*Official* WSOP ME Thread + Fantasy Thread

[Sluss]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the same idea as filling out NCAA bball tourney brackets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your right it is . You wouldn't pick the #1 team in the nation to not make the sweet 16 that would be -EV. But you would pick some other upsets and a suprise teams to make it to the final four. So the key is to have diversity in a pool. Several that are +++EV and everone knows about and several that no one else has that you think are +EV.

[EverettKings]

If you want, to make this fun, I'll bet $1-$50 on AJo's list to win getting (whatever the field size is - 1):1, so it's 0 EV if his list has an average chance to win. Notice that if you think his lists sucks, it's a great bet. I would bet more but I want my payoff to be a sum that I could reasonably expect to collect (i.e. if I bet $500 and won you'd owe me like 15 grand, so I'd rather you owe me like <$1k if I won).

Any takers? Well, read below first, for your own sake.

[ QUOTE ]

In your example with 1 person, this made sense because you would have to split the prize if your man won, whereas if you picked someone no one else did, you wouldn't. But with each additional pick we have to make to make up a team, this risk of having to split a prize is reduced.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK you're not actually splitting the prize money, but in a figurative sense you're splitting that player's points. It's still the same.

Say you had the exact same list as someone else, and you're both geniuses so it's the best list possible. Does that suck? Yes, because you need this ONE list of players to succeed for your shot at HALF of the money (I know I already explained this and you agree, but bear with me). Your list would have to be twice as likely to win for this to be profitable.

Similarly, now say you and someone have 24/25 in common, where the last one you picked MLG and someone else picked Gigabet. Say MLG and Giga have the same expectation. So you have a 50% chance of beating your twin. You also need that shared list of 24 to beat out a bunch of other unique lists. So basically you need ONE list to win for a 50% chance to win the pool. It's like flipping a coin after you win to see if you get the money or not. Sucky. Say there were three people in this pool, one guy with a fully unique list and you two near-twins. Say the other guy's list was crap and had a 40% chance of winning while y'alls list had a 60% chance. But then you have your 25th man coinflip if your list wins. So the expectations are 40-30-30%, with the "dumb" list with the lead. Notice that it's not a matter of being a favorite, but rather a multiplicity.If you change your list to an average one (with a 33% chance), then the percentages change to 33(you)-27(dumblist)-39(smartlist). Notice that you and your x-twin gained EV.

[ QUOTE ]

Suppose for a second that Ivey actually has a 24x edge on a more unknown player from someone else's list. You really think they have equal value to each list?

[/ QUOTE ]
If all the lists are set and you have to pick between Ivey, who is on 25 other lists, and an unknown guy with 1/24 the expectation of Ivey, on nobody's list, then yes you should go with the unknown guy.


I didn't submit a list (now regretting) but I'd still love to do some gamboooling if someone wants to hit up my bet.

Everett

[dtbog]

From CardPlayer:

[ QUOTE ]
Notables In Today's Field
Log: Scott Fischman - Table 38- Seat 6
Jennifer Tilly - Table 30 - Seat 6
Mike Sexton - Table 42 - Seat 8
Marco Traniello - Table 46 - Seat 8
Mike Lang - Table 47 - Seat 4
Julian Gardner - Table 49 - Seat 7
Phil Laak - Table 24 - Seat 3
Greg Raymer - Table 10 - Seat 7
Ted Lawson - Table 12 - Seat 1
Matt Matros - Table 6 - Seat 2
Dan Alspach - Table 4 - Seat 7


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, this seems like a strangely incomplete list to me. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I know it's just for Day 1, but still.

-dB

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
From CardPlayer:

[ QUOTE ]
Notables In Today's Field
Log: Scott Fischman - Table 38- Seat 6
Jennifer Tilly - Table 30 - Seat 6
Mike Sexton - Table 42 - Seat 8
Marco Traniello - Table 46 - Seat 8
Mike Lang - Table 47 - Seat 4
Julian Gardner - Table 49 - Seat 7
Phil Laak - Table 24 - Seat 3
Greg Raymer - Table 10 - Seat 7
Ted Lawson - Table 12 - Seat 1
Matt Matros - Table 6 - Seat 2
Dan Alspach - Table 4 - Seat 7


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, this seems like a strangely incomplete list to me. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I know it's just for Day 1, but still.

-dB

[/ QUOTE ]

anyone else find it strange that they are all in the lower numbered tables? (there are 200 tables today)

[Subby]

I think the updater is just working his way through the room...

David Singer - Table 101
Alan Boston - Table 100
Gus Hanson - Table 99
Chris Grigorian - Table 89
Paul Darden - Table 93
David Grey - Table 82
Humberto Brenes - Table 81
Isabelle Mercier - Table 78
Tony Cousineau - Table 61
Terrence Chan - 69
Toto Leonidas - 110

[Brad F.]

No one has Brad Garrett on his fantasy team????

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[BlackAces]

Jennifer Harman is at the featured table.

[West]

While I see your point, I only think it applies so far. As long as anyone has a certain amount of quality players that are not in common with too many other people's lists, I think you should be able to have a certain amount of big names in common and not be hurt. It may be that I would be better off with a little more variety in my own personal list, as I took a lot of big names - I certainly don't want a list that's almost exactly the same as someone else's. I'll have to double check, but I'm pretty sure that didn't end up being a problem.

But to take a less extreme example of what you are saying, what if you took my list, AJo's list, and MLG's list, and put us against each other, just the three of us, with no one else involved in the pool. My list and MLG's have about half our names in common. I think AJo has like one name in common with both of us. Do you think these facts give him an advantage?

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, now say you and someone have 24/25 in common, where the last one you picked MLG and someone else picked Gigabet. Say MLG and Giga have the same expectation. So you have a 50% chance of beating your twin. You also need that shared list of 24 to beat out a bunch of other unique lists. So basically you need ONE list to win for a 50% chance to win the pool. It's like flipping a coin after you win to see if you get the money or not. Sucky. Say there were three people in this pool, one guy with a fully unique list and you two near-twins. Say the other guy's list was crap and had a 40% chance of winning while y'alls list had a 60% chance. But then you have your 25th man coinflip if your list wins. So the expectations are 40-30-30%, with the "dumb" list with the lead.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if in your example we pay two places instead of one?

[ QUOTE ]
If all the lists are set and you have to pick between Ivey, who is on 25 other lists, and an unknown guy with 1/24 the expectation of Ivey, on nobody's list, then yes you should go with the unknown guy.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say I'm in a ten man pool. Let's say Phil Ivey, Johnny Chan, Gus Hansen, Erick Lindgren, Paul Phillips, Barry Greenstein, Daniel Negreanu, Doyle Brunson, David Skalnsky, Chris Ferguson and Phil Hellmuth all have 5 times the cash expectation of Joe Shmoe. Let's say in this pool each team can only consist of two players. The first nine entries picked:

A - Ivey, Phillips
B - Ivey, Negreanu
C - Ivey, Brunson
D - Ivey, Sklansky
E - Ivey, Chan
F - Ivey, Greenstein
G - Ivey, Ferguson
H - Ivey, Lindgren
I - Ivey, Hansen

You're the tenth team and you have Hellmuth as one of your picks, and let's say you are forced to choose between Phil Ivey and Joe Shmoe for your second pick. If what you are saying is true, you should take Joe Shmoe instead of Ivey, even though his expectation would be 5 times less. I can see things getting confused by the frequency with which they both cash, but assuming that Ivey is going to cash more frequently, I don't see how you are not worse off with Joe Shmoe compared to taking Ivey.

[HighStakesPro]

This is what I took consideration when I made my list (TheTimeIsUp I hope you got it included...please respond on this board so I know i'm in, thanks [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]):

If I can pick the winner OR the highest finishing person on anyone's list, I'll be almost certain to finish ahead of anyone who doesn't have that person on their list, since we're doing scoring by how much money our team makes. If I pick the winner and nobody else, I'll be ahead of anyone who picks 2nd place, 5th place, 11th place, and 15th place. Just an example, obviously I don't know the prize payouts yet but you see what I'm getting at. Therefore while I chose most if not all of the people who I thought had the best chance to make the final table because of their aggressive play, willingness to gamble, past history, etc. That's why I chose Raymer over, say, Men Nguyen, because Raymer in my view has a greater chance of accumulating a large chipstack early and riding it very deep into the tournament. You could have all of your players finish in the money and be nowhere close to somebody who happened to completely miss on everyone except two players who both made it to the final table. I did take some "grinding" players like Harman, Traniello, Hellmuth, Ma, and Mizrachi, as a way to sort of hedge my bets and in case all of my risk-taking players flame out then I'll still have some money finishers who have a chance to win. Also notice that none of these players are on more than 60% of the teams and some are on much fewer so I at least move ahead of a good number of teams if they succeed. As far as Ivey goes, yes everyone else is taking him, but if he finishes high, which is relatively more likely than for almost any other player, I have practically zero chance of winning unless I'm very lucky and one of my "unknowns" finishes first, second, or otherwise ahead of Ivey. I'm kind of regeretting not taking a couple people like Helppi and Sagstrom who aren't as well known but still have a good chance of making the final table if they can get a big stack early. This is the biggest dead money tournament in the history of poker, and that's how these guys can have an advantage over more solid players.

As for CK Hua, I have heard of him and that he's a pretty good player, but I heard Matusow on one of the CardPlayer video interviews saying Hua is a steamer and how he went all in with 55 or something and got lucky doubling against Matusow's AQs. Steaming = huge disadvantage. But I picked Hellmuth cause he's fun to watch for and root for (or root against).

[Sluss]

Barry Greenstein is out

and Scotty is on life support [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

source: Gutshot