how good can you be at tournament poker?

[3rdEye]

Paul,

Even though you're correct in that, given the nature of variance, we can expect extreme results at either end of the tournament "curve," wouldn't you agree that it is perfectly acceptable to think that multiple tournament successes in a relatively short period is more *likely* the result of skill than it is of luck?

In fact, isn't this the whole notion of statistical significance? In a typical hypothesis test, for example, one might employ a t-test to determine whether we can reject "Hypothesis X" with statistical significance of Y%. While it might be true that, in reality, Hypothesis X is correct, statistical practice dictates that we reject it, because of the severe unlikelihood that it is valid.

In other words, while I agree that it is possible and likely that some people are simply more lucky in tournaments than others over the short term, in the absence of qualitative evidence otherwise, it is perfectly acceptable (indeed, it would be incorrect otherwise) to accrue extraordinary short-term tournament success to skill.

[3rdEye]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, Dan can be expected to make every final table from here on in?

Yes, it's not the best use of the concept, but I would be willing to lay odds that, all other things being equal, when you flip heads 50 times in a row, I'd wager that you will flip fewer heads than tails over the next 50 tosses.

And yes, I know I'd be taking the worst of this bet... and I'd still gamble on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a bad grasp of the concepts involved in statistics and probability theory. I don't want to be mean, but it's true. What you are saying is a fallacy, and a common fallacy at that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. This is a basic fallacy.

In fact, given that flipping heads 50 times in a row could be construed as a bias in favor of heads, the original poster's assertion is even more off-base.

[lolita16]

Hi Paul,

First, allow me to join with others in saying thank you for sharing your opinions and thoughts on this forum. This article has been of particular interest to me in just getting into some of the smaller buy in tournaments.

Regarding the main event of the world series, many of the top players have expressed how difficult it will be for any top notch pro to win given the huge fields and the huge proportion of internet players changing the style of the game.

In WPT events, however, it seems that there is a subgroup of players that make frequent appearances at the final table. While I realize random noise can account for some of this, it does give the impression that at least in average fields some players have a much greater chance of reaching the final table. My inclination is to attribute this to greater skills than average, in addition to luck being on your side at this particular event.

Are there simply a large number of pros that play most of these events, thereby increasing their chances of making final tables in several of them? Do these pros have a higher skill level than most of the field, but remain fairly even amongst each other? When you reach the final say 4 or 5 tables, do you find a large proportion of pros to lesser skilled players, or do the pros still represent a fraction of the entries a bit closer to the first day?

Regards-

[Duke]

Not a comment one way or the other, but here's an interesting read about coin bias. It's definitely tangential to the issue at bar.

Toss Out the Toss-Up: Bias in heads-or-tails

~D

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, consider the effect of just one or two injuries on an NFL football team. With only 16 games in the season, one or two significant injuries will take the "best" team in the league out of playoff contention, because the skill difference between the "best" and "worst" teams just isn't all that great.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately Chris you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You first state that: [ QUOTE ]
one or two significant injuries will take the "best" team in the league out of playoff contention,

[/ QUOTE ] and then you state:
[ QUOTE ]
the skill difference between the "best" and "worst" teams just isn't all that great.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both statements just cannot be true since all the teams are comprised of players. For the teams to be very close in skill/talent the players themselves must also be close in skill/talent. Contrary to popular belief removing a key player just doesn't have that much effect on a team.

Jimbo

[DonkeyKong]

so Paul, do you agree with Negreanu that the world champ should be decided by pot-limit Hold 'em? Does NL inherently favor luck just too much?? we all know it makes for good TV so it will never happen but just curious your opinion...

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

most people significantly overestimate the skill difference between winners and losers, in almost every kind of sporting endeavor.

e.g., the difference between hitting .320 and .280 is less than 2 hits per week.

[Trainwreck]

Nice post as usual Paul! +EV! 8)

I think we need to consider in tournaments the # of players that don't know GOOD tournament strategy, let alone experts.... this will DOOM much of dead money to fatal errors, while some will luck out on their grievous (to us) decisions and send experts to the rail.

In other words, experts definitely have an advantage (skill set/knowledge/whatever you want to call it...) and the not so expert players do not, and their errors will DOOM a large % of them and randomly send some experts to the rail.

So almost every final table in a large event is likely to have more experts at the final table in my view, but a lucky dolt (in poker skill comparison only) or 2 are likely to squeak through as well.

Not to slam David Wms. but he was looking like the lucky dolt at that final table, but I saw some bad plays through the final 2 tables from many players, IMHO.
Greg R. played great big stack and got more than his fair share of boards, some losses weren't shown, ESPN rushed these final 2 tables big time, so the masses just following via this coverage will likely feel: 'WOW! Greg is the luckiest SOB on the planet!'.

Not sure if that is a disservice to us players or not. 8)

>Trainwreck<

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
e.g., the difference between hitting .320 and .280 is less than 2 hits per week.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, not even that much imo.

Assume 500 ab's (which is higher than average):
.320 = 160 hits
.280 = 140 hits

I believe the baseball season is roughly 24 weeks long and the difference between .320 and .280 is only 20 hits.

So it's actually very close to just 1 hit per week.

[Rick Nebiolo]

Paul,

Glad to see you posting here. About the time you left RGP I spent the greater part of an evening Googling many of your old posts there - the experience made me instantly regret that I had you mixed up with others with the same last name [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

I'll take a stab at a few of your propositions and add one of my own:

* dan harrington made the final table of the two largest fields in big buyin tournament history, on top of having won the wsop a decade prior. What are his chances of making the final table in 2005, assuming a field of 5000? Say final 10 to simplify the math. The exactly average player's chances are 1/500. What are dan's?

I respect Dan about as much as any player but I'd put his chances at about 1/300. There is no one I'd put better than 1/200. I rate Dan's chances a bit worse than the best because the large fields and series of long days work against the older player.

* I'll let you pick some number of players. If a single one of those players wins a bracelet at the 2005 WSOP, you win the bet. How many players do you need to list before you are a favorite in this bet?

I'm assuming you just mean the final event of 5000 players. I'd say you need to let me chose about 1500 players. Problem is, I couldn't come up with 1500 names e.g., I wouldn't know the names of all those super bright young guys polishing their games online.

* How much positive equity does the very best player have in whichever currently existing $5K+ tournament you believe has the weakest field? Ignore juice. The exactly average player gets paid back his $X buyin on average. How good is the best? 3X? 5X? 10X? 20X? More?

About 2X's, maybe a bit less.

[/i]* Two tournament players each play 100 large field tournaments. In the end, player A has averaged a profit of 0.5 buyins/tournament and player B has averaged 1.5 buyins/tournament. With what percentage confidence can you say that player B was actually playing with higher EV than player A?[/i]

The math is beyond my ability but intuitively I'd say about 65% confident.

What if B had averaged 3 buyins per tournament?

Getting that far out over 100 tournaments is substantially better. I'd be 85% confident.

There is a risk-free fortune to be made for the industrious proposition bet seeker by exploiting the gap between perceptions and reality. Go forth and wager!

My Mom would die if I got involved in some legal tangle with running such an operation so there is no fortune for me. On a smaller scale I passed on some of the dubious online sites $50 max bet where you got to pick against a field of 200 or so "big names". Great bet but who wants the hassle of signing up [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Here is my own proposition:

What are the chances of Phil Hellmuth making the final table in the WSOP final championship event at least once in the next 20 years? (I'd estimate he is a 2 to 1 dog)

BTW, I'd put Phil Hellmuth as a 2 to 1 favorite over you in a WSOP "last longer" bet. Yet I'd rate you as having at least twice the money equity in the tournament (hope this doesn't sound like a suck up).

Regards,

Rick