WSOP Field Bet

[zipppy]

I'm not sure if I like any of the bets, but I needed the site to see the list of 38 pros for the second bet. I like the first bet more than the second, and the third more than the first, though I probably won't wager any amount of money on any of these. I don't really have much analysis as I haven't ever made prop bets like these, sorry.

>>>ZIPPPY

[Tuds75]

llabb,

1 and 3 look like the best bets. 6600 people in the main event and of the I get 6325 to win the tournament at +160 AMAZING price. The most well known players (the 275 not covered by the field) will have targets on their back. The average Joe Schmo from Kansas who knows he is not going to win anything, but would love to knockout Doyle or Phil Ivey or Moneymaker or Helmuth just so they can say they knocked out a big name. I do not know all the names not covered by the field bet, but there must be some names of players who play in high stakes tournaments and cash games (online and live) but just are not known to the general poker crowd. Just look at people who are winning WSOP bracelets in the last few years. These "no-names" who win the bracelet are VERY good players, but just not known to TV viewing audiences (and that is who will place the most of these kinds of bets) so they are given the proper respect for their talents. Did you know who Barry Greenstein or Chau Gaung was when the 2003 WSOP was played on ESPN? Probably not.

The last women standing field bet is very intrigue. If you figure there is 1 women at every 3rd table there would be 220 total women in the tournament. Now I have 207 against the houses 13. And like I stated in my previous paragraph the star players are going to have targets on their backs and this includes the women stars.

Hope this helps and could you please list the site you found these odds.

Tuds

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
David Sklansky suggests that even the best pros don't have more than twice the chance of winning of the average player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not more than twice? Are you sure Sklanky has said this? That contradicts what Harrington says (in HOH vol. 1) about how much a tourney buy-in can be worth to a top player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I can't find the Sklansky quote right now, but Paul Phillips thinks it's 3x the buy-in:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...6009b10e?hl=en

[ QUOTE ]


>What is the long term EV of the best in the world?

Opinions on this vary a lot. I wish we had real data on all the 5K+ events of the last ten years (including who played and didn't cash) and then we could see some real numbers about who earns what. I would wildly guess that the best 3% of players have an EV of about three times the buyin in slow structure, big money events, and less than that in all the
other events. I have usually ballparked my own EV at about twice the buyin, though I may give myself an upgrade now since I'm a sucker for overvaluing short-term results.

3x is the buyin is quite a bit higher than I would have estimated a couple years ago, but obviously when field sizes jump from 100 to 300 in a year, there are a lot of inexperienced players.

Howard is probably right that some players, under some conditions, have an EV higher than 3x the buyin, but I wouldn't bet on it. For there to be someone with an EV of 4x the buyin, there have to be three guys who are drawing stone dead, or six guys with an EV of 0.5 buyins, or some other equivalent variation. I don't think enough people are drawing that dead to feed the +EV players so thoroughly. Any aggressive player can win.



[/ QUOTE ]

[allinbaby]

[ QUOTE ]
llabb,
6600 people in the main event and of the I get 6325 to win the tournament at +160 AMAZING price.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be TOO good to be true.

The prop is on none of hte listed players making the final table.

[Tuds75]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
llabb,
6600 people in the main event and of the I get 6325 to win the tournament at +160 AMAZING price.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be TOO good to be true.

The prop is on none of hte listed players making the final table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh thanks for the clarification. I guess I can cancel the plans to sell one of my kidneys for the stake I was going to lay.

Tuds

[allinbaby]

[ QUOTE ]
275 top players listed. Everyone else is the field. Field bet to win is 1-5. Meaning you have to lay 5-1, betting $500 for every $100 you want to win.

At these odds, any thoughts on if the field bet is still good? How to analyze this?

[/ QUOTE ]

if approximately 6800 people enter the tournament, this woul leave about 6500 non-listed players. at 5-1 odds, the listed players in average has to be about 4.7 times more likely to win the tournament than an average non listed player.

if sklansky is right about best players being less than x2 favoriate vs normal players, this would be a great bet. i am not sure though:

the majority of the nonlisted players would be online satellite winners. some of them are bound to be dead money who just got lucky. others might be good at online tournaments but could be inexperienced in b&m tournament, especially one that is going to be like 7 days long. i can tell u from my experience that sitting at a pokertable for 7-8 hours for 3-4 days is not easy. there's also giving/picking up tells and other nontangible factors like not being able to see the pot size, etc that online players would be at big disadvantage.

add a handful celebrities and billionaires who bought into the touranment for fun, i am not sure how good this bet is.

[allinbaby]

[ QUOTE ]

(2) Highest finish in the money - no listed player out of 38 pros makes the money: 11-1 (+1100)


[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this a good bet. I don't know exactly where you have to place to make the money, but for most tournaments you have to place top 10%. 38/7000 is about 5.4%. At 11-1 odds, they have to be better than 6 times the average player.

Does anyone know how high you'd have to place to make the money in the WSOP Finals?

Is my reasoning flawed?

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

(2) Highest finish in the money - no listed player out of 38 pros makes the money: 11-1 (+1100)


[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this a good bet. I don't know exactly where you have to place to make the money, but for most tournaments you have to place top 10%. 38/7000 is about 5.4%. At 11-1 odds, they have to be better than 6 times the average player.

Does anyone know how high you'd have to place to make the money in the WSOP Finals?

[/ QUOTE ]

Top 10%

[ QUOTE ]
Is my reasoning flawed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. If you assume that each pro has a 20% chance of making the top 10%, then the chance that none of the 38 pros will make it is (.8)^38 = .000208. You would need about 5000-1 odds to make that bet.

[llabb]

Thanks for replying - some good stuff here, guys. As of now, I'm thinking that the original field bet to win, or the no women to finish in the money, are the only 2 bets worth considering.

The no women bet is exactly right on with the odds for 13 average players not to make the money. 0.9^13=25.4% That makes the correct odds 2.94-1. Yes, some of the women like Jennifer Harman have a much better than average chance, but several have a worse than average chance, and I think it's relatively close.

So why would a make a play at the correct odds? Because I suspect there's still an edge to be had here. I haven't done all of the math, but it seems that the times you'd lose this bet include instances where multiple women make the money. So the number of times that no women make the money and you win the bet is actually greater than is implied above.

So you're more likely to win this bet than the above math says. You'd have to do an exhaustive analysis of every single combination to get the true correct math. This fits my initial intuition that just says it's ridiculously easy for just 13 people to get knocked out. Anything wrong with this line of thinking?

[llabb]

Something else to think about for the field bet to win. Actual field may be lower than the 6600 we all expect.