2000ppl vs. 18000ppl

twonine29 · #1 09-23-2007, 02:49 PM

Math/theory question regarding big field online tourneys. If two tournaments take 8hrs to play and one starts with 2000ppl and the other one with 18000ppl, is it significantly harder to win the 18000ppl one? You'll be playing at a 9-handed table for 8 hrs in both cases, so what makes it harder to win the 18000ppl tourney?

soko · #2 09-23-2007, 02:50 PM

Variance?

hitch1978 · #3 09-23-2007, 02:57 PM

You have gone from a 1 in 2000 shot to a 1 in 18000 shot. Simple isn't it?

The above is for a player with an average (for the tourney) expectation against the field.

If I hold a bag in my left hand with 2000 balls in and a bag in my right hand with 18000 balls in, and told you in each bag there was one red ball, and if you can pick it out without looking first try I'll give you a gazillion dollars, which bad would you try?

THere is something else to add as well. If you are a poor player you are better off in the 18000 player event, and if you are a good player you are better off in the 2000 player event. Why? Because of the differing blind structures that would allow both to finish at the same time. The 18000 player event would simply require more luck, the only ingredient a big tourney winner needs that is as readily available to the bad players as the good.

Phil153 · #4 09-23-2007, 03:03 PM

In an 18000 people tournament, you have 2000 tables competing against you for a dominating stack. Therefore, it is way more likely that a number of people will accumulate far more chips than you, making you a significant underdog to those bigger chip stacks.

Or another way of looking at it: you need to accumulate 18000x chips to win the tournament, starting from 1x chips. This is much less likely than accumulating 2000x chips starting from 1x chips.

madnak · #5 09-23-2007, 04:10 PM

Reducing the time of the 18,000 game would probably actually make you more likely to lose. Because so many people must be eliminated so quickly, the blinds will be killer and the influence of luck (as opposed to skill) will be much greater.

Splendour · #6 09-23-2007, 05:09 PM

Don't you have to take more coinflips and get a lot more lucky to win the larger field than the smaller field?

twonine29 · #7 09-23-2007, 06:52 PM

thank you for your replies

vhawk01 · #8 09-23-2007, 07:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Reducing the time of the 18,000 game would probably actually make you more likely to lose. Because so many people must be eliminated so quickly, the blinds will be killer and the influence of luck (as opposed to skill) will be much greater.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, for most people, its easier to win the 18,000 player one? Most people would benefit from eliminating the skill edge from poker.

Sephus · #9 09-23-2007, 08:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reducing the time of the 18,000 game would probably actually make you more likely to lose. Because so many people must be eliminated so quickly, the blinds will be killer and the influence of luck (as opposed to skill) will be much greater.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, for most people, its easier to win the 18,000 player one? Most people would benefit from eliminating the skill edge from poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

what madnak is suggesting is that yes, for most people, it's easier to win an 18,000 player tournament if it takes 10 hours than if it takes 20.

vhawk01 · #10 09-23-2007, 08:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reducing the time of the 18,000 game would probably actually make you more likely to lose. Because so many people must be eliminated so quickly, the blinds will be killer and the influence of luck (as opposed to skill) will be much greater.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, for most people, its easier to win the 18,000 player one? Most people would benefit from eliminating the skill edge from poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

(edit: what madnak is suggesting is that yes, for most people, it's easier to win a 18,000 player tournament if it takes 10 hours than if it takes 20).

not necessarily. their odds may improve as the "skill" aspect decreases but there's no reason to assume this effect is greater than the disadvantage of having to beat more people. what if you went from 2000 to a billion? in that case it's hard to imagine a particular player's chances improving.

hmm on second thought you're probably trying to make the point that it's not the "less skill" that makes it harder to win for most people, it's that to do the tournaments in the same amount of time you either need consistently higher blinds or to play more hands per hour, and doing those makes every player more likely to be knocked out over any interval of time.

on third thought, madnak only said "reducing the time," which means i should probably just delete this post. oh well. how about i put and edit at the beginning to make it even messier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]