What are the odds a player in top 50 in chips at WSOP wins?

[NajdorfDefense]

All have over 150k chips, about 13-15% of chips in play, what odds would you make someone in top 50 winning? 8-1? 12-1?

[CrazyEyez]

I thought you were cracked, and I was thinking 500-1. Then I realized you meant any of the top 50, not the odds for one particular person. So I guess 10-1 sounds about right.

[Uglyowl]

I'd go closer to 12-1. The top chip counts tend to play less than optimal poker to get where they are in a lot of cases.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd go closer to 12-1. The top chip counts tend to play less than optimal poker to get where they are in a lot of cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's worth remembering that both Raymer and Gold had the chip lead very early in their winning years.

[NajdorfDefense]

Yes, but if they have 14% of chips in play, acting like they are so bad they have 8% odds may be a large overreaction, odds-wise.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd go closer to 12-1. The top chip counts tend to play less than optimal poker to get where they are in a lot of cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's worth remembering that both Raymer and Gold had the chip lead very early in their winning years.

[/ QUOTE ]

And Stuey was bigstack like the whole tourney.

[Wetdog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd go closer to 12-1. The top chip counts tend to play less than optimal poker to get where they are in a lot of cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's worth remembering that both Raymer and Gold had the chip lead very early in their winning years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Murphy? Nobles? I believe they were C/Ls.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd go closer to 12-1. The top chip counts tend to play less than optimal poker to get where they are in a lot of cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's worth remembering that both Raymer and Gold had the chip lead very early in their winning years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being a big stack creates so many +EV opportunities that clueful (Raymer) and/or aggressive players (even lagtards like Gold) have a quite significant incremental advantage. This effect may roughly offset the random luckbox donks who will crash and burn. Who knows.

[timex]

5-1

[TimTimSalabim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd go closer to 12-1. The top chip counts tend to play less than optimal poker to get where they are in a lot of cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's worth remembering that both Raymer and Gold had the chip lead very early in their winning years.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Very early" meaning about 2 or 3 days before the FT, iirc. We're still 7 days from FT.

[secretprankster]

Obviously you need to reread your TPFAP.

[peterchi]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd go closer to 12-1. The top chip counts tend to play less than optimal poker to get where they are in a lot of cases.

[/ QUOTE ]
Firstly, these high chip stacks early on are almost certainly playing a high variance style of poker. Whether good or bad, if this is their game then we at least know they aren't looking to sneak into the money and are willing to gambool, and this gives them an advantage over any solid, tight player to win it all.

Sure, in a lot of cases a bad player can luckbox their way to the chiplead. But is this the case for the majority of chipleaders? I doubt it. All other things being equal, it's more likely that someone good would have more chips than someone bad. Granted I know the variance of poker almost entirely obliterates this in any one tournament, but if I had to guess whether the chip leader was a winning player or not, without knowing anything else, I would guess winning. Taking even money, this seems like a winning bet for sure.

With 13% of the chips, I would take 12-1 any day for any amount of money I can afford (which, granted, isn't much these days). A fair bet I think would be a tad lower than 8-1 IMO.

[TimTimSalabim]

[ QUOTE ]
All have over 150k chips, about 13-15% of chips in play, what odds would you make someone in top 50 winning? 8-1? 12-1?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see, about 6300 entrants * 20k, total 126M in chips, 14% would be about 18M. You're saying the top 50 average ~360k in chips? Something is off here.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All have over 150k chips, about 13-15% of chips in play, what odds would you make someone in top 50 winning? 8-1? 12-1?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see, about 6300 entrants * 20k, total 126M in chips, 14% would be about 18M. You're saying the top 50 average ~360k in chips? Something is off here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe he did the calculation assuming 10k starting stacks.

[burningyen]

[ QUOTE ]
about 13-15% of chips in play

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd multiply this by 1.5 and get something like 3.5:1 against.

[bugstud]

dunno, wonder what colson thinks his odds are