What is EV of top players in WSOP $10K?

[wamplerr]

I've seen Full Tilt's new promotion to give away pieces of their pros for the top finishers in their weekly Saturday tournament.

I've seen the figure range from 2x to 10x the buy-in as the EV of the best of the best (Ivey, Lederer, Daniel N...)
I have to assume the WSOP field will be softer than most, so taking that into account, is it possible that Juanda's EV is 5x the buy-in or more?

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen Full Tilt's new promotion to give away pieces of their pros for the top finishers in their weekly Saturday tournament.

I've seen the figure range from 2x to 10x the buy-in as the EV of the best of the best (Ivey, Lederer, Daniel N...)
I have to assume the WSOP field will be softer than most, so taking that into account, is it possible that Juanda's EV is 5x the buy-in or more?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if the WSOP field is 5000-6000 players like some are predicting, most of it will still consist of decent-to-expert players. Internet and satellite qualifiers are often very strong players with lots of NL and tournament experience. Pros once had a large advantage in the WSOP before Internet poker and the WPT, because NL live games were almost non-existent then and so the few people who really knew how to play deep money NL could clean up. That's no longer the case, with NL games available 24-7 online and in most major cardrooms. Many old-time pros with a one-dimensional game based on hyperaggression against weak-tight opponents do especially poorly against the fields of today. Given how deep the money is, and the fact that there will be some weak players in the field, the best players might have an EV of 3x the buy-in. But even that much is arguable in a game like NL holdem where the luck factor becomes very high once the blinds rise to even a moderate level.

[Tyler Durden]

I think the EV is 27.

[betgo]

If someone is 300-1 to win it with a 6600 field then their EV would be 20x buyin if it were winner-take-all. Given the distribution of prize money, I would say about 15x buyin.

[PuckNPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the EV is 27.

[/ QUOTE ]

The correct number is 14, do you see why? I will let others explain.

[wamplerr]

"Pros once had a large advantage in the WSOP before Internet poker and the WPT, because NL live games were almost non-existent then and so the few people who really knew how to play deep money NL could clean up. That's no longer the case, with NL games available 24-7 online and in most major cardrooms."

Don't you think stamina will play a big part though? Many internet players play a one hour sit-n-go or a multi-table that lasts 3-4 hours.

We're talking intense poker for 10-12 hours a day for a whole week. I think that somewhat shifts the edge back towards to guys who do this every day.

[David04]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the EV is 27.

[/ QUOTE ]

The correct number is 14, do you see why? I will let others explain.

[/ QUOTE ]
Elaborate. Not explain, elaborate. Nice job on making your post less funny than it originally was by totally screwing up an overused phrase.

[querulous]

What internet players are experts at deep stack, long level tournament poker? The ones who q'd in speed MTTs with 15 minute levels and starting chip counts of 1500? The ones who play NL ring games where the max buyin is 100 big blinds and a large percentage of the profit is from fish who often buy in extremely short?

Even people who play a lot of live NL aren't likely to have any real experience in the style of play seen at the WSOP. Aren't most NL games spread buy in capped around 100 big blinds? Don't most of them feature a max bet? (Often the max buy in).

I'm not disputing today's WSOP fish have more experience at NL hold em than yesterday's, but the WSOP and tournaments like it are still completely alien territory to 98% of the field.

[Phill S]

98% is a big number fella. lets not blow it out of all proportion. what your saying is only 120 people who will play in the WSOP have had similar experiences. i hypothersise more than that will come from the UK alone, let alone the entire field.

as for the 15 minute levels and 1500 in chips. remember on the internet hands happen -much- faster. ive heard than in a recent WPT event they got like 10 hands in a 40 minute level. just cos its lower by number, does not make it lower in % terms.

now then, will the average qualifyer be good? to a point, yes, but the average player wont be a likely candidate for average winner. there is a skill gap for sure, and playing for 5 of 7 days at 8+ hours a day takes it out of you.

now, if there are 6000 players. and if you put in a top pro. provided they can adjust their style such as dan harrington seems to have done, you can give yourself a really top shot at the money. not one of them will be better than 300-1 in my opinion, due to the amounts of luck that will be involved over this amount of time.

so coming back to the origional question, err, i have no idea.

Phill

[MicroBob]

to the original question...I have no idea either!


But I agree regarding online play.
a 5-hour internet tournament is probably closer to a 15-hour live tournament in terms of hands-played and blinds rising, etc.

Some of those live satellite structures with 20 minute blinds are probably close to the same as 5-minute levels in an online-tournament.

I think 1-hour levels live comes fairly close to 15-20 minute levels online.


My experience at the PPM IV was my ONLY live tournament experience. 740 players...I made the money in 177th place.
To my limited observation of live tournament play I thought there were MANY players who jad virtually no chance of making the final-table...and would really have to get lucky to make the money.
Just too loose, too passive, too stupid..what have you.


I also sat with a couple of fairly decent players...one was Chip Jett on a hyper-aggressive rush...another was a guy who had won a limit-holdem WSOP bracelet in 2002 (or at least that's what he claimed...I believed him).

The skill level between those guys and most of the also-rans was obvious.
I like to think that I was better than the also-rans...but I don't believe I was anywhere near as good as the top players I observed.


How this translates as far as a top-pro's chances of making the final-table (or ITM or 1st place or whatever) in a 700 player tourney or a 6k player WSOP ME I'm not sure.
But as I said...I felt there was a high percentage of also-rans who were too new and ignorant to have virtually ANY chance whatsoever of making it very high in the tourney.
Some would have easily been better off using Sklansky's system imo (although this was a limit-event so that doesn't quite apply....but I am guessing some of their mistakes in this event would have translated to a deep-stack NL event as well).


The number of people talking about 'the online cards don't feel right' etc etc was astounding. The quality of play from those having such conversations was just not very good from what I saw.

In short....while online play may be helping many more players pick up a reasonable game...there is still no shortage of players who just plain suck. This we already knew from our various online-games of choice.


Then again, Chris Ferguson and Barry Greenstein both failed to survive day 1 at the event I played at so what the hell do I know?