|
|
#42
09-18-2004, 08:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: how good can you be at tournament poker?
I bowl competively and often against pro or near pro caliber players. They kick my butt routinely. I try to analyze why. It seems to come down to 1 or 2 frames a game where they strike and I don't. They're not a lot better than me, but they're a little better than me on a consistent basis. I can lucky and beat the better bowler now and then but day in and day out, the more better person is going to win. I think it's the same with poker, baseball, golf, whatever.
1500 names to win the big NLHE turnament in order to break even seems very high to me. I think that if you named everyone you could name heading into the WSOP i.e. everyone that was a respected player capable of winning, you'd only come up with 200 names. One person out of those 200 names should win 5 out of the next 10 years. For DH to make final tables in consecutive years is talent and not luck. My opinion. Regression to the mean: On average: Taller than average parents have taller than average children. But their children are shorter than the parents. Shorter than average parents have shorter than average children. But their children are tall than the parents. 
|
|
#43
09-18-2004, 08:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: how good can you be at tournament poker?
[ QUOTE ]
I think that if you named everyone you could name heading into the WSOP i.e. everyone that was a respected player capable of winning, you'd only come up with 200 names. One person out of those 200 names should win 5 out of the next 10 years. [/ QUOTE ] I'll cover that action. You can settle up now if you like for half price. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Jimbo
|
|
#44
09-18-2004, 08:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: how good can you be at tournament poker?
Rick, a gold star awarded to you, for being the only OTHER poster willing to put some numbers to Paul's propositions.
I estimated that very few respondants would, but I expected it to be greater than one other person !
|
|
#45
09-18-2004, 08:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Okay, I\'ll go first!
[ QUOTE ]
I'll take you up on this wager. I know of a site with a simulated online dice roll...we could set the die to only two numbers..and when it came up one of the two numbers comes up many times in a row, we could then make the bet for the next several rolls. What odds exactly are you willing to lay? With this online simulator, we can run thousands of rolls per day. We can transfer all money either through Party, Stars, or through an online service like paypal. Up for it? [/ QUOTE ] Sure! You give me a simulator that you can fairly well prove is close enough to random to count (you can generate a large number of trials to show that the numbers are in the range of 50:50), then let me know when you'll know that the very next 50 rolls in a row will result in "1" being generated. I'll sit there with you, watch the 50 "ones" in a row generate.. and then I'll give you 7:5 that the 50 rolls after the streak will have more "twos" than "ones" We'll even ignore the differences inherent in live poker between people vs. random number generators. Or, if you'd rather not wait for that, you can read some of my other replies and save yourself the time.
|
|
#47
09-18-2004, 08:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Okay, I\'ll go first!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 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 ] Maybe you'd better reread what I actually wrote, before you assume that I don't know my limitations.
|
|
#48
09-18-2004, 08:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You read it wrong
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [quote I may be misreading what Paul wrote, but I belief when he said "winning a bracelet in 2005," he meant from any event, not just the championship event. [/ QUOTE ] <font color="blue">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 </font> He is clearly referring to the $10K championship event (unless you expect a different tournament to have a chance of hitting 5,000 entrants) [/ QUOTE ] Actually, I did not: 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? Thats what I was referring to. [/ QUOTE ] Okay, I grant you that the "If a single one of those players wins a bracelet at the 2005 WSOP" can be read to mean ANY of the 33 tournaments... But I still contend that, in the context of his post, Paul meant the $10K championship event. Paul, care to clear up this trivial point?
|
|
#49
09-18-2004, 09:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Okay, I\'ll go first!
Okay, I was guilty of supposing a freakish run of flips in a "supposed to be" random series of events and nothing more.
Here's a different question- if a coin flip is 50:50, how long of a streak of consecutive heads would you have to see (when you have no direct reason to suspect a rigged coin or toss) before you would ignore the 50:50 probability and bet on the ongoing streak by laying "pretty freaking long odds" on heads on the next toss, or series of tosses? How long a streak is so long as to be considered almost impossible to occur? And therefore it can be discounted? Or, in other words- what is the longest "possible" consecutive heads result in a series of 1,000,000 coin flips?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
