World Series Main Event Evolution: Harder Then Or Now? - Page 3

RowdyZ · #21 07-04-2005, 03:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you claiming theres more dead money back then, then now?????

Please check your facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you read his posts? What do "facts" have to do with anything he has posted.

RZ

TM1212 · #22 07-04-2005, 03:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

lets see, Brunson, Pearson,Roberts,Moss,Preston,Strauss. Yeah bunch of pushovers.

RZ

[/ QUOTE ]

lol exactly

Wake up CALL · #23 07-04-2005, 04:01 PM

The initial question is really easy to answer if you take it down to an absurd comparison.

Would you rather be playing (assuming he was still alive and at his peak) Stu Ungar heads up in a N/L tournament or against 99 other players all with about one years experience?

It should be obvious that you would beat Stu somewhere between 35 and 40% of the time wheras you have no chance to win anywhere near that often in the 100 player event.

TM1212 · #24 07-04-2005, 04:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you play in a tournament with 39 of the top pro's today.

And let's say next week you play in a tournament with 3999 players who are all so bad that they don't even understand the hand rankings. They simply move their chips in randomly and wait to see if the dealer tells them that are a winner or not. In other words, they just treat the game like a pure gamble.

Which tourney would be harder to win?

[/ QUOTE ]

better question which would be more profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without knowing the entry fees and payout structure there is no way to answer this question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets get a mathmatican over here... How dont we know the entry fess? or the payouts?

Lets go with 1981 vs 2004 average profitablility of an above average player. Makeing certain assumptions you can get a pretty accurate number. (I heard Ivey once discuss the topic he said the avgerage winning player expects a 200% return. That the top pros expect a 400%-800% return or higher. All this over the long term of course. Clearly this would vary greatly with the experience of the feild

TM1212 · #25 07-04-2005, 04:07 PM

assumptions sorry! He mad the assumption that there was more dead money back then, then now. I believe the opposite is a "fact." But make an argument the other way if you wish

RowdyZ · #26 07-04-2005, 04:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
assumptions sorry! He mad the assumption that there was more dead money back then, then now. I believe the opposite is a "fact." But make an argument the other way if you wish

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about his assumptions. Sorry if not clear.

RZ

Wake up CALL · #27 07-04-2005, 04:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you play in a tournament with 39 of the top pro's today.

And let's say next week you play in a tournament with 3999 players who are all so bad that they don't even understand the hand rankings. They simply move their chips in randomly and wait to see if the dealer tells them that are a winner or not. In other words, they just treat the game like a pure gamble.

Which tourney would be harder to win?

[/ QUOTE ]

better question which would be more profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without knowing the entry fees and payout structure there is no way to answer this question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets get a mathmatican over here... How dont we know the entry fess? or the payouts?

Lets go with 1981 vs 2004 average profitablility of an above average player. Makeing certain assumptions you can get a pretty accurate number. (I heard Ivey once discuss the topic he said the avgerage winning player expects a 200% return. That the top pros expect a 400%-800% return or higher. All this over the long term of course. Clearly this would vary greatly with the experience of the feild

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you don't know the entry fees or payout structure of either the 39 player or the 3999 player tourneys used in the question. No math major needed but perhaps The Amazing Kreskin could answer your question.

A_C_Slater · #28 07-04-2005, 04:12 PM

Even if you faced a field of 2000 chimpanzees that were trained to push chips randomly into the pot when given a cue to act it would be harder to win that tourney than defeat a field of 100 super pros.

PokerPaul · #29 07-04-2005, 04:15 PM

sheer volume of players, fish and good players, making coning in 1st spot bit of a lottery. Must be good and catch cards for a week straight.

However, getting into top 10% should be much easier with the inflated pool of average players. Much longer journey, but i think good players can still make it there much easier than before.

and even if you don't place first, placing ninth this year may pay more than winning whole thing as recent as 4 years ago.

TM1212 · #30 07-04-2005, 04:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you play in a tournament with 39 of the top pro's today.

And let's say next week you play in a tournament with 3999 players who are all so bad that they don't even understand the hand rankings. They simply move their chips in randomly and wait to see if the dealer tells them that are a winner or not. In other words, they just treat the game like a pure gamble.

Which tourney would be harder to win?

[/ QUOTE ]

better question which would be more profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without knowing the entry fees and payout structure there is no way to answer this question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets get a mathmatican over here... How dont we know the entry fess? or the payouts?

Lets go with 1981 vs 2004 average profitablility of an above average player. Makeing certain assumptions you can get a pretty accurate number. (I heard Ivey once discuss the topic he said the avgerage winning player expects a 200% return. That the top pros expect a 400%-800% return or higher. All this over the long term of course. Clearly this would vary greatly with the experience of the feild

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you don't know the entry fees or payout structure of either the 39 player or the 3999 player tourneys used in the question. No math major needed but perhaps The Amazing Kreskin could answer your question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to the main event which you could find the profitability for, not your retard lottery hypothetical situation. Either way I would assume both buyins would be identical (ie the main event [censored] head) and the pay out would be top 10%.