[Todd Terry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone that is winning way more than 2x avg is going to have an absurdly high ROI, do you not see that?

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong it's closer to a reverse bell curve if you are playing more optimally than your opponents. So you can finish 2x avg 1st and will be less then them in other finishing positions. While having a solid ROI not a massively larger ROI. Just because you are winning 2x as often as others you will be finishing less in other places then avg.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude I never argued that you having 2x the win avg means you also have 2x 2nd place, 2x 3rd, etc.

Look at the math I did above, it assumes 2x wins and the REST OF YOUR CASHES (A CONSERVATIVE 15% ITM, hell the tourney I took prize-pool from you should probably cash 20%) are the last place casher and your ROI would be 80%.

If you won 2.5x avg and had a normal distribution, your ROI would probably be like 200%+

Yes I'm throwing that number out of my ass, but I'm busy betting and multi-tabling so I can't actually figure it out, but it's going to be way higher than you think.

You all way over estimate how often you can win these long-term.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are 2x more likely to finish 1st, your likelihood of finishing 2nd is going to have to be close to 2x, and same for 3rd, etc. It's completely impossible to be 2x more likely to finish 1st while being 1/2 as likely to finish 2nd.

I think it would be a real struggle to come up with a distribution that makes any sense where a player is well over 2x average to win but his ITM % is between 13 and 15%.

I also think the structure of a tournament makes a big difference here -- the more players and the shorter the playing time, the less likely that the cream will consistently rise to the top, because the luck factor, which we all know is huge to begin with, is going to be magnified. I think this includes most online tourneys, some obviously more than others. Field strength also has an influence, it determines the "average" that we're comparing against.

If great players played the WSOP ME, which has a phenomenal structure and weak field, once a week, I think we'd see massive ROIs, and players, I don't know, as much as 10x more likely to win than others. OTOH, I've been toying with the theory that superslow structures favor crappy players, since it makes it much easier to simply wait for cards. If you look at the results of the last few WSOP MEs and WPT Championships, there are a lot of people at the final tables who most would not consider to be great, or even good players.