David Sklansky - A question on tournament odds

[Borodog]

David,

In the WSOP main event, say in a field of 6000, how much less of a dog to win are the top pros than the field in your estimation? If everyone was of equal skill, each would be about 6000:1 dogs, obviously. But all players are not of equal skill, and the tournament is long.

Are the top pros worse than 1000:1 dogs? Better? An estimate will do fine, and you needn't justify your answer.

It seems clear to me that the top pros are only hundreds, not thousands, to one against.

[David Sklansky]

The famous top pros have a smaller chance of winning than unknowns who play a tad worse than them. Do you see why?

There were probably twenty players who had slighter better than a one tenth of one percent chance.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
The famous top pros have a smaller chance of winning than unknowns who play a tad worse than them. Do you see why?

There were probably twenty players who had slighter better than a one tenth of one percent chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

So then it is –EV to play in it? (Perhaps the endorsements and such make it +EV.) What then - ego?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
The famous top pros have a smaller chance of winning than unknowns who play a tad worse than them. Do you see why?

There were probably twenty players who had slighter better than a one tenth of one percent chance.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So then it is –EV to play in it? (Perhaps the endorsements and such make it +EV.) What then - ego?



[/ QUOTE ]

Hi RJT
Are you mixing up one hundreth of one percent with one tenth of one percent? Borodog specified 6000 players.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The famous top pros have a smaller chance of winning than unknowns who play a tad worse than them. Do you see why?

There were probably twenty players who had slighter better than a one tenth of one percent chance.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So then it is –EV to play in it? (Perhaps the endorsements and such make it +EV.) What then - ego?



[/ QUOTE ]

Hi RJT
Are you mixing up one hundreth of one percent with one tenth of one percent? Borodog specified 6000 players.

[/ QUOTE ]

David is saying that he thinks 20 guys had a better than 1/1000 chance. I don't know what you're getting at.

Unknowns who play slightly worse than the pros are not the bulk of the field. The field is mostly donks, who do not have better chances than the pros.

[RJT]

I was referring to the 10K buy in relative to the top prize of (I was thinking 6mil) 8 mil. And I thought he was saying the best 20 have a one tenth of one percent chance.

But, I forgot about still cashing, not just first.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
David is saying that he thinks 20 guys had a better than 1/1000 chance. I don't know what you're getting at.



[/ QUOTE ] That's what I was getting at. Obviously.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
The famous top pros have a smaller chance of winning than unknowns who play a tad worse than them. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Collusion? Isn't that illegal in most tourneys?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The famous top pros have a smaller chance of winning than unknowns who play a tad worse than them. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Collusion? Isn't that illegal in most tourneys?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see why they'd have more variance, but not why they'd have a lower EV.

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The famous top pros have a smaller chance of winning than unknowns who play a tad worse than them. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Collusion? Isn't that illegal in most tourneys?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see why they'd have more variance, but not why they'd have a lower EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

David probably feels that people will play better against famous players.