9 person vs 10 person

[JJKillian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(I'm ignoring rake)

[/ QUOTE ]

For some reason I feel that the rake makes less players a bad thing, again I'm getting annoyed because I'm not thinking clearly enough to work out why.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a tough problem is why. Tons of variables.

[axeshigh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(I'm ignoring rake)

[/ QUOTE ]

For some reason I feel that the rake makes less players a bad thing, again I'm getting annoyed because I'm not thinking clearly enough to work out why.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the rake would constitute a bigger portion of the total prize pool?

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the rake would constitute a bigger portion of the total prize pool?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's something to do with that yes.

I'm going to go and make up some dodgy "proof" now.

Lori

[lorinda]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because the rake would constitute a bigger portion of the total prize pool?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's something to do with that yes.

I'm going to go and make up some dodgy "proof" now.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

The best I can come up with would be that you could still beat a $1 1000-player MTT in the long term with 100% rake, but you couldn't ever beat a $1 HU game with 100% rake.

Edit: and yes, that would make the reason that the rake is too much compared to the prize pool. nh.

Lori

Theoretically speaking and all other things equal:

<ul type="square">[*]ROI should be the same [*]ITM% should increase [*]Variance should decrease[/list]