Risk of Ruin over 7 events

[New2This]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure. While we're at it, we should just assume you can see the other players hole cards too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I apologize for how personally many people seem to be taking this... i'm aware there are many better players out there, i'm just trying to simplify things. My analysis would be pretty silly if i said something like "i'm better than average, probably a lot, but not quite world class".

My recent observed results are probably unsustainable and my sample size is very very small in live tournaments. However Gordon said in his little green book something about 400% ROI and i have no basis for comparison without all of your input. :-)

[Beachman42]

IM very HO, on-line results do not translate well into live events. On-line sample sizes speak well of your application of math, probability, and positional play, but one decent live tell and you are toast. Your live play results are far too small to be significant quantitatively, but qualitatively, they can boost your confidence. I believe you are wasting your time with this calculation. Work on what matters - chip tricks and bladder control!

Good Luck!

[pig4bill]

[ QUOTE ]
Since i know i'm waaaay better than average, it seems most useful to presume i'm the absolute best and adjust my guesstimates accordingly, rather than starting with the presumption of average.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes sense. After all, you FT'ed 4 out of 50 small tournaments already. So you should be able to FT 1 out of 7 WSOP tournaments, each of which are guaranteed to have dozens of the world's best players. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[jacksquat]

not to burst your bubble, but your confidence while admirable, is a bit optimistic. as has been pointed out, these events are huge and chocked full of top players. these pre-lim events start a little short stacked and you need to accumulate chips early on. you will need to get some cards, win some key races,get lucky, and play well for many hours. beating 2 or 3k players to get to a final table is a huge and difficult task. furthermore, getting past 90% of the field just to make bottom money is no easy feat either.

my live results were actually quite a bit better than yours before i went and played last year, and there was no way i was even close to being "one of the better players" there. i could see a half dozen top pros and a couple of bracelet winners from my very first seat,and was seated next to a well known internet pro. i actually played quite well that day, had the cl at my table, and did not really make any key mistakes. the only big hand i lost was the last one, and that was it. i lasted almost 9 hours in that first event and still missed the money by about 90 or so spots. i really believed i could not have played much better so i was content. as was said before these things are a huge CRAPSHOOT!!


bottom line......set realistic expectations....you will be lucky to cash once let alone multiple times.

[csquard]

I agree with everyone regarding the prospects for no cashes in seven tourneys. I'm assuming the budget is at least $12-14k for you (including the two rebuys). Having only played in one WSOP event, a $2k last year, I would actually suggest lowering the number of tourneys from seven to four and increasing the buy-in for each. These low buy-in events at the WSOP, while a bit better with double stacks, seem like a bigtime crapshoot. I'd be interested if others felt this way (better to play fewer, higher buy-in events) or if OP's plan is better (more small buy-in events).

[NickMPK]

Even if you aren't one of the best players, I'll take you at your word that you are much better than average.

In this case, I think you're chance of cashing in at least one event out of 7 is quite good. Maybe around 70-80%.

However, your chance of actually making money overall is still pretty low. More than half of players who cash in these events make maybe 2-3 times their buy-in. So unless you go really deep, you could cash three times and still end up a net loser.

For example, let's say entering these 7 events costs a total of $15K.
The first $1.5K NLHE event in last year's WSOP saw 277 cash out of 2776 entries. However, only the top 24 (less than 1%) won at least $15K.
In the $2K NLHE events, you had to be in the top 30 out of 1500-2000 to win $15K.

So your chance of cashing in an event is very good, but your chance of making money overall is fairly poor. Even the best players will probably lose money over 7 2000-entrant events. It's just than when they do make money, they make a lot of it.

[RichGangi]

[ QUOTE ]
let's just assume i'm as good as any of the top known players.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[Rick Diesel]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with everyone regarding the prospects for no cashes in seven tourneys. I'm assuming the budget is at least $12-14k for you (including the two rebuys). Having only played in one WSOP event, a $2k last year, I would actually suggest lowering the number of tourneys from seven to four and increasing the buy-in for each. These low buy-in events at the WSOP, while a bit better with double stacks, seem like a bigtime crapshoot. I'd be interested if others felt this way (better to play fewer, higher buy-in events) or if OP's plan is better (more small buy-in events).

[/ QUOTE ]

With $7,500 in fixed entries, plus 2 - $1k rebuys, I would put the projected total investment at around $17,500 - $19,500, assuming optimal play/rebuy strategy.

[New2This]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with everyone regarding the prospects for no cashes in seven tourneys. I'm assuming the budget is at least $12-14k for you (including the two rebuys). Having only played in one WSOP event, a $2k last year, I would actually suggest lowering the number of tourneys from seven to four and increasing the buy-in for each. These low buy-in events at the WSOP, while a bit better with double stacks, seem like a bigtime crapshoot. I'd be interested if others felt this way (better to play fewer, higher buy-in events) or if OP's plan is better (more small buy-in events).

[/ QUOTE ]

With $7,500 in fixed entries, plus 2 - $1k rebuys, I would put the projected total investment at around $17,500 - $19,500, assuming optimal play/rebuy strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm budgeting $6,000 per rebuy event, an immediate rebuy, the double addon and $2k remaining for a double rebuy if i get knocked out from all the "shortstack tournament" accumulation strategies. My budget for these 7 tournaments is then $20,500, perhaps not using as much as $4,000 of that.

[New2This]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you aren't one of the best players, I'll take you at your word that you are much better than average.

In this case, I think you're chance of cashing in at least one event out of 7 is quite good. Maybe around 70-80%.

However, your chance of actually making money overall is still pretty low. More than half of players who cash in these events make maybe 2-3 times their buy-in. So unless you go really deep, you could cash three times and still end up a net loser.

For example, let's say entering these 7 events costs a total of $15K.
The first $1.5K NLHE event in last year's WSOP saw 277 cash out of 2776 entries. However, only the top 24 (less than 1%) won at least $15K.
In the $2K NLHE events, you had to be in the top 30 out of 1500-2000 to win $15K.

So your chance of cashing in an event is very good, but your chance of making money overall is fairly poor. Even the best players will probably lose money over 7 2000-entrant events. It's just than when they do make money, they make a lot of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you mean about needing a pretty significant cashing just to recoup the overall series cost. One deep cash or 2 cashes somewhat past the bubble would seem to do it. I assume the cashes in the rebuy events are significant and could recoup my series cost with a decent finish.

Intuitively i agree with your 70-80% estimate, though optimism tells me that i could hence hope for a ~20% chance of cashing twice :-)