How come so many of the name pros busted out the first day?

[betgo]

How come such a high percentage of the name pros busted out the first day when there were so many fish?

When I play in a tournament with weak players, I usually make the top third, since the fish usually bust themselves out fairly quickly.

Were the top players, taking risks to accululate a lot of chips?

Maybe these name pros don't knoew how to play fish, since they only play pretty big games. Maybe, you see players like Raymer, Arieh, Williams, Hachem, Kanter, and Black at the final table not just because there are more of them than the name pros, but but because they understand better how to play against fish.

[CaptSensible]

I thought about this too.

First off I think with the thousands of people playing getting to the final table is a crapshoot. You HAVE to get lucky a few times on key hands.

I'm sure a number of them just had luck working against them. Something like AK against AQ and having a Q come out.

I also heard Daniel Negraneu say something like he takes big risks early on to get chips. He said that he either comes to the final table with a huge chip stack or busts out early.

I think a 10k buy in is relatively small change to these guys. Do they want to play over a few days conservatively and still not make it? Or take some big chances early on and not waste their time if they don't get lucky.

Who knows. This is just some of the stuff I've thought about in regards to your question [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[fnord_too]

I think it's because they understand it is better to embrace variance early to mitigate it later.

[burningyen]

Because they were following your NL guide.

[Quicksilvre]

Almost two-thirds of the field was eliminated on the day ones, right? So, I'd figure anywhere between one half and two thirds of the name pros would be busted. Seems to be about right.

[cwsiggy]

discuss....

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Almost two-thirds of the field was eliminated on the day ones, right? So, I'd figure anywhere between one half and two thirds of the name pros would be busted. Seems to be about right.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I have heard most of the initial field was pretty weak and a lot of them typical loose Internet players. I would think most of the name players would survive a cut to 1/3 of the field.

Most pros will nibble at you, value bet you to death and slowly acculate. When up againt loose internet qualifies, the pros are forced into making all-in calls. The calls are likely well in their favor, but if you've got someone on a flush draw your still busting out to them 1/3 of the time if you're all-in on the flop.

Pros want those 2:1 odds, but the all-in nature of internet players tends to make it for all your chips, rather than a portion of your chips.

[AaronO]

I really wonder about the number of "fish" that play in the WSOP ME these days. Yes, I'm sure they are there. Mike O'Malley's trip report details the level of confusion that some of them displayed.

However, I would hesitate to call someone who wins their seat on line a fish. Fact is, they had to win a tournament just to get there. And while a few donks will get lucky and win a seat on line, I highly doubt that the majority of on line qualifiers suck.

Just my thoughts.

[Matt Williams]

If I were a pro, I would take a chance and try to get as many chips as possible the first day. My reasoning is that if I lose, I can play cash games instead of sticking around and just miss out in the money or barely make the money. A lot of these pros can make $10,000+ easily in a cash game.