|
|
#32
03-03-2007, 03:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Odds on all players in National Heads-Up Championship
Barry Greenstein (and others) below Phil Gordon, wtf. Phil Gordon is hilariously high. If he won, I would eat my own feces for a month.
|
|
#33
03-03-2007, 06:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Odds on all players in National Heads-Up Championship
I didn't notice the Brad Booth 50/1 and 100/1 error (it's the fricking tiny font for one thing). Guess who placed money at the 50/1!? D'OH!! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]
I've no idea how Bet365 will settle the bet if Brad Booth wins but they'll probably invoke 'palpable error' and that they meant 50/1. Updated odds from seemingly the only bookie that cares:  I'd post the link to Bet365 but I don't wanna be called a spammer.
|
|
#36
03-04-2007, 04:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Odds on all players in National Heads-Up Championship
WOW, rough day for the oddsmakers. NONE of the top 21 favorites made the final eight!!! In the other set of odds none of the top 13 reached the final eight. DN did a little better, going 18-14 in round one, but 2-3 in round two (matches that he predicted both round 1 winners), and none if his top eight actually made the final eight.
My conclusion is that the odds on individual players is more "tightly" packed than everyone believes, with the favorite no better than 35-1 (which would require about a 55% chance to win each round), and probably closer to 40-1. I would guess the "median favorite" in round one to be about 54% (with the aver fav about 55% due to a couple outliers), and the median fav about 52% post round 1. In other words, if you paid standard football vig. (11-10 odds), and had to pick all 31 matches post round 1, you wound be a loser in the very long term. So if someone with a 48% chance winning is considered an "upset", then yes, ther were a lot of upsets. Blame the structure---I have heard some describe it as "good" or "reasonable", but I don't think it even comes close to these terms. A good structure for this event might be 50% more starting chips, double the length of each level, and start by playing best 4 of 7 in round one (followed by 5 of 9, 6 of 11, etc.).
|
|
#37
03-04-2007, 05:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Odds on all players in National Heads-Up Championship
[ QUOTE ]
So if someone with a 48% chance winning is considered an "upset", then yes, ther were a lot of upsets. Blame the structure---I have heard some describe it as "good" or "reasonable", but I don't think it even comes close to these terms. A good structure for this event might be 50% more starting chips, double the length of each level, and start by playing best 4 of 7 in round one (followed by 5 of 9, 6 of 11, etc.). [/ QUOTE ] Please remember it's an annual event, so the tournament can't run longer than one year.
|
|
#38
03-04-2007, 05:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Odds on all players in National Heads-Up Championship
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So if someone with a 48% chance winning is considered an "upset", then yes, ther were a lot of upsets. Blame the structure---I have heard some describe it as "good" or "reasonable", but I don't think it even comes close to these terms. A good structure for this event might be 50% more starting chips, double the length of each level, and start by playing best 4 of 7 in round one (followed by 5 of 9, 6 of 11, etc.). [/ QUOTE ] Please remember it's an annual event, so the tournament can't run longer than one year. [/ QUOTE ] Also, this is more made for T.V. than actually poker playing. should make elite 8 best 2 out of 3, and finals best 3 out of 5.
|
|
#39
03-04-2007, 07:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Odds on all players in National Heads-Up Championship
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So if someone with a 48% chance winning is considered an "upset", then yes, ther were a lot of upsets. Blame the structure---I have heard some describe it as "good" or "reasonable", but I don't think it even comes close to these terms. A good structure for this event might be 50% more starting chips, double the length of each level, and start by playing best 4 of 7 in round one (followed by 5 of 9, 6 of 11, etc.). [/ QUOTE ] Please remember it's an annual event, so the tournament can't run longer than one year. [/ QUOTE ] Good point. What I proposed would take about two weeks. I was just pointing out what would be needed to differentiate playing abilities among experienced players with somewhat similar skill levels.
|
|
#40
03-04-2007, 08:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Odds on all players in National Heads-Up Championship
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So if someone with a 48% chance winning is considered an "upset", then yes, ther were a lot of upsets. Blame the structure---I have heard some describe it as "good" or "reasonable", but I don't think it even comes close to these terms. A good structure for this event might be 50% more starting chips, double the length of each level, and start by playing best 4 of 7 in round one (followed by 5 of 9, 6 of 11, etc.). [/ QUOTE ] Please remember it's an annual event, so the tournament can't run longer than one year. [/ QUOTE ] Also, this is more made for T.V. than actually poker playing. should make elite 8 best 2 out of 3, and finals best 3 out of 5. [/ QUOTE ] I completely understand. I am just saying that comments I see such as "the structure is good" seem unreasonable to me. I never said the event should be played with a "good structure", I just pointed out what would be needed to make the results somewhat meaningful. Lets just acknowledge that most matches are simply 50/50 or 51/49 or 52/48 with this structure.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
