David Sklansky - A question on tournament odds

[ALawPoker]

[ 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 ]

Yes; gunning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think more specifically David meant that with the "gunning" effect comes an added necessity for the top player to rely on his cards, which can only mathematically hold so much edge, so the top player's edge has a ceiling that certain unknown players have enough ability to pass.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
But you have still won the argument for me.

[/ QUOTE ]


In all fairness, Id think this is a draw.

Keep in mind that sp had a problem with triple digits against EXCEPT if it was the case that it was something like 999:1



Either way, I think this exercise is a great example of what I said over there. There was a Phil Ivey bet at 20-1. Assuming David's guess is reasonable, that is well over an order of magnitude off, and just goes to show that odds reflect what the people think is going / want to happen and not as much the true chances of the event.

I dont know what Paul's chances are (Id like to hope they're high), but I just dont think the odds really tell us.

[siegfriedandroy]

dude, in all honesty, i would put my money on you, b-dog, over most of the donks there. seriouasly, you are quais-smart, they are not

[ALawPoker]

I'll play Boro HU anytime. Best of 5. You win, I volunteer to work for the Ron Paul campaign. I win, I dunno, I'll think of something.

[MrBlah]

Um, I think DS meant that all the players slightly worse than top pros combined had a higher chance of winning than all the top pros combined, simply because there are more of the former than of the latter.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Um, I think DS meant that all the players slightly worse than top pros combined had a higher chance of winning than all the top pros combined, simply because there are more of the former than of the latter.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be sort of a dull point. I doubt thats what he meant.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Sorry, I don't have anything to add. I just wanted to see the neat quote box pattern.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems pretty obviously false, I'd bet he meant something else.

[/ QUOTE ]
They will have more idea of how the famous player plays so will do better against them then against a nearly as good unknown.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I figured the "trying my hardest to knock out Hellmuth because what a story!!" factor would more than offset a few dozen hands you've seen them play on TV. I might be wrong though.

[/ QUOTE ]
probably have more information than a few dozen hands. Imagine (its a toughie but ...) that chezlaw is a strong winning tournament player. Who is he likely to do better against: DS or an unknown who play almost as well as DS.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, but imagine (and this one should be much easier, despite the violation of current understanding of consciousness) that vhawk is 25 donkeys fresh from their $5 homegames. Who would I play better against, some unknown pro or ZOMG DS ARE YOU KIDDING ME HEY MIKE CHECK IT OUT I GOT DS AT MY TABLE I'MA BUST HIM SOSOSOSOSOSOS BAD!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, so its just a question of whether the extra damage a strong player does to you outweighs the extra damage the donkies do to themselves.

hard to prove but I'm know if I was really good I'd rather the other good players didn't know it in advance even if that meant giving up the attention of fame seeking donkies. (that's assuming there are plently of other good players)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm just assuming that the 25-1 ratio of donks to good players tips the argument in my favor. No idea if thats true or not though.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I don't have anything to add. I just wanted to see how far this quote box nesting could go.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems pretty obviously false, I'd bet he meant something else.

[/ QUOTE ]
They will have more idea of how the famous player plays so will do better against them then against a nearly as good unknown.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That's my contention.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems pretty obviously false, I'd bet he meant something else.

[/ QUOTE ]
They will have more idea of how the famous player plays so will do better against them then against a nearly as good unknown.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That's my contention.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. Although I think gunning also has a deleterious effect on famous players. Even though the gunner is usually getting the worst of it, he increases the variance of the famous player, and in a tournament, where the risk of ruin is high, higher variance can be very bad.

On the other hand, any time an opponent wants to make mistakes against you should be good for you. Hmm. The increased variance should reduce the chance that you make it deep in the tournament, but when you do make it deep, you will expect to have a larger stack size, making it more likely that you will place higher. That would still make it +EV for the pro when morons come gunning for him, but also reduce his strict chances of winning.

I think.

[vhawk01]

It wouldn't reduce his chances of winning, it would just reduce his chances of cashing. It might not even do that. Variance won't impact the EV, so it can't impact his chances of winning.