[im a model]

just a quick note: the chances are obviously very small that phil won 11 bracelets by luck, assuming these were coin-flipping tournaments. but people make the mistake of applying the odds of a specific person winning as opposed to any person winning. for example, say its a coin-flipping tournament with 77 entrants and Bill Someguy wins it two years in a row. people automatically say that the odds of someone accomplishing this is 1 in 5929 (77 squared). but really the odds of someone accomplishing it is 1 in 77. the odds of Bill accomplishing it is 1 in 5929. there must be a winner the first year, so whoever wins will be 1 in 77 the next year.

so the point that phil/doyle/chan couldnt have just been lucky because the odds are so small isnt really correct. it seems correct because you are looking at it in retro-spect and saying what are the odds that phil/doyle/chan accomplish this by luck, when you should be asking what the odds are of one (or three) of the dozens of pros who have been playing these events for decades having eleven (or ten) bracelets.

i think its reasonable to say that because there is so much luck involved in poker, if we reset the world to the early 1970s and ran it all again, it would be a different few players (like bobby hoff or dewey tomko or some guy we've never heard of) who were saying, "look at the numbers--i am clearly the best. what are the odds that i have won this many bracelets by chance alone!"