Markups

[The Camel]

Plus in a 100 runner field when you get near the bubble you are much more likely to be facing the excellent players.

I really cannot see how playing in a 6000 runner field with a structure which will be more likely to provide a bigger edge for the better players can be higher variance.

But maths isn't my strong point, I'm happy to be proved wrong.

[The Camel]

People seem to overestimate their edge vs fish.  I think I play on 3 sites that have a higher proportion of recs than the others.  I checked my stats on those sites earlier and was fairly surprised to discover my overall ROI is 20% and my overall ROI on the fishier sites is only 5% more (and my money return is practically zero after nearly 2000 games!)

I don't think it is just me either, I checked three others I know who play on both Stars and the French sites and compared ROIs on the French sites vs Stars.  One was 10% better, one 50%, one was 4% worse.  

I know sample sizes are smaller on the fishier sites, but if you have a field with more fish than average present, then I don't think you have as much edge as you'd naturally assume (the average over the 4 people is around 15%).  I'd say all these sites I am thinking of have a significant proportion of genuinely terrible players on them.  It was pretty much the same when I played cash too, a high proportion of fish were in amongst those I won most money from, but at the other end of the table there was a fair smattering of fishier players too.  Simply, some hands you are always getting your chips in with a race, whether you are playing against Jerry Yang or Phil Ivey.

I haven't played a whole lot in the WSOP main (maybe 40 or 50 hours, maybe 15 tables), but am not at all convinced it starts off any fishier than the French sites, or some of the lower entry fee tournaments on Stars, or even in the Million on stars proper.  In addition, the tables must get tougher by the day and though you may have a big edge at the start, do you really have the same edge when the big prizes are decided (or even when the smaller ones are)?   And those big prizes are the ones that kick up your ROI long run.  As MTT players go, I am probably one of the better ones, but am I really going to have any edge at an average hold'em WSOP final table?  Do the people who sell at big markups really believe they will?  

It is often mentioned in staking requests how the fishier entry justifies the mark up in the main event, but I don't see it mentioned that the higher variance from such a big field should mean the mark up should be lowered.  Whilst the big population of fishy players is played up, the high proportion of the very best poker players on the planet doesn't get much of a mention.  

I think people underestimate the value only they get.  I am not really in Vegas for the ROI, this is very much a trip where I must be -EV after expenses, yet knowing this I am still going.  If I wanted to maximise ROI I'd be staying here and playing on my PC, or at a DTD deepstack or playing the Sky Poker Tour.  I am there for the bracelet, the entry on my Hendon Mob, and to be able to have something to bore the grandkids with.  And those things are the ones that only I really benefit from, and they should mean I should be willing to take a lower mark up too.

Anyway all feels a bit TLDR now.  Finally agree with Pleno, people should be keeping a chunk if playing a big event.  I don't mean where someone is clearly under it wants a few dollars to play something small or a reasonable schedule.  But if people want to play something big, they should back up their belief they have the big edge with hard cash.

Would have thought the Main Event at the WSOP was the lowest variance tournament of the year.

Definitely the lowest variance tourny of £1000 or more

These are both extremely false statements also. Might be true if every tournament had 6000 runners. Im pretty sure it must be the biggest variance live tournament every single year

Why is this "extremely false"?

Yeah i guess something is either false or it's not so yeah its pretty hard for something to be extremely false

Percentage paid is the same (if not higher) as any tournament and you're much more likely to cash in this than any other tournament.

Yep this is true

That makes it low variance as far as I can see.

This is where the issue lies. Because there are so many runners, it is so so unlikely that you receive any of the EV value given to you by the top 3 places.  This means that it would take an incredibly long time for your long term luck to even out. Sure you might cash often, you still will not cash half the time over a long sample. Even if you did, this wouldn't make any difference really.

Variance is defined as a measure how far a set of numbers is spread out. A  high percentage of players with an long term ROI of 100% in the main event will end up with an actual one that is negative regardless of how many times they manage to play it in their lifetime. A very select few will have one that it a lot of times higher than 100. The range of these relative to other tournaments is huge.

Ah, saw the red part, but not the rest.

Thanks, got it.

Although a top3 finish is incredibly unlikely, the win you will get from 100 runner field (25x buyin) is much more likely in the WSOP main than, say a GUKPT.

[Doobs]

Plus in a 100 runner field when you get near the bubble you are much more likely to be facing the excellent players.

I really cannot see how playing in a 6000 runner field with a structure which will be more likely to provide a bigger edge for the better players can be higher variance.

But maths isn't my strong point, I'm happy to be proved wrong.

If I finish in the top 1% of a GUKPT I can get something  like 30x and 80x my initial stake depending which one I play.  If I finish in the top 1% of the main I get between 10x and 850x.  

[The Camel]

Is my last statement true?

I sell at 1.2 in a 100 runner GUKPT event.

Assuming that to be correct I am 80/1 to win it (I would back myself at 80s, but not 50s)

I would need to make the last 4/5 tables of the WSOP main event to make 25x plus on my $10k investment.

I certainly would back myself at 50/1 to make the last 5 tables.

[claypole]

I retract my previous statement about thread,..the last few posts are very interesting from Doobs, Stato and Keith....although I don't think it will affect my decision to buy - its is fascinating stuff.

[SuuPRlim]

I've gotten pretty ticked off with the mark-ups people are charging lately - but I don't mind at all, I just but in single comps when i fancy a punt or "feel" someone might win anyways so I just buy less. 1.3 is now the "stnd" for live comps, when last year 1.2 was everyone's default Mark-up, with it only increasing in special circumstances, every selling for WSOP events now at 1.3 and 1.35, not saying people are bad value, just saying it can't really be GREAT value in most circumstances.

for the last 12 months I've had a policy of "no mark-up" I don't ever sell at mark up, even the main event and the $5k 6m plo (my specialst event) I've sold at spot. I've stopped selling action on blonde because I can't sell action at spot to people who would charge me a mark-up, which is a shame cos i liked having blonde sweats but that's what it is.

I feel like if people really believed in the mark-ups they were charging they'd sell less action. If you're ROI in the main is 300% (like people are suggesting) then you make $30k by entering, so if clicking the reg btn meant $30k equity I'd be working as hard as i could to ensure I had as much action as possible, as it only happens once a year.

[stato_1]

People seem to overestimate their edge vs fish.  I think I play on 3 sites that have a higher proportion of recs than the others.  I checked my stats on those sites earlier and was fairly surprised to discover my overall ROI is 20% and my overall ROI on the fishier sites is only 5% more (and my money return is practically zero after nearly 2000 games!)

I don't think it is just me either, I checked three others I know who play on both Stars and the French sites and compared ROIs on the French sites vs Stars.  One was 10% better, one 50%, one was 4% worse.  

I know sample sizes are smaller on the fishier sites, but if you have a field with more fish than average present, then I don't think you have as much edge as you'd naturally assume (the average over the 4 people is around 15%).  I'd say all these sites I am thinking of have a significant proportion of genuinely terrible players on them.  It was pretty much the same when I played cash too, a high proportion of fish were in amongst those I won most money from, but at the other end of the table there was a fair smattering of fishier players too.  Simply, some hands you are always getting your chips in with a race, whether you are playing against Jerry Yang or Phil Ivey.

I haven't played a whole lot in the WSOP main (maybe 40 or 50 hours, maybe 15 tables), but am not at all convinced it starts off any fishier than the French sites, or some of the lower entry fee tournaments on Stars, or even in the Million on stars proper.  In addition, the tables must get tougher by the day and though you may have a big edge at the start, do you really have the same edge when the big prizes are decided (or even when the smaller ones are)?   And those big prizes are the ones that kick up your ROI long run.  As MTT players go, I am probably one of the better ones, but am I really going to have any edge at an average hold'em WSOP final table?  Do the people who sell at big markups really believe they will?  

It is often mentioned in staking requests how the fishier entry justifies the mark up in the main event, but I don't see it mentioned that the higher variance from such a big field should mean the mark up should be lowered.  Whilst the big population of fishy players is played up, the high proportion of the very best poker players on the planet doesn't get much of a mention.  

I think people underestimate the value only they get.  I am not really in Vegas for the ROI, this is very much a trip where I must be -EV after expenses, yet knowing this I am still going.  If I wanted to maximise ROI I'd be staying here and playing on my PC, or at a DTD deepstack or playing the Sky Poker Tour.  I am there for the bracelet, the entry on my Hendon Mob, and to be able to have something to bore the grandkids with.  And those things are the ones that only I really benefit from, and they should mean I should be willing to take a lower mark up too.

Anyway all feels a bit TLDR now.  Finally agree with Pleno, people should be keeping a chunk if playing a big event.  I don't mean where someone is clearly under it wants a few dollars to play something small or a reasonable schedule.  But if people want to play something big, they should back up their belief they have the big edge with hard cash.

I think you've missed a very important point here. Mark up for the same person should certainly not decrease with an increase in field size, it should most certainly increase if that person has an edge in the first place.

I could explain this with some maths but I sense people would just find it boring

I doubt you'll be able to put the maths of this situation over my head.

^ Probably right, I'm pretty rusty

If you had two tournaments with the same mix of players and the same structure, yet one with more people than the other, then if you just look at straight EV your statement looks like it should be true.

^OK This is the bit I could explain with maths, seems like we're in agreement here anyway.

If you are talking about an investment, then it is also correct that you should pay less for the same investment with a bigger variance.

^Why?

So immediately you have two things that conflict.

Then to make your statement you have to assume that tournaments are the same and the balance of good to bad players remain the same throughout, but I don't think you can be confident that the day 5 field in the main is going to be easier than the final table of a GUKPT, or that the final 3 tables of the main have a similar mix to the final 3 in a $1000 WSOP event.  There seems to be far more opportunity to get rid of the chaff in the main than in a shorter tournament, and like I said, the main is going to have a larger number of exceptional players at the start than any other tournament.

FWIW I think you are one of the very best online MTT players, so it is likely you will have an edge for a longer time in the main, and maybe still at the final table.  I just don't think that holds for most people here, and not at all convinced it does for me.  I'd be far more convinced I an likely to have an edge at a typical GUKPT final table, or in a DTD deepstack final table.

I think this is exactly where the underlying assumptions fail, and don't think you can show my fears aren't realistic with some basic maths.  I think if you tried to model something like this properly and made allowance for a field that gets tougher as you progress, it will get pretty nasty.  

Agreed. I dont think your fears aren't realistic, infact you've made some interesting points that I've not really thought of before. Just think that in terms of making an investment in someone else, presumably you're doing so with an amount of money that is not going to have an extremely large bearing on your life, so we're really only concerned with the EV of the investment and not its' variance. I guess it's down to the risk aversion of each individual.

For now, I am going to remain fairly sceptical that you can use "most certainly" with any confidence.

^Fair enough, but I'm fairly certain in my own mind (nothing to do with me or you or whoever, just that what I'm saying applies to any person with some sort of edge) do you have skype btw? PM me your sn if you dont mind?

  

[Woodsey]

I've gotten pretty ticked off with the mark-ups people are charging lately - but I don't mind at all, I just but in single comps when i fancy a punt or "feel" someone might win anyways so I just buy less. 1.3 is now the "stnd" for live comps, when last year 1.2 was everyone's default Mark-up, with it only increasing in special circumstances, every selling for WSOP events now at 1.3 and 1.35, not saying people are bad value, just saying it can't really be GREAT value in most circumstances.

for the last 12 months I've had a policy of "no mark-up" I don't ever sell at mark up, even the main event and the $5k 6m plo (my specialst event) I've sold at spot. I've stopped selling action on blonde because I can't sell action at spot to people who would charge me a mark-up, which is a shame cos i liked having blonde sweats but that's what it is.

I feel like if people really believed in the mark-ups they were charging they'd sell less action. If you're ROI in the main is 300% (like people are suggesting) then you make $30k by entering, so if clicking the reg btn meant $30k equity I'd be working as hard as i could to ensure I had as much action as possible, as it only happens once a year.

Actually you should sell on here, but exclude those buying who charge mark ups just to make a point.

[stato_1]

Keith, yeah was all meant to be in red - sorry.

I'm getting pretty annoyed by  this to be honest, not because I dont find it interesting, I do, but because I have it very clear in my own mind, but am finding it very difficult to articulate anywhere near concisely in words for some reason. Not usually something I struggle too much, but my explanations have been pretty crap in what I'm trying to say to both Doobs and Keith.

[The Camel]

The edge a winning player has around the bubble of the WSOP Main goes off the charts.

Couldn't compare it with any other tournament.

I remember a friend who was the same table as Lee Watkinson, the year he ft'ed. He had 4x average at the bubble and when it went down to 10ish to go to the money he just shoved blind EVERY hand. And never got called.

There isn't another tournament you could do that.

I'm not equipped with the tools to debate the maths of this argument, but my experience tells me that my edge in this event is way way higher than every other tournament I have played.

[stato_1]

The edge a +ev player has around the bubble of the WSOP Main goes off the charts.

Couldn't compare it with any other tournament.

I'm not equipped with the tools to debate the maths of this argument, but my experience tells me that my edge in this event is way way higher than every other tournament I have played.

Yeah I'm sure that this is correct. (Not through experience but I have no reason to disbelieve it)

Still higher variance though

[The Camel]

The edge a +ev player has around the bubble of the WSOP Main goes off the charts.

Couldn't compare it with any other tournament.

I'm not equipped with the tools to debate the maths of this argument, but my experience tells me that my edge in this event is way way higher than every other tournament I have played.

Yeah I'm sure that this is correct. (Not through experience but I have no reason to disbelieve it)

Still higher variance though

I'll take your word for it!

[AlexMartin]

this is a market, if people dont think there is value; they wont buy. Its that simple. I recently tried to sell at a pretty high markup and didnt sell. Am i concerned? no.

let it be, its pretty fair and upto individuals to look at specific punts on merit.

Its a great place to buyers and sellers as it is, if the margins close and the market dips, so be it.

[aaron1867]

Are people not just buying for the sake of is Alex? Rather than value?

Eg, thinking its a high MU, but take a smaller % anyways?

[stato_1]

Im working on a post trying to explain it properly. It's taking a while!

@Aaron, there is possibly an element of that for sure, not sure why you've singled out Alex though as it's the same for everyone. I actually think if you asked people who this thread is aimed at, not many of them would say Alex, since I think most do think it represents value.