World Series Main Event Evolution: Harder Then Or Now?

[NYCNative]

Let's look at the World Series ME winners in years gone by. They won by beating a fraction of the players that are playing in the event these days but arguably all of the players they did beat were pretty damn good. There was no "dead money" to contend with.

So what was harder? Winning the tournament where every table had pros who were among the best in the game? Or going through many, many more tables, many of which had zero pros?

I can see the merits in either argument.

I would like if any of the pros here who HAVE played in both situations (pros who play in invitation-only events that guarantee quality players and of course the bigger tourneys open to all or pros whose careers at the WSOP extend on either side of the explosion) give their unique perspective.

[diddle]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's look at the World Series ME winners in years gone by. They won by beating a fraction of the players that are playing in the event these days but arguably all of the players they did beat were pretty damn good. There was no "dead money" to contend with.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. How do you think Ungar won 10 of 30 big buy in events?

There was tons of dead money. The players back then hardly understood the game or the odds. The average player today is much better than the average player of yesteryear, no matter what the old coots want you to think.

[donny5k]

Do you have any evidence to back up what is most likely just a wild misapplication of logic?

[The Armchair]

I think he's being entirely fair. Watch some of the old WSOP matchups or their kin, and you'll see some mindbogglingly awful plays -- stuff that you'd expect on Celebrity Poker Showdown. My favorite was one hand where a guy goess all in for just over two big blinds, and both the small and big blind fold. (We don't know their hands b/c this is before the pocket-cam, but who cares!)

Now, you have people who just came away from 100 player tourneys and won the whole thing. The number of compulsive gamblers who pony up $10k for the chance at a few years' salary is proportionally lower.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
The average player today is much better than the average player of yesteryear, no matter what the old coots want you to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true without doubt, but even if it weren't true I don't get how people can imagine that a huge field is easier to get through than a small field just because the average skill in the smaller field is higher. You still have to win many times as many chips! Unless you think today's non-pros are so bad that they are always drawing dead, then it's pretty obvious that winning in huge fields is harder.

Was annie duke winning the 10-player TOC was arguably more difficult than raymer winning the main event? No, it's insane.

The difficulty of winning a multi-table tournament is almost directly proportional to the field size, with all other factors nearly invisible by comparison.

[TM1212]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The average player today is much better than the average player of yesteryear, no matter what the old coots want you to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true without doubt, but even if it weren't true I don't get how people can imagine that a huge field is easier to get through than a small field just because the average skill in the smaller field is higher. You still have to win many times as many chips! Unless you think today's non-pros are so bad that they are always drawing dead, then it's pretty obvious that winning in huge fields is harder.

Was annie duke winning the 10-player TOC was arguably more difficult than raymer winning the main event? No, it's insane.

The difficulty of winning a multi-table tournament is almost directly proportional to the field size, with all other factors nearly invisible by comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason people make this argument is because of the level of dead money. Now the tournament, because of the size, requires more luck and has a larger variance. Does that make it harder...

A better question is would a non pro have a better chance winning a 100 person tourt were the 100 are the top 100 tourt players in the world (thus all 100 are better then him). Or, would it be harder for a non pro a tourt against 6000 people 5,000 of which are on his level or worse. There’s a lot more chips in the latter that the non pro can pick up, does that make it easier to come though a 6,000 person field, probably not.


Even more accurate way of looking at this is how much of a return a player can expect on his buyin over the long term. I would say for a non pro this number would be negative in the early tourts. Can't really argue any other way, look at amateurs record back then. Now consider today. Many not so great armatures I could argue, could show a profit over the long term at the current WSOP because of the level of play of the other competitors. Does this mean its easier...

[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]
Now the tournament, because of the size, requires more luck and has a larger variance. Does that make it harder...

Even more accurate way of looking at this is how much of a return a player can expect on his buyin over the long term. I would say for a non pro this number would be negative in the early tourts. Can't really argue any other way, look at amateurs record back then.

[/ QUOTE ]

An interesting point. Then again, the amateurs of yesterday had a lot less information and practice to build on back then, I believe.

[ QUOTE ]
Now consider today. Many not so great armatures I could argue, could show a profit over the long term at the current WSOP because of the level of play of the other competitors. Does this mean its easier...

[/ QUOTE ]

But the pros are more likely to build chips up as well (or even more so, arguably) so they might be more likely to survive mistakes and luck... so more pros with more chips are out there to beat the "amateurs"....

I doubt anyone will every successfully quantify skill vs. luck in tournament poker

[Easy E]

The difficulty of winning a multi-table tournament is almost directly proportional to the field size, with all other factors nearly invisible by comparison.

Simply put, the more chances you have for it to happen, the more likely one of those 2% outs comes and buries you.

Field size trumps skill. In fact, I might argue that larger fields of less skilled players are tougher to win than smaller fields of tough players, because they are less predictable and therefore you're more likely to run yourself into a killer hand that makes no sense for someone to play.... until the flop shows up.

[RowdyZ]

[ QUOTE ]

There was tons of dead money. The players back then hardly understood the game or the odds. The average player today is much better than the average player of yesteryear, no matter what the old coots want you to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the big difference is "average" players didn't play in the WSOP back then.

But as far as the question goes of course it is a whole lot harder now to win then back then. Field size is a much bigger difference. You not only have more bad players to go though you also have more average and above arevage players in the tournament as well. It is alot harder all the way around.

RZ

[diddle]

[ QUOTE ]
Well the big difference is "average" players didn't play in the WSOP back then.

[/ QUOTE ]

"average" player in the event. Do you really need everything spelled out?

Many of the people in the WSOP years ago had NO idea how to play NL hold em. As in, they were practically drawing dead, unlike nowadays, where almost everybody has >$5000 equity from the buy-in.