|
|
#11
07-16-2007, 11:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: David Sklansky - A question on tournament odds
[ 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 ] There were probably twenty players who had slighter better than a one tenth of one percent chance. [/ QUOTE ] Thanks; that's about what I figured in terms of "top pros", i.e. of order a couple dozen, but slightly more pessimistic in terms of odds against. I figured they would be off order 500:1 dogs. But you have still won the argument for me. 
|
|
#12
07-16-2007, 11:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: David Sklansky - A question on tournament odds
[ 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.
|
|
#13
07-17-2007, 12:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: David Sklansky - A question on tournament odds
[ 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
|
|
#14
07-17-2007, 12:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: David Sklansky - A question on tournament odds
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] So you were saying that a hundredth of 1 percent is 1 in 1000?
|
|
#15
07-17-2007, 12:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: David Sklansky - A question on tournament odds
[ QUOTE ]
So you were saying that a hundredth of 1 percent is 1 in 1000? [/ QUOTE ] Excuse me. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that my writing is horrible. If there is a one in 1000 chance of a top player winning and the average player has a 1 in 6000 chance of winning, then obviously the top player has a positive ev. Not A NEGATIVE EV. I was trying to gently chide RJT who seemed to think that this was a negative ev situation by asking him if he made the mistake of thinking 1 in 1000 meant 1 in 10,000. Got it?
|
|
#16
07-17-2007, 12:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: David Sklansky - A question on tournament odds
[ 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 ] 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.
|
|
#17
07-17-2007, 12:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: David Sklansky - A question on tournament odds
[ 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 ] 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
|
|
#18
07-17-2007, 01:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: David Sklansky - A question on tournament odds
[ 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 ] 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!!!!!!
|
|
#19
07-17-2007, 01:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: David Sklansky - A question on tournament odds
[ 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 ] 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
|
|
#20
07-17-2007, 02:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: David Sklansky - A question on tournament odds
[ 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 ] 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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
