why require N to be very large? You have a pretty freaking good bet on the 51st flip alone.

Once you accept there's a nonzero chance that the coin is unfair, then: either it IS unfair, or you've just witnessed a one in 562-trillion odds event: like winning a one in 24-million lottery twice in a row. I think you can inch your estimation of the likelihood of another heads a tad up from 50%.

Seriously, forget about the math. If you knew you weren't being set up or hustled somehow and saw a coin flipped the same way fifty times in a row, wouldn't you be willing to give some pretty freaking long odds that it's going the same way next time too? I should hope so! There are a lot of potential gambling fallacies swirling around this subject matter, but predicting the future based on the past is only a fallacy when the events are actually random. In "real life" you're supposed to be somewhat results oriented -- otherwise known as the scientific method.

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 ]

I'll take you up on this wager. I know of a site with a simulated online dice roll...we could set the die to only two numbers..and when it came up one of the two numbers comes up many times in a row, we could then make the bet for the next several rolls. What odds exactly are you willing to lay? With this online simulator, we can run thousands of rolls per day. We can transfer all money either through Party, Stars, or through an online service like paypal. Up for it?

Re: Okay, I\'ll go first!
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you knew you weren't being set up or hustled somehow and saw a coin flipped the same way fifty times in a row, wouldn't you be willing to give some pretty freaking long odds that it's going the same way next time too? I should hope so!

[/ QUOTE ]

If we accept your parameter that "we're not being hustled" (ie. its a 50/50 shot on each individual flip of eother heads or tails), then the second part of your statement makes no sense.

Re: how good can you be at tournament poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I feel players plucking down $10k to play are insane no matter how good you are (or think you are for that matter) are really throwing your money away.

[/ QUOTE ]


Not really.
Consider that many of the top-name players finished in the money and at least got their buy-in back (or maybe a little more).

Anyone who finished in the top 225 got their buy-in back I think.
If you finished high enough to 'only' got $10-$20k, well, that still isn't THAT bad for a week's work.

Plus the excitement of being involved in the biggest poker event EVER.

I just think it's wrong to assume that not reaching the final-table constitutes failure.


Other thoughts -

Paul - thanks for a very insightful post. I will also be checking out the linked article.

Cris - Great post regarding other sports. right on the money. The line between great and mediocre is much closer in most sports then many people imagine.
look at all the 95 win teams in baseball compared with all the 91 win teams.
etc etc etc. Your golf example is good too and probably slightly closer to the poker-tournament construct.



My own situation - As some of you know, last week I decided to enter a $50k guaranteed online tourney for $100 and I lucked my way into winning the whole thing for $12.5k.
Not too shabby for a guy who isn't that good of a tourney player who makes his living grinding away at the 3/6 tables.
I didn't have any major suck-outs until it was heads-up (where the river saved me a couple times) and I thought I played pretty well. But I also came back from the short-stack with 16 players left so there obviously had to be some luck involved.
My greatest amount of luck came from the fact that nobody delivered any significant bad-beats on me.
All my AQ's held up against AJ's and so on.


Am i improving as a tournament player? Heck yes. I'm much better now then I ever was before.
Is my win evidence that I am pretty damn good at this stuff?
Nope. Not by a long-shot.
I think I MIGHT be good enough to break-even on these things (or have slight positive expectation) in the long-run but certainly not much more than that.
At least not until Greg and Dan's 2+2 tourney-books come out!!

Re: how good can you be at tournament poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
most people significantly overestimate the skill difference between winners and losers, in almost every kind of sporting endeavor

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what makes baseball betting so good! The favorites almost always get overbet skewing the lines often toward the underdogs. The talent gap between "good" teams and "bad" teams is minimal and most teams hover in the gray murky middle, Once in a while you have some pathetic outliers like Arizona this season or Detroit last season. Or ocassionally teams like the Mariners or Yankees of a few years back that had +.700 seasons. But these are rare instances. But for the most part the very best teams win less than 60% of the time and the bad teams still win at least 40% of the time. You would never know it though by how the lines can skew. But people want to pick a winner so they are willing to lay more odds than they should on a slight favorite.

Re: Okay, I\'ll go first!
 

[ QUOTE ]
If we accept your parameter that "we're not being hustled" (ie. its a 50/50 shot on each individual flip of eother heads or tails)

[/ QUOTE ]

A !-&gt; B

You're not being hustled. That means nobody is sitting here influencing outcomes somehow to make you pursue a bad bet, or rigging the coin toss repeatedly in one direction until they can get you to bet in the other, etc, It surely doens't mean the coin is fair! It should be obvious that the coin is not fair.

The whole point is that the coin isn't fair.

[ QUOTE ]
then the second part of your statement makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

It makes sense to me but you're not the first person to suggest that I've got brain-matter issues.

Re: how good can you be at tournament poker?
 

Paul,

Even though you're correct in that, given the nature of variance, we can expect extreme results at either end of the tournament "curve," wouldn't you agree that it is perfectly acceptable to think that multiple tournament successes in a relatively short period is more *likely* the result of skill than it is of luck?

In fact, isn't this the whole notion of statistical significance? In a typical hypothesis test, for example, one might employ a t-test to determine whether we can reject "Hypothesis X" with statistical significance of Y%. While it might be true that, in reality, Hypothesis X is correct, statistical practice dictates that we reject it, because of the severe unlikelihood that it is valid.

In other words, while I agree that it is possible and likely that some people are simply more lucky in tournaments than others over the short term, in the absence of qualitative evidence otherwise, it is perfectly acceptable (indeed, it would be incorrect otherwise) to accrue extraordinary short-term tournament success to skill.

Re: Okay, I\'ll go first!
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. This is a basic fallacy.

In fact, given that flipping heads 50 times in a row could be construed as a bias in favor of heads, the original poster's assertion is even more off-base.

Familiar faces at final tables
 

Hi Paul,

First, allow me to join with others in saying thank you for sharing your opinions and thoughts on this forum. This article has been of particular interest to me in just getting into some of the smaller buy in tournaments.

Regarding the main event of the world series, many of the top players have expressed how difficult it will be for any top notch pro to win given the huge fields and the huge proportion of internet players changing the style of the game.

In WPT events, however, it seems that there is a subgroup of players that make frequent appearances at the final table. While I realize random noise can account for some of this, it does give the impression that at least in average fields some players have a much greater chance of reaching the final table. My inclination is to attribute this to greater skills than average, in addition to luck being on your side at this particular event.

Are there simply a large number of pros that play most of these events, thereby increasing their chances of making final tables in several of them? Do these pros have a higher skill level than most of the field, but remain fairly even amongst each other? When you reach the final say 4 or 5 tables, do you find a large proportion of pros to lesser skilled players, or do the pros still represent a fraction of the entries a bit closer to the first day?

Regards-

Re: Okay, I\'ll go first!
 

Not a comment one way or the other, but here's an interesting read about coin bias. It's definitely tangential to the issue at bar.

Toss Out the Toss-Up: Bias in heads-or-tails

~D

Re: how good can you be at tournament poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, consider the effect of just one or two injuries on an NFL football team. With only 16 games in the season, one or two significant injuries will take the "best" team in the league out of playoff contention, because the skill difference between the "best" and "worst" teams just isn't all that great.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately Chris you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You first state that: [ QUOTE ]
one or two significant injuries will take the "best" team in the league out of playoff contention,

[/ QUOTE ] and then you state:
[ QUOTE ]
the skill difference between the "best" and "worst" teams just isn't all that great.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both statements just cannot be true since all the teams are comprised of players. For the teams to be very close in skill/talent the players themselves must also be close in skill/talent. Contrary to popular belief removing a key player just doesn't have that much effect on a team.

Jimbo

Re: how good can you be at tournament poker?
 

so Paul, do you agree with Negreanu that the world champ should be decided by pot-limit Hold 'em? Does NL inherently favor luck just too much?? we all know it makes for good TV so it will never happen but just curious your opinion...

Re: how good can you be at tournament poker?
 

most people significantly overestimate the skill difference between winners and losers, in almost every kind of sporting endeavor.

e.g., the difference between hitting .320 and .280 is less than 2 hits per week.

Re: how good can you be at tournament poker?
 

Nice post as usual Paul! +EV! 8)

I think we need to consider in tournaments the # of players that don't know GOOD tournament strategy, let alone experts.... this will DOOM much of dead money to fatal errors, while some will luck out on their grievous (to us) decisions and send experts to the rail.

In other words, experts definitely have an advantage (skill set/knowledge/whatever you want to call it...) and the not so expert players do not, and their errors will DOOM a large % of them and randomly send some experts to the rail.

So almost every final table in a large event is likely to have more experts at the final table in my view, but a lucky dolt (in poker skill comparison only) or 2 are likely to squeak through as well.

Not to slam David Wms. but he was looking like the lucky dolt at that final table, but I saw some bad plays through the final 2 tables from many players, IMHO.
Greg R. played great big stack and got more than his fair share of boards, some losses weren't shown, ESPN rushed these final 2 tables big time, so the masses just following via this coverage will likely feel: 'WOW! Greg is the luckiest SOB on the planet!'.

Not sure if that is a disservice to us players or not. 8)

&gt;Trainwreck&lt;

Re: how good can you be at tournament poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
e.g., the difference between hitting .320 and .280 is less than 2 hits per week.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, not even that much imo.

Assume 500 ab's (which is higher than average):
.320 = 160 hits
.280 = 140 hits

I believe the baseball season is roughly 24 weeks long and the difference between .320 and .280 is only 20 hits.

So it's actually very close to just 1 hit per week.

Re: how good can you be at tournament poker?
 

Paul,

Glad to see you posting here. About the time you left RGP I spent the greater part of an evening Googling many of your old posts there - the experience made me instantly regret that I had you mixed up with others with the same last name [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

I'll take a stab at a few of your propositions and add one of my own:

* 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?

I respect Dan about as much as any player but I'd put his chances at about 1/300. There is no one I'd put better than 1/200. I rate Dan's chances a bit worse than the best because the large fields and series of long days work against the older player.

* 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?

I'm assuming you just mean the final event of 5000 players. I'd say you need to let me chose about 1500 players. Problem is, I couldn't come up with 1500 names e.g., I wouldn't know the names of all those super bright young guys polishing their games online.

* 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?

About 2X's, maybe a bit less.

[/i]* 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?[/i]

The math is beyond my ability but intuitively I'd say about 65% confident.

What if B had averaged 3 buyins per tournament?

Getting that far out over 100 tournaments is substantially better. I'd be 85% confident.

There is a risk-free fortune to be made for the industrious proposition bet seeker by exploiting the gap between perceptions and reality. Go forth and wager!

My Mom would die if I got involved in some legal tangle with running such an operation so there is no fortune for me. On a smaller scale I passed on some of the dubious online sites $50 max bet where you got to pick against a field of 200 or so "big names". Great bet but who wants the hassle of signing up [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Here is my own proposition:

What are the chances of Phil Hellmuth making the final table in the WSOP final championship event at least once in the next 20 years? (I'd estimate he is a 2 to 1 dog)

BTW, I'd put Phil Hellmuth as a 2 to 1 favorite over you in a WSOP "last longer" bet. Yet I'd rate you as having at least twice the money equity in the tournament (hope this doesn't sound like a suck up).

Regards,

Rick