100 vs 6500
 

a friend an i have a bet going on the wsop me. he picks 100 names and i get the field. we did the stats to make it a fair bet bassed on the assumption that a pro is 3x as good as a random player. if none of the 100 make the final table i win x, if one of the 100 make the table and don't win he gets y and if one of the 100 wins he gets z. it works out that i should win x 66% of the time.

here r the names that my friend picked:
Yehia "Joe" Awada
Chris Bigler
Andy Bloch
Farzad Bonyadi
Humberto Brenes
Doyle Brunson
Todd Brunson
Joe Cassidy
"Miami" John Cernuto
Johnny Chan
David Chiu
Paul "Eskimo" Clark
TJ Cloutier
Dave Colclough
Hoyt Corkins
Allen Cunningham
John D'Agostino
Paul Darden
Kassem "Freddy" Deeb
Charidimos "Harry" Demetriou
Asher Derei
Annie Duke
Antonio Esfandiari
Eli Elezra
Chris "Jesus" Ferguson
Scott Fischman
Layne Flack
Ted Forrest
Prahlad Friedman
Bill Gazes
Kirill Gerasimov
Chau Giang
Alan Goehring
Phil Gordon
Barry Greenstein
Mark Gregorich
David Grey
Hasan Habib
Gus Hansen
Jennifer Harman-Traniello
Dan Harrington
Phil Hellmuth, Jr.
Juha Helppi
John Hennigan
Bobby Hoff
Can Kim Hua
Phil Ivey
Chip Jett
John Juanda
Mel Judah
Thomas "Thunder" Keller
Hung La
Meng La
Phil "Unabomber" Laak
Nam Le
Tuan Le
Howard Lederer
Alfredo "Toto" Leonidas
Kathy Liebert
Erick Lindgren
Jeffrey Lisandro
Marcel Luske
Minh Ly
Hieu Ngoc "Tony" Ma
Lee Markholt
Mike Matusow
"Minneapolis" Jim Meehan
Michael "The Grinder" Mizrachi
Juan Carlos Mortensen
Daniel Negreanu
Men "The Master" Nguyen
Minh Nguyen
Thuan "Scotty" Nguyen
David Oppenheim
David Pham
Thang "Kido" Pham
John Phan
Young Phan
Paul Phillips
David "Chip" Reese
Blair Rodman
Erik "Erik123" Sagstrom
Huck Seed
Erik Seidel
Mark Seif
Charlie Shoten
Gavin Smith
David Sklansky
Surinder Sunar
Gabriel Thaler
Dewey Tomko
Justin Cuong Van "JC" Tran
Thithi "Mimi" Tran
David "Devilfish" Ulliott
Amir Vahedi
Ram Vaswani
Lee Watkinson
David Williams
Robert Williamson III
Steve Zolotow

what do u think about the bet? assumed edge of a pro? names picked?

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

You absolutely got the best of it. nb

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

I think you may have the worst of it here.

I might be misunderstanding the bet though. Is it even money that one of these players will make the final table or not?

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

It definitely looks as if the pro's have learned & adjusted to the large fields and internet amatuers. I would bet that at least 1 out of that 100 will make the final table.

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

[ QUOTE ]
You absolutely got the best of it. nb

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you may have the worst of it here.

I might be misunderstanding the bet though. Is it even money that one of these players will make the final table or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is Exhibit A for why poker will always be good. Even supposedly studious players don't know how to analyze a situation.

Guys, you don't even know what x, y, and z are. How could you possibly tell whether the bet is good or bad?

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

[ QUOTE ]
Guys, you don't even know what x, y, and z are. How could you possibly tell whether the bet is good or bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

the exact vaules for x y and z dosen't really need to be told to the world. however they r proportional so that (the chance that one of the 100 does not make the table [66%])*x is as close to equal (the chance for one of the 100 to make the table [28.9%])*y + (the chance one of the 100 wins [4.4%])*z.

edit: percentages were wrong

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

[ QUOTE ]
Guys, you don't even know what x, y, and z are. How could you possibly tell whether the bet is good or bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thug said:

[ QUOTE ]
it works out that i should win x 66% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

What he meant was that if (at least) one of the 100 makes the Final Table exactly 33.3% of the time, he breaks even. He also listed the assumptions through which x, y, and z were calculated, so shouldn't that be enough?

Also, my list rocks.

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

[ QUOTE ]
Guys, you don't even know what x, y, and z are. How could you possibly tell whether the bet is good or bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

My thoughts exactly

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Guys, you don't even know what x, y, and z are. How could you possibly tell whether the bet is good or bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

the exact vaules for x y and z dosen't really need to be told to the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then, give us proportional numbers. For example, if x, y, and z are actually $100, $200, and $300, then tell us to use $5, $10, and $15 to analyze the bet.

Telling us about these assumptions you're making isn't really helpful because very few people are going to agree with those assumptions.

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

x : y : z
1 : 1.74 : 3.69

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

I'm pretty sure I'd want Raymer on my 100 list before Tuan Le.

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure I'd want Raymer on my 100 list before Tuan Le.

[/ QUOTE ]

Raymer was a pretty close alternate.

I made a conscious decision to try and mentally compensate for the mainstream bias I'm going to have. A former WSOP ME winner is immediately going to seem more attractive, particularly being a 2+2er, etc. It's definitely conceivable that he suffered unfairly because of that, but there's no way I'm going to get this exactly right based on little RGP scraps from Phillips/Negreanu/Seidel et al and a few dozens hands on TV. Tuan Le won two WPT events, he goes on the list.

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

[ QUOTE ]

Guys, you don't even know what x, y, and z are. How could you possibly tell whether the bet is good or bad?


[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you read in my response where I not only said that I might be misunderstanding what the OP is saying <because values are not given> but also that I assume it is an even money bet when I say he's taking the worst of it.

[ QUOTE ]

I think you may have the worst of it here.

I might be misunderstanding the bet though. Is it even money that one of these players will make the final table or not?



[/ QUOTE ]

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

It's not even money. He's laying what works out to 2:1 that none of the pros will make the final table.

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

Dont need to know x,y, and z. Unless x is huge relative to z and y you got way the worst of it.
Assumption. The hundred pros dont play any better than the 6500 randoms. We know this is not true. The chance of none of the 100 making the final 9 is equal to 1 minus the chance of the nine seats are all filled by randoms. This number is about 0.05 or one in twenty. For this to be a good bet for you, that 'x' number better be 40 or 50 times bigger than the 'y' number.

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dont need to know x,y, and z. Unless x is huge relative to z and y you got way the worst of it.
Assumption. The hundred pros dont play any better than the 6500 randoms. We know this is not true. The chance of none of the 100 making the final 9 is equal to 1 minus the chance of the nine seats are all filled by randoms. This number is about 0.05 or one in twenty. For this to be a good bet for you, that 'x' number better be 40 or 50 times bigger than the 'y' number.

[/ QUOTE ]

We figured that the average pro from my 100 is 3x more likely to make the final table than the average player from the remainder of the field (assuming a 6600-person field). So the chance of one of my names filling Seat 1 at the final table is equivalent to 300/6800, right? And the chance of this not being the case is 6500/6800?

So if that's not wrong then the chances of there not being a single name from my list at the final table would come to [(6500/6800)(6499/6799)(6498/6798)(6497/6797)(6496/6796)(6495/6795)(6494/6794)(6493/6793)(6492/6792)], or [66.6%].

Am I wrong?

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

RETRACTION.

Okay, I'm retracting my calculations. Did it in excel, but didn't check my work.
Not clear how to treat 3 times better. But your method is a good approximation.

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

You are assuming that there will be 6,600 in the field. From what we've heard so far about the size of the field to date, it doesnt sound like it will be full, which would give you a better chance to win than your buddy. Nice bet.

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

do u happen to know how many have presently entered?

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

But David Williams over Raymer? If your concern is a track record, that one doesn't make much sense to me.

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

I saw a thread earlier that put it around 3,700 currently if I remember correctly. Here's the link:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...14&fpart=1

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

[ QUOTE ]
But David Williams over Raymer? If your concern is a track record, that one doesn't make much sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hasn't Williams made more TV final tables?

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure I'd want Raymer on my 100 list before Tuan Le.

[/ QUOTE ]

Raymer was a pretty close alternate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky is dead weight on your list in comparison with Raymer (no offense David). Sklansky doesn't play the megalo- stack-building style that one will need to make a final table of 10 people out of 6500. Even money, I would take Sklansky to finish higher than Raymer. But all else being equal I would take Raymer to catch the final table over Sklansky.

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

[ QUOTE ]
So if that's not wrong then the chances of there not being a single name from my list at the final table would come to [(6500/6800)(6499/6799)(6498/6798)(6497/6797)(6496/6796)(6495/6795)(6494/6794)(6493/6793)(6492/6792)], or [66.6%].

Am I wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did the calculations myself and get the same result. Of course I don't know if your method of adding 300 to the total players is correct. But either way it doesn't make a huge difference in the calculation. Just a couple percentage points.

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

i would wager one of those fellows will make the final table. look at the final tables of the recent events, there's like 4 or 5 of those guys at each of them. granted the fields are smaller, but still i'm quite confident one of them will make it.

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

My money is on the list.
If -none- of the Big Guns make it to the final table then the ME is too large.

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

It would absolutely astonish me of none of those pros made the final table.

~ Tilts

Re: 100 vs 6500
 

[ QUOTE ]
My money is on the list.
If -none- of the Big Guns make it to the final table then the ME is too large.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

Maybe they should raise the entry fee to 25k next year?