[Ship Ship McGipp]

I think it's probably more like

1-50 = 6x
50-200 = 4.5x
200-500 = 3x
500-1250 = 2x

and so on.

My reasoning is basically that you've got the top teir- and there's just no way that Hellmuth has that much more equity than Ivey, or that either of them have that much more equity than X big name tournament pro, or that any of the previous players have that much more of an advantage than high stakes cash game pro, or midstakes cash game player with tournament experience, live experience, etc.

The second level from 50-200 are the 6m online guys, the tournament regulars, some of the standard pros, the too aggro online tournament pros, guys that maybe shine too much in one area, and have small leaks in others, etc.

The next level is your random winning online player, but not very big; or your average mid stakes (5-10, 10-20) live pro; or your v marginal tournament regs online, small stakes cash players; people who frequent and play well in tournaments, even if perhaps too tight, etc.

The rest is pretty self explanatory.

My real reasoning for grouping the top 50 together instead of the top 20 is primarily because although each player has a different ROI, there is just no way that you can factor in enough things like tilt, table assignment, seat assignment, and just hidden random luck (coolers, hitting/missing draws, etc).

Also, there is no [censored] way that Hellmuth has that high of an ROI. I don't even know if his is the highest, but if it is, 1000% would be the absolute ceiling, despite the softness. Now, take his midstage and table talk game and apply a half decent game with 40bbs+, maybe the skills of a winning 6m online player, and you've got someone who is potentially a beast in a bet like this.

Also, I know it's obvious, but we're going to come so far from ever coming near the long run that bets like this are ridiculous and variance always wins.