Is a freeroll top 10 really more difficult?

[TheDrone]

I would like to get your thoughts on calculating tournament leaderboard points based on a unusual formula.

Essentially the formula downplays the buy-in to the extent that placing top 10 in a 900-person freeroll yields about 50% more leaderboard points than a top 10 in a $50 buy-in with 200 entrants.

This did not make sense to me, so I questioned the person who is doing this calculation. His response was that it's harder to place high in a larger field of bad players than in a small field of good players. He posed two contradictory arguments:
[ QUOTE ]
1. A freeroll is easier because the participants don't know how to play very well, therefore it's easier to beat them.

2. A freeroll is more difficult because the participants don't know how to play very well, therefore it's harder to beat them.

I gurantee that you will find players of all abilities arguing either side of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the first argument and not the second one. I could elaborate, but I'm curious to see the initial thoughts of more experienced tournament players first.

[crookedhat99]

Well obviously number 1, because if it were harder to beat bad players....they wouldn't be bad. The definition of a bad player is that they are easier to beat. Number 2 seems to be relaying the common whine about people getting beat when an opponent's inferior play pays them off (which IS frusterating), but it is easier to beat bad players...just because of the nature of bad players (they're bad).

[TheDrone]

This may be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to everyone, including some good players according to the quote in my original post.

For the sake of continuing the discussion, I will play devil's advocate here. More bad players mean more bad beats, especially with the number of all-ins that occur in a freeroll. Therefore, you have to survive many more suckouts in a 900-person freeroll than in a 200-person $50 tourney. Comments?

[adanthar]

This would only be true if winning the first flip didn't double your chips relative to the rest of the field. The next suckout you lose on won't cost you your stack.

However, I like the formula, if only because a 900 person freeroll is probably going to have a comparable amount of mediocre or better players through sheer numbers.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

For the sake of continuing the discussion, I will play devil's advocate here. More bad players mean more bad beats, especially with the number of all-ins that occur in a freeroll. Therefore, you have to survive many more suckouts in a 900-person freeroll than in a 200-person $50 tourney. Comments?

[/ QUOTE ]

You also get paid off more.

I think in these arguments, the problem is that bad and loose are used synonymously, as are good and tight, regularly. It would probably be easier to go far consistently in a tournament full of players who were way too tight, as you could do pretty well constantly stealing. However, that doesn't make these players good. Many people don't adjust their styles appropriately for whether they are playing loose or tight players, and probably have a style which is more well suited against playing one kind. So when these people talk about "good" players being easier to beat, I think what they really mean is that they have a style that plays better against tighter (not better) opposition.

[Benholio]

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, you have to survive many more suckouts in a 900-person freeroll than in a 200-person $50 tourney. Comments?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you rather have to survive a bunch of 55/45's, or 80/20's?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Hi,
Winning freerolls is much easier than winning $10-tourneys and up. However i.e. $1-tournies are much easier to win than freeroll (bad predictable players, it means they are worse than freeroll players actually).